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

May 17, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-May-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 17 May 2006 Mercredi 17 mai 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHARMACISTS

ENERGY POLICIES

OFFICE OF THE MINING

AND LANDS COMMISSIONER

FOOD SAFETY

NATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

INSTITUTE FOR OUTDOOR EDUCATION

AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

LONG-TERM CARE

HEALTH CARE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SPEED LIMITERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE

LA ROUTE (LIMITEURS DE VITESSE)

BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA CORRECTION DES TROUBLES

DE L'AUDITION ET DU LANGAGE

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION /

LOI CONTRE LE TABAGISME

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

CHILD PROTECTION

CHILDREN'S TREATMENT CENTRES

DRINKING AND DRIVING

LONG-TERM CARE

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

CHILD PROTECTION

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

PETITIONS

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

CHILD CARE

LAND DEVELOPMENT

HEALTH PREMIUMS

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

HEALTH PREMIUMS

IDENTITY THEFT

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

CHILD CARE

PIT BULL LEGISLATION

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA LOCATION

À USAGE D'HABITATION

CLEAN WATER ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'EAU SAINE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHARMACISTS

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Yesterday, the Coalition of Ontario Pharmacy was here at Queen's Park to sound the alarm about

Bill 102. The coalition, of which 80% of Ontario pharmacies are members, warns that the McGuinty Liberals' drug reforms will wreak havoc on Ontario's community pharmacies despite a proposed payment

plan for cognitive services. Pharmacies in Ontario, and ultimately Ontarians, are going to lose as a result of these reforms. These reforms mean Ontarians are once again being made to pay more and

get less.

The coalition warns that as a result of these reforms and the government's refusal to adequately reimburse pharmacists for the cost of their services, as many as

300 pharmacies in Ontario will close. They warn that the ones that do stay open will be forced to lay off staff and they'll be forced to reduce their hours of operation. Due to staff layoffs,

pharmacists will have less time to answer medication-related questions, meaning that Ontarians will have to go to walk-in clinics or emergency rooms for answers. Pharmacists will actually lose

money if they stock expensive drugs for conditions like cancer, HIV/AIDS and multiple sclerosis.

My office has been inundated with letters from pharmacists in my riding who have written to express their concerns with this government's ill-thought-out plan to

reform the drug system in Ontario. I heard from a Kash Eshkour, a pharmacist at the Kinmount Pharmacy. He says that your plan will ultimately "compromise the sustainability and viability of a

community pharmacy." I heard from Ramesh Chotai, a pharmacist in Coboconk. He has been in business for 26 years, and he's concerned about the viability of his business if you ram the bill through

the Legislature. I also heard from Amin Shivji, a pharmacist from Haliburton, who says, "A pharmacy driven out of business because it is unable to afford to dispense --

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): The Premier talks about making Ontario a North American leader in conservation and efficiency, and it's

evident by his speeches that he has adopted that as a slogan. But it's also evident from his actions that he is going to be marginalizing conservation and efficiency, that it's going to be a

sideshow in his approach to energy in this province.

He is not showing the leadership of investing in a suite of conservation and efficiency programs that have been successfully employed in other jurisdictions to

reduce energy use. In Manitoba and Quebec, our neighbours, they have well-established programs to retrofit residential homes to make them more energy efficient.

Quebec, to date, has been topping off the rebates to homeowners who have renovated their homes through having an energy audit. The federal Tories just recently

cut this successful program in their budget. Quebec, according to federal officials, has indicated that it will continue the funding of this program at the provincial level.

In contrast, here in Ontario there has just been silence.

I propose that the Premier follow the lead of his Liberal cousins in Quebec and, instead of engaging in a hollow spin war with the federal Tories on this

program, that he bring that EnerGuide program back into Ontario and put us on the path to becoming a leader in conservation and sustainable energy.

OFFICE OF THE MINING

AND LANDS COMMISSIONER

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): It's a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to honour the 100th anniversary of the Office of the Mining

and Lands Commissioner. This is a significant milestone.

The roots of the office reach back to the early days of mining in this province and to a flurry of staking activity in Cobalt, Ontario. When silver was

discovered in Cobalt just after the turn of the last century, the government of James Whitney was required to deal with escalating public demand to stake-claiming.

In 1905, a mining convention was held in this very building. A whole range of proposed mining regulations came forward from delegates and many found their way

into the Mines Act of 1906. One regulation in particular would stand out: the appointment of a Mining Commissioner to decide disputes. Over the years, as changes were made to mining and other

development legislation, the roles, responsibilities and title of the commissioner changed. In 1973, the Mining Commissioner became the Mining and Lands Commissioner.

Since 1973, the commissioner's jurisdiction has expanded beyond the Mining Act and now also includes matters related to the Conservation Authorities Act; the

Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act; the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act; the Assessment Act; and the Aggregate Resources Act. These are all acts and programs administered by the Ministry of Natural

Resources and the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

In dealing with issues referred to it for consideration, the office continues to use progressive case management and alternative dispute resolution measures.

Throughout the 100-year history we have had only seven commissioners, and the province has been well served by the able public servants who have filled that

important role, including our current commissioner, Linda Kamerman, and her able staff.

The Office of the Mining and Lands Commissioner has played a vital role in providing continuity and stability for mining exploration and development in our

resource-rich province --

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

FOOD SAFETY

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): Inconsistent, aggressive and excessive -- that is how the rural people of Nepean-Carleton, eastern Ontario

and throughout this entire province feel about the Smitherman scheme to control jams, jellies and pies sold at our local roadside food stands and farmers' markets.

They are worried about the new regulations and what they will spell for church suppers like those in North Gower, Greely and Richmond. They fear next on the

attack list in our rural institutions will be church picnics, school bake sales and hockey team fundraisers.

They are justifiably concerned that this is another attempt by this Liberal government and its urban attitude to attack the rural way of life, rural customs and

everything that is wholesome in our rural communities. They think the Smitherman scheme is really a solution looking for a problem.

While we all agree that there is a need for food safety, Councillor Glenn Brooks in my riding accurately states: "The devil is in the details. Basically, all

prepared foods must be prepared within the food premises as approved by health inspectors." But he reminds us: "No problem, except there are many situations in which the quantity of food cannot be

prepared on-site. Therein lies a serious problem ... many large church suppers will not be able to meet the fullness of the legislation."

I'd like to remind the minister that made-in-downtown-Toronto policies don't work in small-town and rural Ontario. Like Councillor Brooks says, "Conflict between

rural culture and tradition and a myriad of regulations, old and new and yet to be, is creating an ever-increasing irritant. Eventually, the decision-makers' know-best attitude will stifle

community initiative." He believes it is unacceptable.

NATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I rise in the House today to recognize the National Day Against Homophobia. Initially created by a

group in Montreal called Fondation Émergence, it was first recognized by the National Assembly of Quebec in 2003. This year, the city of Toronto has added its name to the list of supporters of

this important day.

In its fourth year, the National Day Against Homophobia will be highlighting the need to end homophobia in our work environments. A recent survey conducted by

Léger Marketing showed that over 60% of respondents believe that if gays and lesbians reveal their sexual orientation in the workplace it could be harmful to their professional career. Over

half of Canadians surveyed feel that for people who openly state being gay or lesbian, it is difficult to gain acceptance by management and colleagues, as well as by clients with whom they do

business.

We have come a long way in Canada in accepting gays, lesbians and transgendered people as equals in our communities, but we clearly have a way to go yet. We're

still dealing with the reality in Canada that rates of teen suicide are two to three times higher among gay and lesbian youth than among the rest of the population. Young same-sex couples still

have to worry about finding a sympathetic neighbourhood and school. Our children from small rural communities still leave their homes to seek out the safety of the big city. Middle-aged teachers,

nurses, lawyers, doctors, construction workers, police officers, firefighters, politicians, journalists, athletes, and people from all walks of life still live in the closet for fear of judgment by

their co-workers and fear of limitation of their careers.

When this is no longer a reality, we will no longer need a National Day Against Homophobia. Sadly, until that time, we need this day and the awareness it

brings.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Over the past year, Ontarians have learned that their Attorney General has developed a habit of

inserting himself into the court process when he decides it suits his purposes.

First there was the Homolka fiasco, where the Attorney General ignored the desperate advice from victims' families to put forward the strongest possible case at

the first hearing. Instead of doing that, the AG did media interviews about his outrage when his own shortcomings were exposed.

Then it was his plan to gut the justice system and interfere by directing police to lay fewer charges and crowns to not oppose bail or seek custodial sentences.

This duplicity and political interference was overruled by the Premier, which I confess is probably the only time Ontarians were legitimately grateful for his presence.

Recently, we know the Attorney General was involved in the Russo case, where the gross inadequacy of victims' compensation under this government was laid bare

for all to see, thanks to a plea bargain that gave thugs a sentencing benefit for doing what this AG and his government have failed to do for victims.

Now we learn from legal experts that Min Chen, the heartless killer of Cecilia Zhang, may not even be deported back to China once he is eligible for parole

because of his future rights here in Canada. The reason for these injustices is of course because the AG-led crown's office appears never to have sought an agreement during plea bargain

negotiations to accept deportation following completion of his sentence. This leaves open the possibility of fighting deportation on the grounds of double jeopardy and applying for refugee

status.

We can only hope the Premier will do all Ontarians a favour and replace this publicity pit bull before he does more damage --

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

INSTITUTE FOR OUTDOOR EDUCATION

AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): Last Thursday in Wiarton, I made a very important announcement on behalf of Minister Pupatello at the

Institute for Outdoor Education and Environmental Studies. The Bluewater District School Board and the Bluewater Education Foundation officially transferred the land to a trust to ensure that the

facility will continue to be used for educational purposes, guaranteeing that the site will not be sold or used for other purposes.

This outdoor education site will allow children in the area and surrounding communities the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of an outdoor education. I would

like to thank the Bluewater Education Foundation for their continuous efforts to ensure this site remained open. The success of the efforts was certainly seen at the recent sod-turning to construct

a brand new kitchen, dining hall and dormitories. I wish them all the best with their future plans.

