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

October 23, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Oct-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 23 October 2006 Lundi 23 octobre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIWALI AND EID-UL-FITR

SLEEMAN BREWERIES

MUSKOKA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

SMALL BUSINESS

CHERYL PARROTT

AND VANCE FANDREY

SEAT BELTS

EDUCATION

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGULATION OF ZOOS ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES JARDINS ZOOLOGIQUES

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ACCESSIBILITÉ POUR

LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

VETERANS

WATER QUALITY

HEALTH INSURANCE

PROPERTY TAXATION

WATER QUALITY

RESPITE CARE

HEALTH INSURANCE

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

NUCLEAR WASTE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

GASOLINE PRICES

LONG-TERM CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

HIGHWAY 26

LONG-TERM CARE

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

HIGHWAY FUNDING

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

ROYAL ASSENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG-TERM CARE HOMES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES FOYERS DE SOINS

DE LONGUE DURÉE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIWALI AND EID-UL-FITR

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I rise today to join in the celebration of two important Canadian religious holidays.

On Saturday, October 21, the festival of Diwali was celebrated by Hindu and Sikh Canadians, who first arrived in Canada more than a century ago. Diwali is a great festival of light that commemorates the victory

of light over darkness and goodness over evil. For Hindus, Diwali also commemorates Lord Rama's return after 14 years in exile. For Sikhs, the festival of light commemorates the return of Guru Hargobind Sahib and others from prison. Diwali is

celebrated by the lighting of candles and by fireworks, as occurred throughout our province over the weekend.

Today also marks the Canadian holiday of Eid-Ul-Fitr, the festival that heralds the end of the Ramadan fast for Muslim Canadians. Eid-Ul-Fitr celebrates not that the fast has ended, but the spiritual discipline,

personal goodness and rededication to helping others in society that are the fruits of Ramadan. The entire Muslim-Canadian community comes together in worship of Allah to give thanks for his merciful benevolence, as occurred at the CNE today with

the leader of the official opposition, John Tory, in attendance.

On behalf of John Tory and the Ontario PC caucus, I would like to extend my warmest best wishes to our Islamic, Hindu and Sikh communities during the celebration of these significant Canadian religious holidays,

Eid Mubarak, Shubh Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas Mubarak.

SLEEMAN BREWERIES

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): Last week, I was pleased to join John Sleeman at the celebration to announce that the sale of Sleeman Breweries to Japan's Sapporo Breweries has been

finalized. Mr. Sleeman will continue as chairman and CEO.

In 1851, John Sleeman's great-great-grandfather started the first Sleeman brewery in my riding of Guelph. By the turn of the century, John's grandfather was producing Canada's first cream ale in a distinctive

clear bottle. The original brewery ceased operations in 1933; unfortunately, the Sleeman sons had been caught smuggling their brew during Prohibition. However, John re-established the family brewery in 1985. Sleeman is an example of how a small

brewery with a history of innovation and strong leadership, and great beer, can grow to become Canada's third-largest brewery.

The sale of Sleeman to Sapporo is a win-win-win deal. Sapporo gains a base to grow its Canadian market, Sleeman gains a major investor to continue to grow its business throughout North America, and my community

is assured that the Sleeman plant will continue to operate in Guelph and provide employment stability for our local workforce.

Congratulations, and a tip of the glass to Sleeman and Sapporo.

MUSKOKA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It is my pleasure to rise today to recognize the important work being done by the Muskoka Heritage Foundation. The foundation recognized a number of

outstanding individuals who have made a difference to the built, cultural and natural heritage of Muskoka. Ian Turnbull was the deserving recipient of the Robert J. Boyer Award. In recent years, Ian has been a key volunteer in a number of

projects, including The Wall Looks Back, a unique mural depicting the history of Port Carling; Grace and Speed, the Muskoka Boat and Heritage Centre in Gravenhurst; and the design group for the Wenonah II. Ian continues to give of his time and

talent to the Muskoka Watershed Council and many other organizations and projects. The award is named after Bob Boyer, a local historian, past Muskoka MPP, author and publisher.

Horse logger Gerald Cook received a natural heritage stewardship award. He is recognized for the way he conducts his professional life, with a respect for the environment, leaving the forest in better shape than

when he started. Other natural heritage award winners include Carol and Jim Hartill of Trethewey Falls; Asha and Sudi Devanesan, Three Mile Lake; and Carol Hulyas at Kahshe Lake. These award winners set a great example maintaining their properties

to protect the environment and preserve Muskoka's natural beauty.

Winners in the built and cultural heritage stewardship awards include the Huntsville train station; Billie Bear Lakeside Community Club on Bella Lake; St. Thomas Anglican Church in Bracebridge; and Lake Joseph

Community Church.

Thanks to the Muskoka Heritage Foundation for the important work they do, and congratulations to this year's award winners.

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): I rise in honour of Small Business Month in Ontario. Small business is the engine of our economy, providing most of the employment across our province.

Small business also represents the dreams made reality of many entrepreneurs who risk everything to finance and then build their own employment.

Currently, particularly in Toronto, small business is labouring under a significant disadvantage. Commercial property taxes have increased far faster than revenues. The province's policy of downloading expenses

to the city has meant that Toronto businesses have seen total annual increases of 6.5%. Many small business owners, particularly retailers in Toronto, are closing or moving to York, Peel, Durham or Halton, where assessments are significantly less.

Small business retailers everywhere find it difficult to compete against big box stores.

We know we need reform to property taxes, and our Ombudsman has made recommendations to that end. We know that our neighbourhood small businesses need our assistance. Let us put aside our partisan differences

and act on behalf of small business during this Small Business Month.

CHERYL PARROTT

AND VANCE FANDREY

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Cheryl Parrott and Vance Fandrey are very special residents of Hintonburg, which is an older community in my riding in Ottawa. They were honoured at a special

community gathering recently. As a couple, they are committed to community building. They have had an outstanding impact on positive change in Hintonburg, where a cruel war between the lawful and the lawless has raged.

Drawing upon their common activist roots in Saskatchewan, this dynamic duo has demonstrated the meaning of caring for your community by mobilizing neighbours and motivating politicians to take back their

community. Under their roll-up-your-sleeves, no-nonsense leadership, the Hintonburg Community Association, and later the Hintonburg business association, have cleaned up drug addicts' discarded syringes in parks and playgrounds, even those given

out by the city's health department; closed down crack houses, even one under the guardianship of the Ontario government; and helped to shine the light of the media on street prostitution, drug trafficking and the slum landlords who host these

illegal activities.

As champions of safe communities, meticulous event organizers, and humble servants to the less fortunate, this husband and wife team have been the heart and voice of Hintonburg for decades. I'm saddened to hear

that they are retiring from their role as the unofficial parents of Hintonburg, but I'm also grateful to have sojourned with them.

One of the great personal benefits of serving as an MPP is to have had the good fortune of knowing and working with my friends Cheryl and Vance. As the representative for Ottawa Centre in the Legislature, I

salute and honour them.

SEAT BELTS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Members would know that this afternoon, we begin our hearings on Bill 148 to amend the seat belt legislation. As well, there are hearings on Wednesday.

I want to remind people that our leader, John Tory, extends our condolences to the families of those who were killed in the tragic accident on Saturday, October 14.

It's also important to recall that under Bill Davis, our government introduced seat belt legislation in the province of Ontario over 30 years ago, the first jurisdiction in North America to do so.

Clearly, our caucus supports the principle of one seat belt per passenger. However, we remain concerned over the broad leeway the bill gives to making regulations and enhancing exemptions.

I must stress that we are disappointed that this government has not acted more quickly. I would like to point out that on November 15, 2005, almost one year ago, Emile Therien, president of the Canada Safety

Council, sent correspondence, which I have, to Premier McGuinty asking that his government enhance the one-seat-belt-per-passenger rule. The McGuinty government was made aware of this over a year ago, and it remains a concern.

I look forward to the input during the hearings this week, and I'm confident that this input will ensure the details of the bill will make Ontario roads safer for all of us.

EDUCATION

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): As the summer drew to a close, parents and children alike began to think about the return of the school year and perhaps where their education might take them

in the future.

As the school year officially kicked off, the riding of Huron-Bruce played host to the Minister of Education, Sandra Pupatello. The minister was on hand at St. Anne's Catholic secondary school in Clinton to make

a special announcement regarding Ontario's future farmers. The specialist high-skills major initiative set up by the McGuinty government will see the establishment of special certificate programs in high schools. This initiative will include an

agricultural program at St. Anne's that will help interested students become more adept at entering into the farming industry in the coming years.