This is a very important education centre for all the people within the province of Ontario. To recognize our natural heritage is something that we from the

riding of Huron-Bruce have supported and continue to support. This was a wonderful day, and I want to thank all the volunteers who have put so much work into getting this site to where it is

today.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I would like to read portions of a letter sent to the Peterborough Examiner and signed by no fewer than 19 health

care providers working at Riverview Manor in Peterborough. It is written in response to a letter written by Joanne Hill and referred to in the House by the MPP for Niagara Centre. The staff of this

very reputable long-term-care facility were so outraged by Ms. Hill's letter that there's not enough time to read their letter in its entirety, but I do have copies should my esteemed colleagues

want one.

"Ms. Hill has no right to speak on behalf of the care that we the employees provide to our residents.... We treat each of the residents as if they were our

parents or grandparents; they are our family.

"Joanne comments on being understaffed; we have better staffing now than we have had in over five years or longer....

"Comments made by Ms. Hill regarding `not taking residents to the bathroom' are completely false; why would we do such a thing.... Failure to toilet a resident

or provide care would be considered abuse/neglect of duty.

"Comments regarding our residents not being washed in the ... morning -- again, not true; our residents are provided a morning and an evening sponge bath....

"Comments regarding `skipping the wash if residents looked fairly clean' are unfounded....

"Ms. Hill describes caring for up to 15 residents at one time; this does not occur at Riverview, nor has it. Our current ratio of PSWs to residents is

approximately 9:1....

"Ms. Hill's comment regarding `what goes on behind closed doors' is basically rubbish. If care doors in the home are closed, we are providing care.

"Ms. Hill commented that `baby powder is used to mask smell, due to lack of care.' First of all we do not use powder in our home and secondly our home does not

smell; you cannot mask odour with baby powder.

We are proud of the care that we provide to our residents and the cleanliness of our home...."

This letter was signed by 19 members of the --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Members' statements?

HEALTH CARE

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): It seems we're going to spend a bit of time today correcting the record.

This past Saturday in Sault Ste. Marie, my community reaffirmed its belief in the universal public health care system. This is a fundamental Canadian value

shared by our government and confirmed by our Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, one of the first pieces of legislation our government passed.

Sault Area Hospital, like all other hospitals we are building across Ontario, will be 100% publicly owned, publicly operated and publicly accountable. Our

hospitals will not be Conservative P3s, which allowed for private ownership.

Yesterday in the Legislature, the leader of the NDP continued his campaign of misinformation with the Ontario Health Coalition, by suggesting that our hospital

is being privatized and claiming that we'll be diverting health care funding away from patients and into corporate profits. Irresponsible comments like these continue to spread fear in the

community, to the point where people think their OHIP is at stake.

A few weeks ago in the Sault Star, an individual said, "I have had to undergo five operations on my leg. If I had to pay for them myself I could not afford

it."

All Ontarians will be able to continue to use their health cards as they always have to receive medical care.

Our record in Sault Ste. Marie is fairly clear. We're moving forward with the alternative financing and procurement strategy in order to use the resources of the

private sector under the purview of public hospital boards to get back on track with building our new hospitals across the province. The irresponsible approach of the NDP will not protect us from

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated May 17,

2006, of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on social policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Education Act, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and certain other statutes relating to education / Projet de loi 78,

Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation, la Loi de 1996 sur l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario et certaines autres lois se rapportant à l'éducation.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SPEED LIMITERS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE

LA ROUTE (LIMITEURS DE VITESSE)

Ms. Scott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to improve air quality by reducing truck emissions / Projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant le Code de la

route pour améliorer la qualité de l'air en réduisant les émissions de camions.

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

The member may wish to make a brief explanation.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act by requiring a person repairing or maintaining a motor

vehicle manufactured after 1995, and having a weight exceeding 11,000 kilograms, to have a speed limiter set at a maximum speed 105 kilometres per hour when the person releases the vehicle to

another person.

Also, the driver or person responsible for the operation of such a motor vehicle is required to have the speed limiter set at a maximum speed of 105 kilometres

per hour.

It is an offence to contravene those two requirements. A person is deemed to have contravened the requirement for drivers and operators if the driver is

convicted of a speeding offence for driving the motor vehicle at a speed greater than 105 kilometres per hour.

BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA CORRECTION DES TROUBLES

DE L'AUDITION ET DU LANGAGE

Mr. Klees moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 116,

An Act to proclaim Better Hearing and Speech Month / Projet de loi 116, Loi proclamant le Mois de la correction des troubles de l'audition et du

langage.

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

The Member may wish to make a brief explanation.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): In presenting this bill for first reading, I want to acknowledge the initiative of the Ontario Association of

Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists. I want to welcome to the House today Ms. Beth Anne Kenny, executive director, Mr. Ronnie Grant, audiologist, and Ms. Rhonda Jacobson, the project

manager, who are in the west members' gallery today.

I want to acknowledge specifically the advocacy of Ms. Rhonda Jacobson, who spent a great deal of time educating me about this issue and is largely responsible

for this bill being before the House today.

The association has been working hard to raise awareness of communication and swallowing disorders that affect approximately one in 10 adults and up to 20% of

children. Awareness is crucial to ensure that those afflicted with these disorders get the treatment they need. Early detection and treatment are vital for improving the quality of life for persons

who suffer from these disorders and for allowing those persons to survive.

It is imperative, therefore, that we increase public awareness of hearing and speech disorders by proclaiming the month of May in each year as Better Hearing

and Speech Month. By passing this bill, the members of this Legislature will be making a significant contribution to increasing that awareness.

VISITORS

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would just like to acknowledge the parents of Gemma, one of the

pages, and they are Jane French, who is one of the founding members of Doors Open Toronto, happening May 27 and 28, and Andrew Johnson, the father, who is a fellow Harbordite.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Also on a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to recognize the tremendous work of my

page from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke's Palmer Rapids Public School, Morgan Brodofske, and how proud everyone is of the job she has done in the Legislature.

I would also like to recognize John and Helen Leeflang, the parents of page Elliott from North Elmsley Public School in Lanark, who have joined us in the

members' east gallery today.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want the House to join me in welcoming my staff from the community

office in London, Steve Roloson, who is here with us today to listen to the debate between both sides.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Hon. Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Before I begin, I should point out to the member for Trinity-Spadina that

my wife is a fellow Harbordite, to put in a plug for her too.

It's a pleasure to have this opportunity to inform this House and the people of this great province of another important success story that will create more

jobs, more prosperity and more opportunities for Ontario workers and their families. Yesterday, Honda Canada announced that it is set to expand its presence here by building a new, fully integrated

powertrain facility in Alliston, adjacent to the company's two successful Ontario auto assembly facilities. The project represents Honda's first foray into powertrain production in Canada. It's the

most recent major win for our province in an unprecedented line of automotive wins. Honda will create 340 new, high-value jobs, jobs that the people of Ontario can rely on to build a prosperous

life for themselves and for their families. It is another strong show of confidence in Ontario's vibrant and innovative auto sector, and it's another strong show of confidence in Ontario's skilled

and talented workforce. It reinforces the fact that we are now the key automotive manufacturing centre in North America.

Honda's announcement follows our announcement last week with Linamar Corp. Linamar, a global auto parts supplier, is creating 3,000 new jobs in the Guelph area

as the company implements its economic growth strategy. Just a few weeks earlier, we joined Toyotetsu, a major parts supplier to Toyota, to announce the company's decision to bring its first

Canadian operation to Ontario. Toyotetsu will invest $50 million for a new components plant in the town of Simcoe, creating 250 jobs at start-up.

These vital job-creating investments have occurred in the past weeks. In these past two years, we've attracted over $7 billion in new automotive investments.

Specifically, Ontario's $500-million automotive investment strategy has leveraged more than $5.4 billion in new investments at Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and parts makers Nemak and

Linamar, and the list goes on. We've attracted close to an additional $1.4 billion from the new Toyota plant in Woodstock and through the Navistar investments in Chatham and Windsor.

What this all means is that clearly there's a great deal of confidence out there in Ontario's auto sector. Our manufacturers are weathering the storm of a high

dollar and a highly competitive global marketplace. As Dennis DesRosier, a leading automotive industry analyst, said this week, Ontario's automotive investments are well spent. It's not just the

big assembly plants that are creating the most jobs. DesRosier writes that there will be many more parts jobs -- three to one, in fact -- than assembly jobs, and that Ontario will get our fair

share.

Our government is committed to making sure our people get the best opportunities out there, and that's why we're proud to work in partnership with Honda.

Ontario's investments will help the company bring this highly efficient and innovative facility to life by investing in public infrastructure. We know very well that manufacturers in Ontario are

facing some very real, very tough challenges, but our automotive investment plans are clearly working. We're attracting huge new investments, and we're creating thousands of high-value jobs across

this anchor industry, and we're doing much more to attract and keep investment here in the province. We're modernizing our roads, bridges, highways, tunnels and public transit. We're building a

knowledge-driven workforce by making strategic investments in post-secondary education and research and development. We've introduced a jobs and skills renewal strategy and invested in training and

apprenticeship tax credits. The capital tax will be eliminated, if we're on target, by 2010. Finally, we're re-establishing Ontario's presence on the international stage and working hard to promote

Ontario exporters and expand their opportunities in new markets around the globe.

We're helping Ontario companies meet today's challenges so that businesses can continue creating prosperity and spreading wealth to workers, families and

communities right across our great province. We're doing this for families who rely on a strong auto industry for jobs and opportunities.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION /

LOI CONTRE LE TABAGISME

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): In 14 days, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act comes into force. It will ban smoking in all enclosed

workplaces and enclosed public places throughout Ontario.

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act will further protect youth in our province by strengthening laws on tobacco sales to minors and by restricting the enticing

promotional displays erected by tobacco companies to lure a new generation of addicts.

I want to take a moment to congratulate the over 800 high school students I was with yesterday in Ottawa, with my colleague from Ottawa-Orléans, for the

Exposé awards for anti-tobacco initiatives and, in particular, a constituent of mine. A grade 12 student at Merivale High School, Stephen Bickram, was one of the award winners for his poster

design.