A recent survey conducted by my office indicated that the number of farmers over the age of 46 in my riding is currently at 74%. This could lead to numerous problems if the number of new farmers coming into the

industry does not meet the rapid growth of those retiring. This program will draw youth into the industry and ensure that there are enough people to work the land and produce safe, high-quality food. This program is being supported by agricultural

businesses in my riding that all realize the extreme importance of a continued strong agricultural presence in Huron-Bruce. This is yet another way that the McGuinty government is establishing positive progress in the agricultural sector in the

province of Ontario.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): On August 31, I was pleased to announce alongside my colleague the Honourable Donna Cansfield, Minister of Transportation, that the McGuinty government is

improving Highway 7 and 8 between Stratford and New Hamburg by launching a study to determine the best route to reduce traffic congestion and prepare for future growth in our area. Also announced were repairs, which will begin in 2007. This is

great news for my constituents, businesses and farms that rely on, and need improved access to, the 400 series of highways.

As Barb McLean, warden of Perth county, notes, "We're anxious to get the (study) going and see the completion of it. (Highway 7 and 8) is a very important part of Perth county with truckers moving our industrial

products as well as our farm products."

It will also help boost Perth East's and Stratford's economic advantage and help attract new businesses. As the mayor of Stratford, Dan Mathieson, remarked, the auto industry is based on just-in-time delivery,

and automakers are cautious about establishing themselves in an area where traffic and road issues could impede a delivery from arriving on time. So this announcement will therefore remove this obstacle to new economic development.

I want to close by saying that it is a testament to the wonderful co-operation and the wonderful relationship that has been forged with our municipal partners. Accordingly, I'd like to thank the leadership of

Perth county, Perth East and the city of Stratford for their ongoing support as we await the results of this study.

HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Yo Naput. Today is the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution. In the closing days of the Second World War, Red Army forces liberated Hungary from the Nazis.

Unfortunately, under the Communist regime, liberation became subordination to the control of Moscow.

In 1956, Soviet Premier Khrushchev gave a secret speech which denounced Stalin and signalled that some of the satellite states might explore national paths, within limits. However, the Soviet government did not

allow the Hungarian Communist leadership to liberalize. In fact, a hardliner became the general secretary of the Hungarian Communist Party in 1956.

On October 23, Hungarians took to the streets in a peaceful demonstration to demand a declaration of independence from Soviet control. The march became violent when the Prime Minister of Hungary publicly called

the demonstration "lies and rumours" and the crowd marched on the broadcasting station where he made that statement. The demonstrators were forced back with tear gas, which marked the beginning and escalation of violence that would end with Soviet

tanks in the streets, thousands dead and 200,000 fleeing the country.

I married into a Hungarian family, and these freedom fighters deserve our praise today. We remember the Hungarian revolution as the first tear in the Iron Curtain. Although it was pushed back, its spirit lived

on until the collapse of communism in 1989. The spirit of the Hungarian revolution will live on forever. Köszönöm szépen.

VISITORS

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As you know, we have all these hard-working pages here. I have one from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Chad Richards. He has

his family here with him today, and I'd like to introduce them. They're all over the House, some up here and some over here. We have Dan and Sherry Richards, his parents; Brady Richards, his younger brother; Bill and Carol Prues, his grandfather

and grandmother; Bill and Shelley Prues, that's an uncle; Steve and Wendy Mannerow; Jim and Wyonna Brick; and Gerald and Joan Wilhelm. They're all uncles and aunts. I think he brought the whole municipality down with him. I'm glad that he's here,

and he has been doing a great job for us.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGULATION OF ZOOS ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES JARDINS ZOOLOGIQUES

Mr. Zimmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 154,

An Act to regulate zoos / Projet de loi 154, Loi réglementant les jardins zoologiques.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): This bill, if passed, will regulate zoos in Ontario by setting out a licensing regime for zoos, by setting standards for zoos and by providing inspections to

ensure that those standards are met in the operation of Ontario zoos.

The Speaker: On a point of order.

Mr. Zimmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to introduce in the gallery to my right here the following, who have been very supportive of this private member's bill: Melissa

Tkachyck, who is the campaign officer for the World Society for the Protection of Animals; Mr. Hugh Coghill, who is the chief inspector of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and Mr. Rob Laidlaw, who is the director of

communications for Zoocheck Canada.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to

9:30 p.m. on Monday, October 23, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in 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 five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: Mr. Bradley has moved government notice of motion number 209. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Racco, Mario G.

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tory, John

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

Nays

DiNovo, Cheri

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Murdoch, Bill

Prue, Michael

Tabuns, Peter

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ACCESSIBILITÉ POUR

LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I rise in the House today to announce the next two steps that the McGuinty

progress that we're making as a result.

bring down barriers that many people with disabilities face in their daily lives.

En octobre 2005, nous avions annoncé que les deux premières propositions de normes qui seraient élaborées concerneraient le transport et le service à la clientèle. Aujourd'hui,

j'ai le plaisir d'annoncer que les membres du comité d'élaboration des normes d'accessibilité de services à la clientèle en sont parvenus à un accord en déposant une proposition de norme d'accessibilité

relative au service à la clientèle. Celle-ci est affichée dès aujourd'hui sur le site Web de mon ministère afin que le public puisse en prendre connaissance et faire part de ses commentaires au cours des 60 prochains

jours.

In addition, today we begin accepting applications for membership on a third standards development committee. As with the previous two committees, committee members will include representatives from disability

communities, the broader public sector, the private sector and Ontario's ministries. Once assembled, this committee will begin work on a proposed standard for accessible information and communications.

Access to information and communications opens up opportunities for everyone. People with disabilities often find themselves at a distinct disadvantage when they are unable to access information, be it in

print or electronic formats. Our expectation is that once drafted, this new standard will address many of those barriers.

According to Statistics Canada, approximately 1.5 million people in Ontario live with disabilities today: That is more than 13% of Ontario's population. As our baby boom generation grows older, the number of

Les nouvelles que je me réjouis d'avoir pu vous annoncer à l'instant signifient que nous sommes sur la bonne voie pour faire de l'Ontario une province pleinement accessible d'ici 2025. À mes

yeux, un Ontario où règne l'accessibilité universelle est une province où tout le monde peut, sans distinction en raison d'un handicap, avoir accès aux mêmes choix et à la même qualité de biens et de

services. C'est une province prête à accueillir des visiteuses et visiteurs du monde entier et à leur offrir un séjour agréable, rempli des activités les plus variées, grâce à un niveau

d'accessibilité égal ou supérieur à celui de leur lieu d'origine.

L'Ontario se veut une province où tout le monde, sans exception, peut réaliser son plein potentiel.

Avec la loi exemplaire dont nous disposons désormais, et grâce à la coopération et au soutien des secteurs privé et public élargi, ainsi que celui des personnes handicapées,

nous allons faire de cette vision une réalité.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): I'm pleased to be able to respond, on behalf of the official opposition, to this announcement. I think there are three things one needs to consider when looking

at embarking on consultation. The first one is obviously the question of adequate consultation and inclusion.

I have some concerns with regard to this initiative when I look back at the question of changes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I have to ask: If this government is interested in increasing access for

disabled Ontarians, then why is it decreasing their access to justice through its changes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission?

The government's human rights changes, Bill 107, have been panned by many disability rights groups. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance said this summer that "it makes no sense that the McGuinty

government's seriously flawed Bill 107 strips from the commission the key powers." They say, "The government's plans significantly weaken the Human Rights Commission's ability to effectively challenge barriers."

But I'd also like to offer the suggestion, too, that timeliness is an extremely important issue when you are looking at consultation. I notice in your remarks that you refer to the 60-day period for the public

to submit its comments, but there is no timeline on your side for a response to those suggestions that you receive.

Thirdly, I think it's important to look very carefully at the results of consultation. How long does a report sit on a minister's desk? We certainly have many examples of the fact that people have been

consulted by this government and wait and wait to hear some response from the individual ministry.

Finally, there's the question of what action you take when you receive this evidence of consultation. I'm reminded of two examples -- although not in your ministry -- that come to mind. The status of the

artist and the question of assessment are certainly two examples where the government has been quick to announce consultation but very slow in acting on it.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): In response to the minister, New Democrats, and I think many, many people in our community, many people in our province, remain troubled by the timeline.

This has been said from the date the bill was introduced. It's not going to come into effect fully until the year 2025 -- 20 long years of people living with disabilities with no real hope of improvement while this government consults, while this

government sets up task forces. We know what needs to be done.