Un récent sondage indique que 90 % des Ontariens préfèrent un environnement sans fumée. Dans ce contexte, je crois que les mesures de

protection de la santé que nous avons enchâssées dans cette nouvelle loi vont obtenir l'appui massif de la population.

At the same time, our government recognizes that in order to ensure the safety of Ontario families, we need to be firm in the enforcement of the legislation.

That's why I'm pleased to announce that our government is investing an additional $5.5 million this year in enforcing the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

I'm proud to note that this investment means the government is now funding 100% of the cost of tobacco control inspection and enforcement by each of the

province's 36 public health units. This is yet another example of the McGuinty government uploading costs from the municipality, as opposed to the previous government, which had a track record of

downloading costs to municipalities. It also covers the cost for enforcement training and the development of a new electronic tobacco inspection system aimed at creating province-wide

standards.

Across the province, communities have different enforcement needs, depending on local factors such as existing municipal bylaws, economic drivers, demographics

and compliance history. To help the public health units meet the challenge of ensuring compliance in the regions, our government has allotted enforcement funding with built-in flexibility so that

regions can maximize their enforcement efforts.

We're also providing very helpful information on our website and in person, through the public health units. Plain-language fact sheets on all aspects of the

smoke-free Ontario law are available on our website and can be downloaded at www.mhp.gov.on.ca. The ministry staff have also travelled to various regions of the province offering seminars and

helpful bilateral meetings with all 36 public health units.

I'm proud to say, on behalf of families in Windsor and Essex, we're providing $350,000, for instance, in enforcement funding to the Windsor-Essex County Health

Unit.

Grâce à ce financement, tous les résidents de Windsor-Essex pourront bientôt mieux respirer et profiter des mesures de protection de la

santé auxquelles ils ont droit.

Cet investissement aidera l'Ontario à réduire la consommation de tabac de 20 % dans la province par rapport au niveau enregistré en 2003.

Cela représente 3,2 milliards de cigarettes qui ne seront pas fumées en 2007, ainsi que la prévention de milliers de décès évitables.

The Toronto Public Health unit, where I was today, has the challenge of ensuring compliance in Ontario's most populous and diverse centre. The $1.3 million

we're investing in a smoke-free Toronto will safeguard the health of families and help bring consistency and more worker protection to Toronto's thriving hospitality industry.

I'm confident that Toronto's restaurant and bar owners will continue to flourish under the new legislation, and I have been encouraged by the level of dialogue

between my ministry and the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association.

As a former mayor of Ottawa, I can tell you that the no-smoking bylaw in that city had no negative long-term impact on licensed restaurants and bar sales nor

on unlicensed restaurant sales. When municipalities such as Ottawa and New York City have gone smoke-free, non-smokers dine out more frequently and there is no net loss to the industry. In fact, in

a study one year after the New York example, bar receipts increased by approximately 8.7%.

Notre stratégie anti-tabac de l'Ontario est l'une des stratégies de lutte au tabagisme les plus complètes en Amérique du Nord.

This has happened all over the province. My colleague from Thornhill, Mario Racco, was one of the first city councillors, for instance, to introduce a bylaw in

Vaughan. That was the kind of leadership back several years ago that we are hoping to emulate with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

The McGuinty government is proud to be on the side of Ontarians who care about their health and support decisive action against the leading cause of death and

disease in our province. Smoking, sadly, in this province will kill 16,000 people prematurely. The investment we're making in compliance will ensure futures for our youth, their families, our

communities and our province. Merci beaucoup.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Statements by the ministry? Responses?

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): In response to the Minister of Health Promotion, we certainly appreciate the efforts to decrease

smoking and limit exposure to second-hand smoke. I agree with things that will encourage young people not to smoke, and I'm glad to see that you're helping municipalities with the cost of enforcing

your rule. But I have some concerns with the legislation that will impact businesses, such as those that have invested millions in designated ventilated smoking rooms, to comply with the municipal

legislation. These business people have acted in good faith. They complied with the bylaws put in place by the democratically elected local governments. Will you help them pay off the cost of their

smoking rooms?

I'm also concerned about work for residents in long-term care centres. In the legislation, you say that a ventilated smoking room can be made available for

residents of long-term care, but that they must be able to get themselves in and out of the room without assistance, and staff must not be required to enter the room. What if someone can't get

themselves in and out of the room without assistance, and what if they need medical help in the room?

So we support the efforts to decrease smoking and decrease exposure to second-hand smoke, but at the same time we believe that we should be helping those

business people whose livelihoods will be negatively impacted. This includes tobacco farmers and convenience store owners. These people's businesses rely on a legal product. We know that tobacco is

dangerous, but it is a legal product. We all know that you have not produced a plan to help the Ontario business people make this transition to producing or selling other products. So I ask you,

where's your plan to help tobacco farmers and convenience store owners? Your goal is good, but you have to have a plan to achieve this.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Certainly it is a good-news announcement today for the auto sector. I'd like to pay tribute to the hard-working

members of the auto sector in Ontario, and indeed in Allison specifically. It's a success for Ontario and has been for many years. I would say, to use a popular expression today, we are on the side

of all employees in Ontario. You may recall that expression you've been popularizing.

Let's look at the history. Let's not pat ourselves on the back too quickly, Minister. What you should recall is that the work that was done by the previous

Conservative government in their announcement in the automotive action plan -- some of your members don't recall because they don't understand -- $625 million. The minister would like to take full

credit for it. It takes time for these investments to be realized in the marketplace -- a good understanding of the sector done by Jim Flaherty as the Minister of Innovation as well.

But let's look at what the policy really is. We consented that nobody in Ontario should be left behind in the economy of Ontario. That's our policy. One sector

by one sector is not specifically the right kind of policy. Look at their policies on gridlock. Look at their policies on energy prices. The border issues at Windsor are going to slow down this

sector, there's work to be done there, but to be competitive in the tax structure is something where the McGuinty government takes first prize. They are the least competitive sector. If you look

not just at the health tax but at the headlines yesterday in the Toronto Star: "Auto Industry Faces Rocky Road, Report Says"; this is the Conference Board of Canada report. Here's another one:

"Cost Cuts in Business in Trouble in Ontario." This is by the CD Howe and the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. They say you're simply not tax-competitive.

If you don't listen to the industry experts, Minister, you're doomed to fail, and that's exactly what you've done to many people of Ontario. How about the

65,000 people in other parts of Ontario, in other sectors of Ontario? Those families have no paycheque. Minister, your plan is about 25% complete. Think of all the people of Ontario and the dismal

job you're doing on almost every front. You should be apologizing here and acknowledging the work that was done to become tax-competitive under the Harris and and Eves government.

I can say to you that 340 jobs in Honda is good news, but it's hardly a first step on a long, rocky road, as testified by the CME, the Conference Board of

Canada, as well as Michael Grimaldi, president of General Motors. Read his Canadian auto parts speech on September 11.

You've got a long way to go, Minister. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Thank God for Honda for the people of Alliston, because if it was up to the McGuinty government, they

might suffer the fate of other communities across Ontario, which have seen thousands of job losses in the automotive sector.

We know, for example, that while Alliston is going to be getting a new automotive assembly plant for engines, which is good news for that community, other

communities across this province have lost engine plants in the Ford and GM chains, and the loss of jobs offset by the creation of these new ones is not going to do anything to mitigate the job

losses we've had up to now. Also, this is not to talk about the losses we've had in the auto parts manufacturing sector, which are frankly quite alarming at the rate we are losing them.

I just say to the minister that there is a big part of this province that was forgotten in all this. If you take a look at the job losses across northern

Ontario with regard to forestry, thousands of jobs have been lost and communities have lost their entire employer. For example, Smooth Rock Falls, Opasatika, Kenora and others have been devastated

by the McGuinty government's attempt to do nothing when it comes to assisting those communities.

I say that this is nothing more than Dalton McGuinty getting ready for the next election and looking for some good news.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): In response to the statement made by the Minister of Health Promotion, I want to start where he ends, which

is the last paragraph of his statement. It says, "Smoking still causes 16,000 deaths each year in Ontario. The investment we are making in compliance will ensure brighter futures for our

youth...."

The best thing the Liberal government could have done to ensure a brighter future for youth would have been to keep the Liberal election promise, which was to

ban countertop and behind-the-counter retail displays of tobacco products, not in 2008, which is what Bill 164 says now, but by May 31, 2006, when the rest of Ontario will go smoke-free.

The committee that dealt with Bill 164 heard repeatedly from health care providers, from health care agencies, from public health units and, most importantly,

from youth themselves who urged the government to ban countertop and behind-the-counter retail displays of tobacco products. Here's what some of the youth had to say.

This is Tanya Wagner, who represented the Whitby Youth Council:

"Tobacco advertising and promotion increase smoking and the number of youth who start smoking. A ban on such advertising and promotion would decrease smoking

among adults and youth. That would be a ... good thing....

"But recently I was thinking about why I smoked in the first place.... I smoked du Maurier and sometimes Players. And I noticed the other day that those two

brands were the most noticeable behind the counter of my local store. I think that I am living proof that tobacco advertising affects teens. This is why I wanted to talk to you about it today, and

ask that you ban retail displays of cigarettes, including power walls."

This is what Olivia Puckrin and Caylie Gilmore, students from Port Perry, had to say:

"You probably know that tobacco companies aren't allowed to advertise their products. But, still ... every kid I know can name about five different brands of

cigarettes. How is that?

"Well, it is no mystery. Every time we go into a store, cigarettes are there. Cigarettes are displayed on the counter, behind the counter and even in the

counter. We recently learned that the tobacco industry pays stores $88 million a year to do it. This advertising not only tempts adults,... but it makes cigarettes look like a normal product. But

no other product will kill you if you use it as the manufacturer intends. So how can this be normal?"

Finally, a presentation by Brian Dallaway of Wide Awake: Generation Against Tobacco:

"While we applaud the proposed legislation for reducing advertising in retail stores, the language of the act does not prohibit power walls. We would like to

see the province capitalize on this opportunity to eliminate this form of advertising which is targeted at children and youth."

The fact of the matter is that the amendments that were made to Bill 164 continue to allow retail stores to display individual cigarette packages behind the

counter, on the counter and in the counter: 100, 200, 250 packages of cigarettes. There is no limit on where and how many individual cigarette packages can still be on display for young people. So

this form of advertising is going to continue to tempt young people to start smoking, and we know that 60% of tobacco purchases are impulse purchases, so that gives us all an idea of the magnitude

of the problem that continues. That's why, on behalf of New Democrats, I moved an amendment to ban countertop-and-behind retail displays of tobacco products by May 31, 2006, and the Liberal members

on the committee voted that down.

Now we know that thousands and thousands and thousands of young people between 2006 and 2008 will continue to be influenced, will continue to start to smoke

and will continue to be the cancer statistics 20 years from now.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Coalition of Ontario Pharmacy, a grassroots

organization which represents about 80%, a huge majority, of Ontario's pharmacies, held a press conference here at Queen's Park. They are very concerned about Bill 102. They are concerned that as a

result of this legislation, pharmacies can lose about $150,000 per store in revenues. That's a lot of money for these small businesses. They also say that as a result of your bill, as many as 300

pharmacies, primarily in rural and northern Ontario, could close. I ask you: Is it your plan to close 10% of Ontario's pharmacies?

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

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): No, to the extraordinary contrary. In the United States, the purpose or role

of pharmacy has been really just to commoditize the role. They've become pill shovellers. What we have worked towards, after a request that's been on the books for 17 years from the Ontario

Pharmacists' Association, is to acknowledge all of the capacity of pharmacists for the role that they can play as front-line health care providers. That's why an essential and important element of

our legislation, if supported by the House, would see us be able to move forward and begin to reward those pharmacists for the work they do as front-line health care providers, and that's through

$50 million of cognitive services fees.

This speaks to our understanding and vision, aligned with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association of pharmacists who are engaged on the front line and assisting

patients. We believe pharmacists have that role to play, and accordingly, that's what our proposals are about.

Mrs. Witmer: To the Premier again: I would indicate to you that a letter was sent to you this morning from Allan Rajesky, a pharmacist

representing the coalition. I want to quote from the letter:

"We are concerned by your government's position on community pharmacy as it was explained to me and several of my colleagues by the director of your

government's Drug System Secretariat.

"During the meeting, your director admitted that the government expects some pharmacies to close as a consequence of Bill 102. He said that there are currently

too many pharmacies in the province."

Premier, how many community pharmacies does your government expect to close as a result of the funding cuts that are being proposed in this bill?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: None. The question that was asked -- and anyone would have answered it the same way -- is that government can offer no

guarantee that every independent business operation that's out there shall remain into the future.

I had my opportunity on Saturday night at the Ontario Pharmacists' Association convention -- this is, of course, the organization that's primarily the voice

for pharmacists in the province of Ontario -- to make mention of the fact that as a film processor, as someone who was involved in the business of film processing, I lost considerable market share

to pharmacies themselves who ventured into that line of work.

So Mr. Fraser was merely speaking to the point that government cannot, of course, guarantee the operation of any pharmacy. However, in my speech, I worked

very, very clearly to indicate all of those areas where increased revenue flows to pharmacists, in addition to the cognitive fee, a 7% increase --

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

Mrs. Witmer: To the Premier again: It's obvious that the pharmacists, the 80% who have joined the coalition, the voice of pharmacy in this

province, didn't believe your minister on the weekend and obviously are concerned about the rapid progression of this bill through the Legislature. We are hearing that not only are we going to see

a loss of 300 pharmacies, but the ones that are going to be staying open are also going to have to, as a result of an economic study that they've done, reduce hours of operation, lay off staff and

increase wait times for the filling of prescriptions. Again, Ontarians in your Ontario are going to be paying more for health and getting less.

I ask you, Premier: How many pharmacies does your government believe it's necessary to cut at this time?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I already answered the question to the honourable member, but her credibility on subjects like this is of course limited

by the fact that she was part of a political party that promised to the people of Ontario that no hospital would be closed and then they closed 28 of them. So we have to take with a grain of salt

the nature of those questions coming from the honourable member opposite.

Fundamentally, we believe that we have the capacity in the province of Ontario to get better value for the dollars that we're spending so that we can enhance

access for Ontarians to more innovative drug products. We sent a clear demonstration through our proposals of our capacity to create much more timely mechanisms. Fundamental to our initiative is

the belief that the government of Ontario's investment in pharmaceutical product can result in the patients of Ontario receiving greater access to drugs. This is a fundamental improvement in terms

of health care benefits to the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs. Witmer: My question again is to the Premier. I'm sorry that the Premier doesn't see this as an issue of great importance to all

residents. I'm sorry, this legislation has totally failed to take into account the impact that it's going to have on Ontario's families. This is proof that you are not on the side of Ontarians or

pharmacists in the province of Ontario. Your reforms, such as the reduction in the markup and the dollar cap on markups, mean that pharmacists are actually going to lose money if they stock and

dispense expensive drugs used to treat diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDS and MS. This is going to hit people in rural and northern Ontario particularly hard. The coalition warns us that there simply

will not be enough drugs for all Ontarians.

I ask you, Premier, what contingency plans does your government have to make sure that families in this province have access to pharmacists?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Here's some of what patient groups had to say about our proposed legislation:

"The drug system changes will greatly benefit patients in the province. Patients, particularly those living with a chronic disease like diabetes, will have

better access to the drugs they need and they will now have a say in the decisions being made on drug funding." Karen Philp, national director, Canadian Diabetes Association.

The Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada: "Ontario appears to have set a new standard for access to drugs, one that other provinces can emulate. Today, cancer

patients have renewed confidence that they have been heard and their needs will be addressed."

I have more, but those quotes underscore our fundamental belief that here in the province of Ontario, the second-highest per capita funder of a public drug

system, and yet results that many patients find inadequate to their needs -- we believe we can do a better job for them. That's why they are standing in support of this initiative. And of course,

with respect to the concerns raised by pharmacists, we take them seriously, and that's why we are so engaged --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs. Witmer: Despite the rhetoric from the minister, I would remind him that although he lined up lots of people to speak in favour of the

bill, they have now had an opportunity to analyze, and I'll tell you, they are meeting with me today, tomorrow and the next day because they are concerned.

You are trying to push this bill through the Legislature. You introduced a very draconian allocation motion. You don't want anybody to know what's really in

the bill. You talk about cognitive fees and everything else. What does that mean to a pharmacist who doesn't have a job? Furthermore, this bill doesn't give money to pharmacists. That's all

something that you promised, and we know what this government does with promises. They break them, each and every time.

I would say to you, you are not on the side of people in the province of Ontario. I want to ask you again, how many pharmacies are going to close in this

province and how many people and are going to be hurt by your reforms?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Before the honourable member stands in her place and proposes to take on the voice of patients in Ontario, maybe she

should stand and fess up to the reality, which is that the patients of Ontario received no greater degree of misinformation than from that party when they were in office. The commitment to keep

hospitals open when they closed 28 is remembered well in community after community across Ontario.

Here is what Dennis Morris of the Best Medicines Coalition said: "Overall what is happening is really good news from a patient perspective. It's absolutely

terrific in terms of patient involvement. Finally we'll be putting patients back in the public policy."

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the patients rather than the stakeholders are what's got them all upset, because they can't stand to see the patients

satisfied.

Mrs. Witmer: Those are old quotes. I would suggest to the minister right now that we are starting to hear from patient groups and we are

certainly hearing from pharmacists. In fact, there are very few people in this province who are happy with Bill 102 since they've had a chance to analyze what is actually in the bill.

I would say to you, what is going to happen to people in underserviced communities if these pharmacies close, as they are projected to do? In fact, I would

like to remind you that under your watch, the number of underserviced communities has increased from 126 to 135. That's what is on your website today. There are 900 pharmacies and 1,800 pharmacists

in those underserviced communities. They are crucial to patients in those areas. What are you going to do for people in those communities that are underserviced, like Uxbridge, Harrow, Goderich,

Forest, Grimsby etc?

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The first thing that I'm going to do, that our government is going to do, in response to the needs of people in

underserviced communities is not do what you did, which is that for the first four years that you had the privilege of being the government of Ontario, you turned your back on the recognition that

that party, while in government, shrank the size of our medical schools. The first thing we are doing is enhancing our medical schools to the tune of 23%. We have worked vigorously on this

initiative with a view towards small rural communities. In fact, inside government we used the Tweed standard. We said, "How will this play out with respect to Tweed?"

The honourable member doesn't get one point. She doesn't understand fundamentally the opportunity that is presented for pharmacists in Ontario, that they will

lead the land and they will lead North America in the financial recognition of the brainpower they have and the capacity they have to influence the patients of Ontario. They can't stand the good

news for patients, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. After last summer's widespread electricity shortage warnings, voltage

reductions and electricity brownouts, working families are concerned and want to know, will our hospitals and nursing homes be able to respond to electricity brownouts or blackouts without patient

health being put at risk? They want to know what plans are in place to deal with electricity brownout or blackout.

New Democrats asked your government for these plans some time ago. You refused to make them public. When Environment Canada is warning that this will be a hot

summer where electricity brownout and blackout can happen, what is your justification for your information blackout?

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

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I thank the member for the question. The Independent Electricity System Operator has indicated

that for this coming year we have sufficient supply onside. In fact, we have added significantly, 700 megawatts of new supply, in addition to upgrading our transmission and our transmission

stations. They have indicated that we are in good shape.

In the event that something unforeseen should occur, the Independent Electricity System Operator has an emergency plan they put in place. They work with the

businesses, they work with the industry, and they actually reduce the peak load in that industry's electricity demand. That system is in place on an emergency basis and on a contract basis, and

they have in place a forward market that they are working for this summer to deal with imports from the United States. The system is well in hand with the Independent Electricity System Operator,

and they have indicated, as I said, that for this summer the plans are well in place.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, last summer you told folks that plans were well in place, yet brownouts and blackouts happened. In fact, rolling

brownouts were fairly frequent. People are seeking basic information: Will hospitals be informed of voltage reductions? Will hospitals have time to respond such that patient health won't be at

risk?

We asked for the plans. You refused to make them public. So we filed a freedom of information request, asking for the plans, and your response was that only

cabinet ministers are allowed to see the plans.