We note with interest the 60-day time frame you have set up here for people to comment. You know, 60 days may be long enough; I'm not sure, because there's no rationale given within your speech or anywhere

else as to why this timeline has been chosen. But what we want to know is, how are you going to resolve the very great issues that you yourself set out? How is this going to resolve the training gaps in customer service? We don't know how your

legislation is going to resolve any of that. We don't know how it's going to resolve the barriers in business practices that exist in far too many companies across this province. We don't know how long it's going to take to build the knowledge to

meet the needs of the whole range of disabled peoples and disabled issues within the province of Ontario.

The disabled, of course, need access. We all want them to have access, but they also need understanding and compassion. That is what I fail to see that your government has done in the whole broad range of

issues that involve people who are disabled.

First of all, we know, and you know, that 23% of the self-identified disabled in this province live in poverty. That's one in four living in poverty. We haven't seen anything in this act or any of the actions

taken by your government that is going to lift any of them out of that grinding and hopeless poverty that so many of them live in. We haven't seen you taking any action to end the clawbacks. If you are disabled and on ODSP and you have children,

we haven't seen any meaningful action taken by your government to let the money stay with the children of disabled people. They already live in poverty, and then they are forced to see the only monies they get for their children taken away from

them by your government. There's no action on that at all.

We're also dismayed to see that you have reduced the benefits for the food supplement. It has gone down by 50% just since you have been minister. Just in that short period of time -- some 6% -- they have seen

their food supplement monies go down. So 23% of the poorest of the poor disabled people have not fared very well under your ministry.

Last but not least, of course we are reminded of Bill 107, where you have taken away the rights of disabled people, who had a strong and vigilant voice before the Human Rights Commission. You've traded it all

away. You've brought in your bill, which is going to take away their voice, and there is nothing to replace it to make sure they are adequately represented.

Of course we stand here today and say we want the disabled to have more access, but have more access to what end? To be able to be part of this community is what they need, first and foremost. They need the

monies to do it; they need the ODSP payments to be upgraded; they need the clawback to stop. They need all of those things, which will help to move them from poverty and actually give them a voice, because if there is one thing they need, the one

thing that they can deal with most of all is to be removed from poverty and become fully functioning members of this society.

It's all well and good to do the rest of this, but please, you are leaving the 23% behind. You need to do something, and I'm hoping that in the next 60 days, in light of what you're going to get from people

across this province, you'll also find it in your heart to do something about those who live in that abysmal poverty.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I would like to draw members' attention to the Speaker's gallery, where, joining my wife, Lynn, are Richard and Barbara Edwards, significant people in the

Kagawong artistic community.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, on Thursday we asked a number of the ministers about the fact that the government of Ontario's e-mail

addresses and telephone numbers were used as contact information for no fewer than five senior ministerial and Premier's office staffers who are working for the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Deputy Premier defended it, but a few hours later the Premier's spokesperson correctly said, "Government resources are for government business." I agree with him. He went on to imply that the time and

resources involved, both financed by the taxpayers' money, were used only one weekend. No one ever answered their phone or e-mail any other time.

Can the Premier tell us what action he's taken on this to protect taxpayers and the integrity of the system?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The facts in these, of course, remain very important. I think it's important that we understand what those facts are. We're

talking about individuals who volunteered their time on a weekend to act as neutral officials. In fact, they had to sign a piece of paper saying that they weren't getting involved in the federal Liberal leadership campaign in order to attend and

act as neutral officials at a delegate selection committee.

The leader of the official opposition knows that all of those e-mail addresses are obtainable online through the website. Those were in fact obtained online. They were made available on a federal Liberal Party

website, which was clearly not something that they had consented to. It's certainly not something that I approved. Those names have been removed, and I think that ends the story.

Mr. Tory: I think the fact of the matter here is that the neutrality that is talked about and indeed the lack of political activity that's talked about in the Public Service Act is not

neutrality within the Liberal Party of Canada or within the Liberal Party of Ontario; it's political activity generally. The fact that these people stayed neutral inside the Liberal leadership race is not the issue. The fact is that there was some

opportunity that they were engaged in political activity during the time they were working in ministers' offices.

The Premier has confirmed to us that the e-mail addresses were obtained online. What we're after here is perhaps some way of looking into this so we can all know that that indeed is the fact. I don't know how

the Premier knows that. The issue is not that the list was posted; it's that these addresses and phone numbers were disseminated as part of, apparently, political activity that took place, and the Premier has said again that it was confined to one

weekend.