Premier, my question is this: Why is it that Dalton McGuinty and his cabinet are allowed to see Ontario's brownout or blackout response plans but hospitals,

nursing homes and just concerned Ontarians aren't allowed to know what those plans are and whether or not they're adequate?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I guess the member had forgotten he asked this question some time ago, so I'll repeat that the Independent Electricity

System Operator actually contacts the hospitals when they're doing their voltage requirements. All hospitals have standby generation; it's diesel. As a matter of fact, I stood in this House just a

few days ago and indicated that Toronto Hydro has been working with a number of these organizations, some of which are hospitals, to deal with peak voltage demand reduction by putting on their

standby generators. So there are plans in place, both with Toronto Hydro and with the Independent Electricity System Operator on an emergency basis and on a going-forward basis to deal with peak

reduction, if required. I reiterate, the Independent Electricity System Operator has indicated that for the coming year we have put sufficient transmission and supply generation in place to deal

with any potential outages.

Mr. Hampton: That was exactly the same answer you gave people last year. But what happened last summer? Well, at Kingston General Hospital a

brownout happened, in the Kingston area. It put patients at risk. It knocked out cancer radiation machines, it knocked out X-ray machines and it sent temperatures in the operating room up to 38

degrees Celsius. So your plan didn't work very well last year.

Premier, you've made a lot of noise about making our hydroelectricity system more open and transparent, making it open to freedom of information, but now who's

blocking the information? The McGuinty government. It's the McGuinty government that doesn't want hospitals, nursing homes and the general public to know what the plan is and whether or not the

plan is adequate. Premier, ordinary people across Ontario want to know that patients in hospitals and nursing homes will not be put at risk if there's an electricity brownout or blackout --

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

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I will reiterate: We do have a plan. We're planning to keep the lights on. Those lights will stay on, because we do have

an emergency response in place.

Let me tell you what we've done. There's 500 megawatts of demand response -- demand management programs -- right across this province: up to 100 megawatts of

conservation for low-income and social housing; 100 megawatts for appliance reduction; 150 megawatts in the residential sector; and an additional 150 megawatts in the commercial building

sector.

We are working with BOMA, the association of business and management operators for large businesses. We are working with hospitals in the MUSH sector, called

greening the hospitals. We are working with Toronto Hydro, an additional 300 megawatts of demand response, in addition to the 250, of which you saw the potential for 137 that occurred here last

week, downtown in Toronto. We have those plans in place. They are there for you to see. They are there for him to participate --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: I guess the gist of the story is that the McGuinty government that was going to make

our electricity system transparent now wants to hide the details from the people of Ontario.

Premier, working families in Ontario's forest sector communities are very concerned about the softwood lumber sellout that you say is such a good deal. Working

families in those communities realize that allowing the United States to keep a billion dollars of Canadian softwood lumber duties is a sellout, that allowing new export charges is a sellout, that

allowing new quotas is a sellout that's going to shut mills and kill jobs.

Today, the Ontario Forest Industry Association and the Ontario lumber manufacturers' trade group, representing 98% of softwood lumber producers in the

province, are going to court to challenge this deal that you say is so good. My question is, will the McGuinty government intervene on the side of those workers and those mills to get a better

deal?

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

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): I'd like to inform the member that, as he

knows, what was agreed upon by the two countries -- the United States and Canada -- about three weeks ago now, was a framework agreement.

Since then the two countries, with input from the provinces -- our team has been in Ottawa all this time working with our federal negotiators to finalize the

agreement with the United States. In that, we continue to fight for Ontario industry to make sure the agreement will serve the Ontario industry well, and that we have a sustainable forest industry

in northern Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: Here's the reality: The deal that the McGuinty government said just a few weeks ago was such a good deal is now the very deal

that softwood lumber producers in Ontario are going to court in Canada and the United States to oppose, because they see it as a raw deal and they know they deserve better.

You've been all across the north telling people this is a wonderful deal. My question to the Premier is, will the McGuinty government go to court and intervene

with these Ontario softwood lumber producers? Are you on their side, or are you on the side of a softwood lumber deal that is a sellout for Ontario workers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to court. We are not going to intervene in this. If the member had paid attention on the day

the two countries made the announcement, the American industry did file an extraordinary challenge on that day, not knowing if this deal would be finalized or not. This is a suit in the American

courts to counter that. So that is going on, and our industry has a legitimate right to do that. Obviously, it also puts pressure on the negotiating process to make sure that Canada gets the best

deal it can.

Our government does stand behind this deal, and I think a lot of the evidence is that we're starting to see our companies in the north wanting to ramp up and

making plans to consolidate with other industries so we have sustainable jobs in the north.

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

Mr. Hampton: Minister, I don't call Ontario's softwood lumber companies going to court in the United States and going to court in Canada to

overcome, to do away with, your softwood lumber deal, ramping up. If anything, they know that you have sold them out.

These are communities that have already lost thousands of jobs thanks to the McGuinty government. These are communities that see that what you've done is

essentially say to the United States, "You can dictate to Ontario, and you can dictate to Ontario's softwood lumber producers."

I simply ask again, is the McGuinty government going to continue to defend this sellout deal that's going to kill thousands more jobs in northern Ontario, or

are you going to get on the side of those Ontario communities and those Ontario workers who have already suffered too much, thanks to the McGuinty government?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Ontario continues to work with the other provinces and the federal government to work out the very best final deal that we

can. But we accept and feel that the framework agreement that was reached between the two countries will sustain our industry. In fact, the example we had last week, when Buchanan Forest Products

announced their purchase of Neenah Paper in Terrace Bay. The pulp and paper industry there has had a tough time surviving and has been in a strike situation. Ken Buchanan feels that with the money

he's going to get returned to him -- his money -- from the United States, he can now buy that pulp and paper industry and with his vertical integration have a great market for his chips, ramp up

jobs in his sawmills and create jobs right across northwestern Ontario.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, you said earlier in response to the

leader of the third party that you have a plan to keep the lights on in Ontario. Well, there are a lot of people planning to win a lottery, and I'm not betting on either one of them.

The chamber of commerce is very worried about your energy policy and the future of business in this province under your energy policy. The chamber, which

represents 57,000 businesses in this province, has been continually telling you that your plan will not work. They've issued press releases admonishing you to retract your ill-conceived policy to

shut down 20% of our generating capacity. Will you do as they say in their latest recommendation and invest in clean coal technology so that in fact the lights will go on, and we will do our

environment a favour by stopping the burning of dirty coal in --

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

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I thank the member for his question. When he can prove there is clean coal technology, he can

walk across this aisle. There is cleaner coal, but there is no such thing as clean coal. Even the Power Workers are now starting to say "cleaner" coal technology.

I was actually with the chamber of commerce and had a conversation with them. One of the things we resolved to do was to work together on behalf of the people

and businesses in Ontario to deal with the challenges that face us within the energy sector. We had a resoundingly good, solid meeting together to find resolutions and solutions that meet both our

needs.

It was an exciting morning for me to be able to have that interaction with the chamber of commerce. I look forward to that continuing conversation with them as

we meet with the Ontario Convenience Stores Association, as we continue to meet with retailers, as we continue to meet with manufacturers, as we continue to meet with residential consumers, as we

continue to meet --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Yakabuski: I'm not sure if you're defining "clean" or "spotless," but there are no clean cars in this world either. We're not shutting

them down.

Minister, you've gone to court to force United States's plants to install cleaner coal technology. I'm wondering when you're going to sue your own plants to

install that technology, because if you don't think advantages are there and improvements can be made, then why are you going to court to force others to do exactly that?

You are dirtying our air, but you are absolutely ensuring that if you follow this policy, the lights will go off. We need assurances in this province. Some

57,000 businesses have to know that when your policy is enacted, they'll have power, and under your policy they're assured that they won't, to the point that they're adopting resolutions at their

annual meetings to tell you what you can't seem to figure out for yourself, that you are ensuring darkness in this province --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: We are going to keep the lights on for the people of Ontario and we are going to do it by working together with the

people of Ontario to make that happen. That really is the difference. We have a plan; they didn't. It's like the other members: They didn't like coal, now they like coal. They didn't like nuclear

-- well, now they might or they might not. They never liked wind. "Some will die, but what the heck, we'll just continue on anyway."

The fact of the matter is, there is a plan in place. The challenge is, you just don't happen to like it. There are only four kinds: endopipe, gasification,

zero emissions, which doesn't exist, and supercritical or fluidization. You and I both know there is no such thing as clean coal.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Today, the individuals responsible for the death of the little boy,

Jeffrey Baldwin, will be sentenced. Yesterday, I told you of an eight-year-old boy from Durham whose grandparents had to struggle against the children's aid society and the group home where he'd

been placed. Every day, we hear from families across Ontario who cannot get independent reviews of children's aid society decisions. Nearly every other province in Canada provides for independent

review of children's aid societies, except the McGuinty government in Ontario. We know staff at children's aid societies are overworked and overloaded. Premier, why is the McGuinty government

denying children in Ontario and their families an independent review of the activities of children's aid societies?

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

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): The leader of the third party asked this question yesterday, and I will

repeat my response. Bill 210 was introduced by the McGuinty government to strengthen accountability on the part of children's aid societies and to provide better protection for children in care. In

fact, our commitment is that any child in the care of our child well-being and protection system will be better off because we have been involved in their lives. That does not mean that everything

is perfect. It means that we are working very hard to ensure that this is indeed the case. Now, through Bill 210, we provided an independent third-party body, with the responsibility for complaints

and the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over that body.

Mr. Hampton: It's interesting, because your response yesterday brought this letter from Ontario's Ombudsman. This is what he says: "Upon

review of Hansard yesterday, I noted reference to my jurisdiction over the Child and Family Services Review Board, under Bill 210." He then goes on to say, "An Ombudsman investigation is not an

appeal of the board's decision, and would not involve an investigation of the underlying complaints about children's aid societies. These would continue to remain immune from independent

investigative oversight."

It seems that the Ombudsman says that the McGuinty government has it wrong, that you are not providing for independent oversight, and that, in fact, you have

stacked the cards against parents and against kids who simply want to ensure that children's aid societies are not a power unto themselves.