My question is this: Given the seriousness of the fact that it would appear as if the e-mail addresses were used for political purposes, I think many people would agree that an investigation of some kind is

needed. I would ask whether the Premier would refer this matter to the conflict of interest commissioner.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: No, I will make no such reference to the conflict commissioner. If there's something that the leader of the official opposition feels is worthy of further examination by any

body, he is welcome to pursue that. But there's a difference between insinuation, speculation, innuendo, and fact. The facts again are that five individuals who had to declare themselves to be neutral attended a delegate selection meeting. There

were delegate selection meetings held in pretty well every single riding across the province. They needed neutral people, so some of our people showed up and said, "We are prepared to do that." It then became apparent that their e-mails were

recorded without their consent on a federal Liberal Party website, and the leader of the official opposition now speculates and infers much beyond what actually happened. People volunteered. They did not volunteer to give out their information;

that was obtained. That has subsequently been removed from the federal Liberal Party website. Again, that's all that happened.

Mr. Tory: It's very interesting when the Premier says that we're welcome to pursue it. The statute is set up such that the only people who can actually request an investigation of people in

circumstances such as this are you, the Premier, or your ministers. So there is no way in which we can pursue this other than to come here and ask you questions. That's interesting in and of itself, given how you feel in other areas about people

investigating their own complaints.

Our system of government is founded on respect for the rules, respect for the rule of law, but we see some real problems when it comes to the Premier's approach to those foundations. The Premier wanted to

raise taxes; he ignored the law. The former Minister of Transportation finds himself reprimanded and the Integrity Commissioner says so; the Premier turns a blind eye. Now we have a case where it would appear the resources of the government were

used to further the operations of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Why is the Premier refusing to take this seriously? Why won't he refer it to the conflict of interest commissioner to get to the bottom of what the facts are? Why won't you do it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the official opposition said something in here which he has said before. He alleges, without any basis in fact, that public resources were used to campaign.

That's what he is saying. Again, the facts here are very clear. If he has other facts, then he should bring those forward; otherwise, he is simply trafficking in fiction.

Here again is the truth: People who happen to work in this government volunteered their time, on their time, to act in a neutral capacity. They specifically had to sign a form saying that they would be neutral

and would not be campaigning on behalf of federal leadership candidates. They participated in delegate selection meetings. The federal Liberal Party obtained their information, which is available online at the Ontario government website; they

posted it on the federal Liberal Party's website. And from this, the leader of the official opposition would infer, would use innuendo, that somehow we are using government resources to participate in a federal leadership campaign. There is no

evidence of that, none whatsoever.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I suppose if there's absolutely nothing wrong and all the facts are as they say, there would be no reason not to have somebody look into it. But

anyway, my question is to the Premier.

On Thursday, I stood in this House and asked the Acting Premier whether or not he thought it was appropriate that at the Peel Memorial Hospital, which I visited on Wednesday -- and I'll quote myself -- "the

average wait time to see a doctor in the emergency room was 12 hours.... There were 25 people in the emergency room who had been admitted to the hospital, but were lying on gurneys in the hallways ... because there were no beds available for them

upstairs," and that it's not unusual, I was told, "for people to lie in the ER sometimes for four or five days, for babies who are there as pediatric emergency cases to spend hours at a time ... waiting for a bed...."

I ask the Premier, is this a situation you find acceptable?

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

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As I had the chance to say to the honourable member during question period on Thursday, there are a few points

that I think are very, very important. Of course, there are challenges in the emergency room that lots of us find unacceptable -- no doubt whatsoever. This has been a long-standing challenge with respect to emergency rooms in our province, and if

we're very objective about this, we will acknowledge that two decision points of the previous government contributed very seriously to this, as a recent study that they often quote referred to.

Number one is that we do have particular shortages of doctors, and the reasons for that have been well identified in this place.

Additionally, that party, while in office, cut 22% of the acute care beds we have. We are working hard to rebuild that. We committed to the people of Ontario to build 1,600; in fact, we have 2,000 that are en

route. Brampton is the beneficiary of 302 additional beds, and I had the privilege of being in that community on Friday to announce yet a further $19 million in equipment money.

The point is, we're working very, very hard to increase the capacity to produce a better result for the people at Peel Memorial and elsewhere in Ontario.

Mr. Tory: What's unfortunate is that the minister couldn't, while he was out in Brampton on Friday, announce some beds opening in the existing Peel Memorial Hospital to take the pressure off

the emergency room, when he knows that there are beds available that could be opened and funded by his government now.

I'll just move to another front. I received an e-mail actually addressed to the Premier from Paul Katz of Thornhill. He recently took his wife to North York General Hospital late one evening. She's a cancer

patient and she was ill, perhaps from the effects of chemotherapy, he said. The two of them sat in the emergency room for nine hours before seeing a doctor who could give a diagnosis, and then she was admitted to the hospital. So she waited nine

hours to be admitted.

The experience of Mr. Katz and his wife certainly doesn't match up with the claims contained in the self-congratulatory, taxpayer-financed, multi-million dollar ad campaigns that say, "The doctor will see you

now." My question is this: Will the Premier agree to withdraw these ads, and when are we going to see some real, meaningful action taken to alleviate this kind of situation in the emergency rooms? When are we going to see both things happen?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: It seems to me that the honourable member would be well advised to just turn a little to his right or look back over his left shoulder and speak to the health ministers

who are contained within his caucus, because they made some decisions. He speaks about North York. North York Branson hospital and Northwestern hospital are but two examples of 20 in the province of Ontario where emergency rooms once existed and

do no longer as a result of actions that were taken by that government.

We are, as I said in my earlier answer, a government that's working hard to increase capacity: some 2,000 additional acute care beds, as one example, coming online. I say again to my honourable friend -- he

stands in this place and he talks about spending more money. We have invested, this year, 650 million additional dollars in the operation of our hospitals. He promises to cut $2.5 billion from health care. In his third shot at this, perhaps the

honourable member will reconcile these two very big challenges. How much additional resource would the honourable member put on offer for Ontario's hospitals? How much, sir?

Mr. Tory: It's fascinating how the minister somehow pretends that he has not been the Minister of Health for three full years now, with full responsibility and full ability to address every

one of these problems that we talk about; every single one. Every single one --

Interjections.

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

Mr. Tory: Day after day, we have this routine that I think even one of the government newsletters that follows the Parliament here described as a tiresome routine.

It gets worse that this. Mr. Katz, the same person who wrote about his wife --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The Minister of Economic Development and Trade: I won't warn you again.

Mr. Tory: Mr. Katz, the man who wrote the e-mail to the Premier and copied me and whose wife was having the problems with her cancer, developed some eye problems. After being referred to an

ophthalmologist, he received notification of his appointment time to see an ophthalmologist: August 13, 2007. That's 10 months away; 294 more mornings that Mr. Katz will get up and pay the McGuinty health tax without getting the care that he

requires. Mr. McGuinty's ad says, "The doctor will see you now," not 10 months from now. The Liberal platform said, "You deserve more than misleading TV advertisements paid for with your health care dollars." That's on page 4 of

chapter 4. We

agree.

Will the Premier agree that the ads should be withdrawn and that they should get on with doing something about these situations in the emergency rooms and doctor shortages.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member started to say at the beginning of his question that every single one of those issues could be addressed within the three-year time frame that he

quoted, but the honourable member is sorely mistaken. He misunderstands how long it takes to produce a doctor. That's why we wonder why he sat on his hands, so quiet in the backrooms, all those years while Ontario's physician supply was squandered

by the inaction of that party. Why was he silent then?

This is an important question. To Mr. Katz I can say that, while we have not managed in three years to produce the sufficiency of doctors, that they caused a challenge, with respect to ophthalmology, we took

off the spending caps. That means that that ophthalmologist is no longer closing their office on Thursday at noon, which was the circumstance under that party. Instead, we're paying them to see patients: 420,000 additional Ontarians with access to

a family physician as a result of the work that we've done with Ontario doctors, through the agreement with the Ontario Medical Association.

I say one more time to the honourable member, who has on the record a commitment to cut health care spending by $2.5 billion: How do you reconcile that commitment with all --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

VETERANS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: Gord Moore is the provincial president of the Royal Canadian Legion, Ontario command. He was here today to present a poppy to the

Lieutenant Governor in preparation for Remembrance Day, but he's also here on another mission on behalf of Ontario's aging veterans who fought for Canada, but now many of them are in long-term-care homes across Ontario. He's in the gallery and

he's here to fight for you to keep your government's promise of an ombudsman for long-term care. Seniors and their families need an independent voice, an ombudsman, to speak out for them when the long-term-care system lets them down.