I ask the Premier again: Why do you continue with this charade? Why do you continue to oppose independent oversight by the Ombudsman into children's aid

society decisions?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: The Ombudsman has independent oversight jurisdiction over the Child and Family Services Review Board, and I am sure that

the Ombudsman of this province -- and I know of his commitment, which we share, to kids -- I know that the Ombudsman would not be writing to the leader of the third party if he is in fact trying to

impact policy-making by this government. I have a very constructive, very positive working relationship with the Ombudsman. I am sure that if the Ombudsman has had any difficulty with what I am

doing, I will hear from him directly.

CHILDREN'S TREATMENT CENTRES

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): My question is also for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. As the minister knows from

representations made by all MPPs from my area, KidsAbility, the children's treatment centre in Waterloo-Wellington, serves children and youth with special needs, including children with physical,

intellectual and developmental disabilities. They provide physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech-language therapy as core services.

Despite the miracles that are performed every day at KidsAbility, like many other children's treatment centres across Ontario, its services have been hampered

by long waiting lists for its services.

The minister made a significant announcement last week with respect to Ontario's children's treatment centres. I want to ask the minister, what will this

announcement mean for children and families seeking services through a CTC in general, and KidsAbility specifically?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): I want to thank the member, my colleague from Kitchener Centre, for his

tenacious, relentless, committed advocacy on behalf of children and youth.

Interjection: He's a new father.

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: Yes, and he is a new father; I know that. But even before that, he has been on my case, as they say. Thank you.

Interjection: In a good way.

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: In a very positive way.

I'm really pleased that KidsAbility is one of 19 children's treatment centres that will be benefiting from our government's $10-million commitment to improved

services to kids with special needs. Across the children's treatment centres, this represents a 17% increase in funding, and for KidsAbility, it's a 21% increase. It will allow KidsAbility to serve

475 additional kids this year, with an increase in budget of $946,000 starting this year.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Supplementary, the member for Guelph-Wellington.

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): This is wonderful news for my community, which is also served by KidsAbility. But we all know that more

money isn't the only answer. There need to be measures in place --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having difficulty hearing the member from Guelph-Wellington.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The member for Guelph-Wellington.

Mrs. Sandals: Thank you.

We all know that more money isn't the only answer. There need to be measures in place to ensure this investment produces results for the children and families

who need support.

Minister, in order for this investment to provide the greatest results province-wide, we also want to ensure that this funding is distributed in a fair manner.

Could you please share how the allocation level for each children's treatment centre was determined, and how we are working with the CTCs to ensure this additional investment does the most it can

to help children and families with special needs?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: I thank my colleague from Guelph-Wellington, another very strong advocate for kids. There are other members of this

Legislature who have supported the children's treatment centres, even though not all of them voted for this budget. I'm not really sure what to make of that confusion.

We have been working really closely with the Ontario Association of Children's Rehabilitation Services. I want to express my appreciation to them for helping

us to determine how best to allocate those dollars to ensure maximum service, maximum impact for children, across this province. We will continue to work with them to ensure that they have the

human resource planning capacity and that the standards for the variety of services they provide are in fact exactly what our kids need.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. At a press conference in the media studio here at

Queen's Park this morning, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada released their Opportunities for Progress report. The report indicates there is much more that we as legislators can do to protect

our citizens from impaired drivers. For example, yesterday the government of Manitoba began the process of saving more lives. Manitoba will increase the zero blood alcohol limit for novice drivers

under the graduated driver licensing program from three years to five years, along with several other recommendations that are included in the report.

Minister, could you please tell the House what you have done since coming to power in 2003 to reduce the number of impaired drivers on our roads and to protect

the citizens of Ontario?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): We welcome the report from MADD Canada. They have shown real leadership in this field

for many years. It is clear that drinking and driving is unacceptable, that drinking and driving don't mix. That's why we have the toughest measures for drinking and driving, not only in Canada but

in North America. That includes an immediate 90-day driver's licence suspension, a mandatory back-on-track program, a vehicle impoundment program and ignition interlock. We not only have the

toughest measures but we enforce them regularly as well. As a result of that, we are the safest region in terms of safety not only in Canada but in North America. I can go even further. Based on

fatalities, we have the safest record compared to other regions.

I am looking forward to giving you more information in the supplementary question on how our record compares to the other regions.

Mr. Dunlop: Under the Mike Harris government, Ontario ranked --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Stop the clock. Order. The Minister of Health, order.

The member for Simcoe North.

Mr. Dunlop: Under the Mike Harris government, Ontario ranked number one in Canada in the fight against impaired driving. For example, Premier

Harris and Ministers Klees and Sterling strongly supported my private member's bill on the mandatory ignition interlock, the first legislation of its kind in Canada. Since McGuinty has come to

power, MADD Canada indicates that Ontario is slipping badly. We now are far behind Manitoba. In MADD Canada's report card, to be released this fall, they expect that we will slip further down the

scale as other provinces continue to make improvements.

Impaired driving fatalities in Ontario are increasing. There is no better example than the death of a young police officer last weekend. The McGuinty

government is great at banning pit bulls and you love to regulate the sale of homemade pies at farmers' markets and fall fairs. Why are you not on the side of young drivers and why are you not on

the side of MADD Canada? Minister, will you stand in this House today and confirm that you will implement the recommendations of MADD Canada's Opportunities for Progress report and return Ontario

to be Canada's leader in the fight against drinking and driving?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: I am very pleased to answer the question. Let me say that results speak louder than words:

(1) We have the safest roads in

North America; (2) if we look at the accidents happening because of alcohol, we have the lowest in North America; (3) in fatalities happening because of alcohol-related incidents, we've got the

lowest in North America.

We've got a very, very good record, but that doesn't mean we won't do more. What we have done is this, talking about young people: We have restricted the

number of passengers that novice drivers can carry between 12 midnight and 5 a.m. in the morning. We have embarked on a very aggressive education and enforcement program. I can give you the

numbers. There have been 5,800 lifetime suspensions; 176,000 almost lost their driving privileges --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. In the last election, your party promised to provide an

additional $6,000 in care for every resident in long-term-care homes. This is a copy of a Liberal campaign brochure, which reads, "Why Seniors Can't Trust the Harris-Eves Government: The Ontario

Liberal Plan for Change." It says, "Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals have a plan to deliver positive change for seniors." Point number 5 says specifically, "Invest in better nursing home

care, providing an additional $6,000 in care for every resident."

Minister, at a time when you had a $3-billion windfall in the last budget, why haven't you delivered on this promise to residents in long-term-care homes?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Substantially, we have. The reality is, for residents in long-term-care homes

in the province of Ontario in the days since our government has come to office, not only have they seen the benefits of a $740-million investment, but they've seen 2,334 additional people working

on the front lines of health care and delivering the care to them.

In addition to that, we've increased the comfort allowance -- something that hadn't happened in a couple of decades. We froze the co-pay, completing a

commitment that we made to roll back the increases that the previous government had brought forward. We brought forward new capacity through our 1-800 info line to be able to ensure that any

concerns that are raised in a long-term-care home are appropriately and very promptly responded to.

We have more work to do on this file, and I'm pleased to say, through the leadership that has come forward from the honourable member from Nipissing, we have a

tremendous opportunity through new legislation to frame the future. I repeat to the honourable member: The piece of paper that she's waving around certainly is not something that came out of the

Liberal Party platform in the last election. That much is clear.

Ms. Martel: There's a copy of their brochure, and I've even brought a copy for the minister's benefit today, since he tried to say earlier

this week that it wasn't true.

Families and residents in long-term-care homes don't see a change. This is what Donna Rubin had to say, who represents the not-for-profit long-term-care homes

in the province, on March 23, 2006: "We're disappointed and, quite frankly, very frustrated. With the province recording higher-than-anticipated tax revenues, we expected the government to make

good on its commitment to revolutionize long-term care." Over the last three budgets, the amount of annual funding going directly to care has only increased by about $2,000, not $6,000.

Here's what Karen Sullivan of the Ontario Long Term Care Association had to say on April 3, 2006: "It is clear that both families and residents strongly

disagree with any perception that government has addressed long-term-care service levels and that, for them, this is an issue of care, respect and dignity." Minister, your party made a specific

promise in the last election to provide an additional $6,000 of care per resident in every long-term-care home. Why haven't you kept that promise?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'm pleased to remind the honourable member that she's not --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Yes, that's right. The honourable member may be waving around a random piece of paper; she's certainly not waving around

a piece of paper from the Liberal Party campaign platform. I've been clear in saying that, and I'll continue to say it, because I know that I have the facts with me on this.

I want to offer a quote to the honourable member. This comes from close to home for her. This is from the administrator of the Extendicare Falconbridge

facility: "I'm just tickled pink we can put that money to good use." The administrator went on to say, "With this extra funding, we'll be able to improve that much more."

Unlike the honourable member's fundamental pessimism, which fuels her every activity in this place, I've had the opportunity, as other members have, to visit

long-term-care homes in their own areas, and what I encourage honourable members to do -- we have 618 long-term-care homes and, accordingly, people who have concerns about the quality of service

that's being provided there are encouraged to call the 1-800 action line. It's up and running, it's effective, it's responsive and it very promptly addresses circumstances that might be occurring.

I encourage the honourable member to --

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

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, after waiting decades, I'm happy to see that our

government is taking specific action on highway traffic congestion or gridlock, as it's known. Over the years, I've watched traffic increase as I drive back and forth to my riding of Brant on the

QEW. As you know, I'm not alone, and I sit in traffic along the QEW and look around at the frustrated commuters. At times, we've come to a dead stop and do a stop-start crawl along that particular

road, and we all know that we need to take a look at alternatives to cars, but realistically, because of our geography, we will still not be a carless society.

Minister, I know you made an announcement yesterday about the improvements of our highway system around the lakes. On behalf of all commuters, I'd like to hear

what our government's plans are for the upgrading of the QEW. Minister, if I might, for the sake of safety, I suggest you seriously consider a compass sign on the QEW for westbound travelers before

we hit Ford Drive and we stop sitting. Could you cut down on the congestion by letting us know when and where to get off the QEW --

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

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member from Brant for asking this question. The congestion is of

great concern to our government, and that's why we are making considerable investment and showing real leadership on this issue.

Yesterday, I announced a $1.4-billion investment in our highways that will make sure we can expand the capacity of our highways, do the rehab of our highways

and do the environmental assessment necessary to move ahead to make some progress on the congestion issues.

But we do need a balanced approach to handle the congestion issue, and that's why we are making another $1.2-billion investment under the Move Ontario program,

which will see three major projects going into the GTA area. Starting with the QEW, we plan to add another lane on both sides. But before we do that, we need to expand our bridges, both for Bronte

Road and also for Sixteen Mile Creek --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): Minister, I had the privilege of attending the groundbreaking ceremony this week on phase 2 of the

Highway 410 extension in Brampton. My community is really grateful for this good news. This project has been in the works for 15 years. As Mayor Susan Fennell said, "Actions speak louder than

words." She said, "I don't have a lot of respect for people who make announcements and take pictures. If you're not about to do something for the city of Brampton, we'll get somebody who will." Our

government's total investment in this project will be $150 million.

On Monday, the media wanted to know whether the ministry would be in a position to open the highway when the construction on phase 2 is complete. Minister,

will my community have to wait until all three phases are complete before we can provide relief to commuters in Peel?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: I want to thank the member from Brampton Centre for asking this question. I was very pleased to have her and the other member

from Brampton join me on Monday to make this very important announcement on Highway 410.

The second phase of the 410 is going ahead. We have already issued the contract for $50 million, and the second phase should be completed by October of next

year. Then we should be able to open phase 1 and phase 2.

Under the current agreement that we have with the municipalities, all three phases needed to be completed, but the chair of the region of Peel said that the

council will be very receptive to opening phase 2 and moving ahead with that.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): What about Highway 406?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: That is already done.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Yesterday in this House, you told us that Bill

210 will give the Ombudsman the final say on appeals about children in the custody of the CAS that go to the Child and Family Services Review Board. You said he will have jurisdiction over their

decisions. Yet the Ombudsman has also written to me just today, telling me that "Bill 210 does not introduce meaningful oversight of children's aid societies." His powers would be "limited to

considering whether the board acted in accordance with administrative fairness principles during its procedures."

Protecting children requires more than appeals about administrative issues. Why will you not give the Ombudsman the powers he asked for to investigate

underlying problems inside children's aids societies?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): Bill 210 went through a very thorough process. In fact, as part of

second reading, there was significant debate and actually significant amendments that I think have served to strengthen this bill in the interests of children in care. I do know that both the

opposition and the third party participated in these debates, participated as members of the standing committee and had full briefings on everything to do with Bill 210. Bill 210 went through third

reading and was approved in this Legislature, as per the proper process. What we are doing will provide better protection for kids in care.

Mrs. Munro: Just in the last few weeks the Ombudsman wrote a report about the inequities and the problems of the property tax system. Why do

you not believe that the Ombudsman should have at least the same investigative powers to protect children at risk as he does to protect property taxpayers?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: As Minister of Children and Youth Services, it goes well beyond my imagination to compare kids to property taxes. What I

can assure you is that this government is determined to ensure that children in the care of our child well-being and protection system will be better off, not through any kind of political plays

but through good, solid policies and enforcement.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): New question; the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Interesting answer. She never accepted any of the amendments that dealt with this at committee.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Anyway, my question is for the Premier, especially for the Premier. Last election, you were categorical

in your support of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario staying in public hands. Like us, you were opposed to the notion of privatizing the LCBO, but you went one step further. You said during the

election that you would stop the expansion of agency stores across the province of Ontario. Now we learn this week that some 20 new agency stores are going to be established in Ontario --

Applause.

Mr. Bisson: And the government applauds? They're applauding the breaking of their own promise. What an interesting question.

Anyway, this expansion is not in small areas where there are no LCBO outlets available. These are in communities where you've already got LCBO stores, places

like Long Beach, North Augusta, Rockton, Oil Springs and others. Premier, why are you breaking your promise from the last election and expanding agency stores, contrary to that promise?

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

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): Back in August, we engaged OPSEU in a process

of negotiation around the new collective agreement for the LCBO. During that negotiation, we were very clear with the bargaining agent that this was something we intended to pursue and in fact

specific language was put into the contract to allow this. But I should tell you that the appropriate provisions to protect the employees -- the 20 agency stores will provide rural economic

development in this province, and that's very good news for small-town Ontario -- will also ensure that there are no layoffs, that there will be protections for the employees at existing LCBO

stores. This is good not only for small-town Ontario but this is good for the treasury of Ontario, good for the LCBO. This is a win-win-win for everybody concerned.

Mr. Bisson: How can you say that when the win-win during the election was not to privatize the LCBO and to stop the incursion of agency stores

across Ontario? These agency stores being opened aren't out in the middle of a highway somewhere where there isn't already an existing LCBO store. We're talking about communities that already have

LCBO stores where you're allowing agency stores to be put in existence less than a kilometre away from the existing ones.

I say to you again -- a very simple question: If you were opposed to the expansion of agency stores during the last election, why are you now breaking your

promise and allowing this expansion to go on? It's nothing but privatization by the back door.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I take exception to what the member said. No agency store will be in a location where there is another LCBO store. In fact,

the specific language in the contract we have signed with the bargaining agent, OPSEU in this case, has a specific provision for a distance requirement from other LCBO stores.

The agency store program has been around since 1962. There's nothing new about this. There are 172 agency stores. I've got to tell you, this is welcome news

for small-town Ontario, to see much-needed economic development at a time when we are seeing wonderful expansion right across the province. This is a reasonable policy. This is one that was

supported by the New Democrats when they were in government. There is great excitement and anticipation that LCBO outlets, in a limited capacity, will be coming to small-town rural Ontario. We're

thrilled with the reception that we're getting so far, and there will be --

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

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): My question's for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Each year, approximately 125,000

immigrants choose to make Ontario their home and over 70% of the adult newcomers have post-secondary education or training. Their value to Ontario is immeasurable.

Though the majority of newcomers choose to settle within the GTA, settlement in other regions of the province is growing. The city of London, for example, saw

a 36% increase in newcomer settlement between 2002 and 2004. It's important to our future that this number continues to grow.

Minister, I understand your ministry is working hard with municipalities to market cities throughout Ontario to prospective immigrants. One such initiative

provided $200,000 from your ministry to help London promote itself to newcomers through the new website ontarioimmigration.ca. How will this help London and how will this help prospective

newcomers?

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'd like to thank the member for London North Centre for the question. This

investment in London of $200,000 means that London will be one of the new regional immigration gateways, like Sudbury, like Windsor, like Ottawa. We're saying to new immigrants all over the world,

"You can do this now through the website, internationally. You can choose to live in London, invest in London." Immigrant investors and families going to London or Sudbury will be great for

Ontario, great for the communities. This investment of $200,000 in those cities will make them more appealing, more marketable. This is the future.

Ms. Matthews: Minister, the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council, TRIEC, is a multi-stakeholder council that comprises employers,

labour and all three levels of government. The council is an excellent program that partners local business, occupational organizations and the three levels of government with newcomers. It

provides opportunities to enable individuals to quickly apply their skills, education and experience in Toronto. Given the success of TRIEC in Toronto, does the government have any plans to expand

similar programs in other municipalities across Ontario to encourage the regional economic gateways for the success of our newcomers?

Hon. Mr. Colle: The Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council is a partnership between employers, between government, and between newcomers

where they get opportunities to work in industries in the greater Toronto area. It has worked so well that we are now going to expand this immigration gateway concept into areas all across Ontario.

We're going to do it in Ottawa, for example. Kitchener-Waterloo wants to be a gateway for newcomers and immigrants. Also, we've got great uptake from the Niagara region.

For many years, people looked upon immigration as a challenge only. But now they realize that inviting immigrants means you're inviting prosperity, inviting

innovation, inviting new expansion in culture, in start-up businesses. So this investment by the government of Ontario in these new immigration gateways is really an investment in economic growth

in cities like London, Sudbury, Windsor, Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton. Mayor DeCicco of London is excited. Mayor --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Order. Minister, would you sit down, please?

PETITIONS

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I have a petition relating to Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over one million Ontarians of all ages suffer from communication disorders relating to speech, language and/or hearing; and

"Whereas there is a growing need for awareness of the profound developmental, economic and social consequences that communication disorders have on people and

their families; and

"Whereas persons with communication problems require access to the professional services of audiologists and speech-language pathologists who provide

treatments to improve and enhance quality of life; and

"Whereas effective treatment of communication disorders benefits all of society by allowing otherwise disadvantaged persons to achieve their academic and

vocational potentials; and

"Whereas investments in treatments for communication disorders pay economic dividends in reduced reliance on other social services,

"We, the undersigned, in conjunction with the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario

to proclaim the month of May as Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month."

As I had the privilege of introducing that bill earlier today, I'm pleased to affix my signature and support this petition.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me by Larch Street Kids, a child care centre in Sudbury, and it

reads as follows:

"Whereas hard-working Ontario families need affordable, accessible, licensed and regulated quality child care for their young children;

"Whereas child care is under threat in Ontario with the possible cancellation of funding agreements with the provinces for child care by the federal

Conservative government under Stephen Harper and the failure of the McGuinty Liberal government to put the additional provincial investments into child care, as promised in the 2003 Ontario

election campaign;

"Whereas Ontario needs a strong, made-in-Ontario, not-for-profit child care system with or without federal dollars;

"Whereas the province of Quebec is much more able to provide and preserve child care in the face of cancelled federal funding because it has a significant,

strong and sustained base of provincial government funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to immediately begin investing the $300 million to create child care spaces for 330,000

children as promised in the 2003 election campaign."

I agree with the petitioners. I have affixed my signature to this.

LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Willowdale relating to the changing of an OMB

decision on the Churchill-Basswood townhouse development. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Willowdale have indicated that they wish to live in safe, pollution-free neighbourhoods unencumbered by hasty and unplanned development;

and

"Whereas the people of the Churchill-Basswood" neighbourhood "fear this development will trap their ... detached homes between a high-density redevelopment

area to the east and multi-unit housing to the west;

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario to unilaterally reverse this decision and restore the balance in our neighbourhoods."

This petition is 16 pages. I support it, I'm pleased to attach my signature and I give it with page Connor.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, according to the Department of National Defence, there are over 30,000 serving military personnel who call Ontario home; and

"Whereas, according to the most recent census data, there are more than 1.6 million senior citizens over the age of 65 living in Ontario; and

"Whereas the PC Party of Ontario plans on eliminating this illegitimate tax for all Ontarians after it forms the government in 2007; and

"Whereas, as an interim measure, this illegitimate health tax should be removed from those who protect Canada and those who have built Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to immediately eliminate the province's illegitimate health tax, beginning with serving military

personnel and senior citizens."

I affix my signature, as I agree with this petition, along with all the constituents who have signed, many from Oxford county and around Ontario.

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over one million Ontarians of all ages suffer from communication disorders relating to speech, language and/or hearing; and

"Whereas there is a growing need for awareness of the profound developmental, economic and social consequences that communication disorders have on people and

their families; and

"Whereas persons with communication problems require access to the professional services of audiologists and speech-language pathologists who provide

treatments to improve and enhance quality of life; and

"Whereas effective treatment of communication disorders benefits all of society by allowing otherwise disadvantaged persons to achieve their academic and

vocational potentials; and

"Whereas investments in treatments for communication disorders pay economic dividends in reduced reliance on other social services,

"We, the undersigned, in conjunction with the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario

to proclaim the month of May as Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month."

I'm in agreement and will affix my signature thereto.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario of Ontario, and I'd like to thank Sonny

Sansone from Scarborough for collecting the signatures on it. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the health and well-being of all Ontario citizens is of the utmost concern for everyone in the province;

"Whereas to date there is little to no marking on prescription drug bottles in Ontario stating clearly when the drug has past its primary date of use, possibly

leading to harmful effects on the health of Ontario citizens;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to request that it is made mandatory for the expiration date of prescription drugs

to be clearly placed on all prescription drug bottles and containers, as it is for foods products, ensuring that no one accidentally uses them past that date, causing unnecessary and preventable

harm."

It's a good idea. I'm pleased to support it, to sign it and to ask page Connor to carry it.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, according to the Department of National Defence, there are over 30,000 serving military personnel who call Ontario home; and

"Whereas, according to the most recent census data, there are more than 1.6 million senior citizens over the age of 65 living in Ontario; and

"Whereas the PC Party of Ontario plans on eliminating this illegitimate tax for all Ontarians after it forms the government in 2007; and

"Whereas as an interim measure, this illegitimate health tax should be removed from those who protect Canada and those who have built Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to immediately eliminate the province's illegitimate health tax, beginning with serving military

personnel and senior citizens."

Since I support this petition, I'll affix my signature.

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and

Audiologists.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over one million Ontarians of all ages suffer from communication disorders relating to speech, language and/or hearing; and

"Whereas there is a growing need for awareness of the profound developmental, economic and social consequences that communication disorders have on people and

their families; and

"Whereas persons with communication problems require access to the professional services of audiologists and speech-language pathologists who provide

treatments to improve and enhance quality of life; and

"Whereas effective treatment of communication disorders benefits all of society by allowing otherwise disadvantaged persons to achieve their academic and

vocational potentials; and

"Whereas investments in treatments for communication disorders pay economic dividends in reduced reliance on other social services,

"We, the undersigned, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim the month of May as Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month."

I do so as a former principal who understands the need.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas, according to the Department of National Defence, there are over 30,000 serving military personnel who call Ontario home; and

"Whereas, according to the most recent census data, there are more than 1.6 million senior citizens over the age of 65 living in Ontario; and

"Whereas the PC Party of Ontario plans on eliminating this illegitimate tax for all Ontarians after it forms the government in 2007; and

"Whereas, as an interim measure, this illegitimate health tax should be removed from those who protect Canada and those who have built Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to immediately eliminate the province's illegitimate health tax, beginning with serving military

personnel and senior citizens."

I'm pleased to affix my signature in support of this petition.

IDENTITY THEFT

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): "To the Parliament of Ontario and the Minister of Government Services:

"Whereas identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in North America;

"Whereas confidential and private information is being stolen on a regular basis, affecting literally thousands of people;

"Whereas the cost of this crime exceeds billions of dollars;

"Whereas countless hours are wasted to restore one's good credit rating;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Bill 38, which passed the second reading unanimously in ... Ontario ... be brought before committee and that the following

issues be included for consideration and debate:

"

(1) All consumer reports should be provided in a truncated ... form, protecting our vital private information such as SIN and credit card numbers.

"

(2) Should a credit bureau discover that there has been a breach of consumer information, the agency should immediately inform the victimized consumer.

"

(3) Credit bureaus should only report inquiries resulting out of actual applications for credit and for no other reasons.

"

(4) Credit bureaus should investigate any complaints within 30 days and correct or automatically delete any information found unconfirmed or inaccurate."

Since I agree 100%with this petition, I am delighted to sign it.

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over one million Ontarians of all ages suffer from communication disorders relating to speech, language and/or hearing; and

"Whereas there is a growing need for awareness of the profound developmental, economic and social consequences that communication disorders have on people and

their families; and

"Whereas persons with communication problems require access to the professional services of audiologists and speech language pathologists who provide

treatments to improve and enhance quality of life; and

"Whereas effective treatment of communication disorders benefits all of society by allowing otherwise disadvantaged persons to achieve their academic and

vocational potentials; and

"Whereas investments in treatments for communication disorders pay economic dividends in reduced reliance on other social services;

"We, the undersigned, in conjunction with the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario

to proclaim the month of May as Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month."

I support this petition as well.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, prepared by Sonny

Sansone, a community activist, at 10 Gordonridge. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty government in the last budget committed itself to providing the best possible benefits to single-parent families in Ontario by increasing

single-parent family benefits by 15.7% over the 2003-2004 levels;

"Whereas the expenditure on at-risk youth and families will be increased to a total of $10.3 billion;

"Whereas there still remains no coherent universal child care system in Ontario for working families;

"Whereas Ontario needs to move toward a system that is better planned, coordinated and accountable for all;

"We, the undersigned, therefore applaud the McGuinty government for its initiatives at making the lives of Ontario's families better and ask that they continue

to make it the best possible for all families in Ontario."

I agree with this petition, affix my signature to it and give it to page Kelsey, here with me today.

PIT BULL LEGISLATION

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition from 3,747 taxpayers across Ontario, gathered by the Golden Horseshoe American

Pit Bull Terrier Club, among others. I commend Sandra Alway for all her work. It reads as follows:

"Whereas

"The new amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Dog Owners' Liability Act by removing the breed-specific sections and adding

Courtney's Law, in honour of Courtney Trempe. This law would protect citizens from all dog attacks, regardless of breed, by targeting a dog's previous inappropriate behaviour and the owner's

inability to properly train, contain and socialize their dog.

"We respectfully request that the assembly create a dangerous dog registry to accurately record dog bites across the province and to properly track offending

dogs.

"We also request that the assembly financially support a province-wide dog bite prevention program aimed at dog owners...."

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition that was given to me by Connie Lamanna and Claude Bergeron. They're both from the St. Clair

West Revitalization Committee. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas GO Transit is presently planning to tunnel an area just south of St. Clair Avenue West and west of Old Weston Road, making it easier for GO trains to

pass a major rail crossing;

"Whereas TTC is presently planning a TTC right-of-way along all of St. Clair Avenue West, including the bottleneck caused by the dilapidated St. Clair-Old

Weston Road bridge;

"Whereas this bridge (underpass) will be: (1) too narrow ... (2) it is not safe ... and (3) it creates a divide, a no man's land, between Old Weston Road and

Keele Street....

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that GO Transit extend the tunnel beyond St. Clair Avenue West so that trains will pass under St. Clair Avenue West,

thus eliminating this eyesore of a bridge with its high banks and blank walls. Instead it will create a dynamic, revitalized community enhanced by a beautiful continuous cityscape with easy traffic

flow."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the time to present this petition to you.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA LOCATION

À USAGE D'HABITATION

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 15, 2006, on the motion for second reading of Bill 109,

An Act to revise the law governing residential tenancies /

Projet de loi 109, Loi révisant le droit régissant la location à usage d'habitation.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 16, 2006, I am now required to put the question.

On May 9, Mr. Gerretsen moved second reading of Bill 109,

An Act to revise the law governing residential tenancies. Is it the pleasure of the House that the

motion carry?

All those if favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1535 to 1545.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bisson, Gilles

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

MacLeod, Lisa

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tabuns, Peter

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 54; the nays are 23.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 16, this bill is referred to the standing committee on general government.

CLEAN WATER ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'EAU SAINE

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 15, 2006, on the motion for second reading of Bill 43,

An Act to protect existing and future sources of drinking water and

to make complementary and other amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 43, Loi visant à protéger les sources existantes et futures d'eau potable et à apporter des modifications

complémentaires et autres à d'autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. There are too many conversations going on in here. Could we take them outside, please?

Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I'm happy to have 10 minutes to speak to this bill. It's not much. I'm happy to welcome the citizens

of Ontario who are watching this political channel. We're on live. It's 10 to 4 and it's May 17, so you know the time.

We are pleased to see that the government finally introduced its long-overdue source protection legislation into the House. By way of history, the government

first posted a draft bill for the Clean Water Act on the Environmental Bill of Rights in June 2004. At that time, the Minister of the Environment stated that her intent was to have legislation in

the House by the end of the year. She then promised source water protection legislation by the spring of 2005. So here it is, a year later, and we're just getting our first opportunity to debate

the proposed legislation.

This history is important because every day individuals, municipal councils, conservation authorities and the provincial government make decisions that impact

the sources of our drinking water. You will recall that Justice Dennis O'Connor recognized this importance when he introduced the idea that source water protection plans be developed for all

watersheds in Ontario because, in his words, "Watersheds are an ecologically practical unit for managing water. This is the level at which impacts to water resources are integrated, and individual

impacts that might not be significant in and of themselves combine to create cumulative stresses that may become evident.... "

This is important, I tell you, as a bill. I remind you that we are very concerned about this government and this bill and its history around many of the

promises this government has made