Premier, will you keep your government's promise to Ontario's veterans like Gord Moore, who fought for this country and are now fighting for dignity for seniors in our long-term-care homes?

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

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's my privilege today to welcome the members from the Legion. We're also appreciative of the work that they

do, and I've appreciated the opportunity of working with them.

We do have some disagreement with respect to the nomenclature. While I did commit to them to have an office associated with our bill, I said very directly at that time that I would not characterize it as an

ombudsman; the decision had not been taken. What we believe strenuously and what we've built into this legislation is the idea of a very quick response on any matter where an individual indicates to us that service is not at a level that is

appropriate. From there, through that 1-800 action line, is a very prompt response where the situation is triaged and where compliance officers are very directly sent to the scene. We believe that aligning our resources there rather than in

retrospect is the most appropriate way to preserve what, for all of us, is the important protection for those who are vulnerable in long-term-care homes.

We're looking forward to ongoing debate related to this legislation, to spending time at committee, and I want to thank everybody for their interest in this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Hampton: These members of the Legion are not mistaken. They attended a meeting in your office on March 7, 2005, where you made the commitment that Ontario's long-term-care health system

would have an ombudsman. Many government MPPs -- Dave Levac, Kevin Flynn -- wrote letters in support of the ombudsman. When your parliamentary assistant, Ms. Smith, called these officers of the Legion on October 6 to try to finesse your

government's position away from an ombudsman, they were very clear: An ombudsman was promised, and you have failed to deliver.

My question is this: When are you going to keep the promise that was very specifically made to these Legion officers: that Ontario's long-term-care system would have an ombudsman -- not a 1-800 number, not an

adviser; an ombudsman?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'll note from the honourable member's question that the facts that he asserts are not facts that he was in a position to assert. There is a difference of opinion around

this, no doubt, but at the heart of it we agree fundamentally with the necessity of having a resource which is there and able to promptly respond to circumstances. I've already outlined that we've done it. In fact, we've built, over the last two

years, our long-term-care system response on that basis. The 1-800 action line -- the phone number is readily available in all long-term-care homes. To date, about 10,000 people have taken advantage of it. This has resulted in 2,500 compliance

investigations.

The point is, we think that what is essential is that, at the first sign of neglect or care that is not of an adequate standard, all of the people in long-term care, whether they be residents, visiting family

or whether they be health care providers themselves, be involved as sentinels in helping to make all of us aware of any circumstance that might not be appropriate. What I promise is that we have already created the capacity to respond promptly and

to hold those long-term-care homes accountable.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, there is no mistake on the part of these leaders of the Ontario Legion. They say very clearly in their press release, "At a meeting in March 2005, the minister asked the

Legion to be patient and wait for this legislation to be introduced. He indicated that his government would have a solution and create an ombudsman to oversee long-term-care homes and investigate complaints of care." You didn't talk about an

adviser; you didn't talk about a 1-800 number.

Minister, these Legion members are not going to go away. They see too many cases where incontinent veterans are left in diapers for long periods of time. They see too many cases where veterans have died

prematurely as a result of not receiving the care that they need and they deserve. Their website cites this poem by Rudyard Kipling: "By little towns, in a far land, we sleep, / and trust those things we won / to you to keep."

My question is this: Will you keep your promise --

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

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I say, with all due respect to the honourable member, that our government -- all of the members of this place, of course -- has a tremendous degree of respect for all of

those who live in long-term-care homes, and no greater respect is known by any of us to any party greater than to those who have served our country in this fashion. That's why we think it's incumbent to make a long-term-care system which is

immediately responsive to any raised concerns, not an ombudsman who can look in retrospect -- six, eight, 10 or 12 months later -- but rather a compliance resource which is lithe and is able to respond in a timely way.

We have placed this burden of responsibility on everybody. We have embedded in this legislation, if passed, whistle-blower protection that encourages the capacity on the part of all those sentinels inside

long-term care to pick up the phone to raise concerns, with the assurance already in place of a system to respond very --

The Speaker: Thank you.

New question.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: I think it's pretty clear that the McGuinty government yet again intends to break trust. Last week, when I spoke up for the people of

Pikangikum First Nation, citizens of this province were being denied safe, clean drinking water, people who have no access to basic water and sewage systems, forcing most residents to use decrepit wooden outhouses and carry their drinking water to

their homes by pail, instead of taking action, your government, the McGuinty government, did what it always does: pointed fingers, looked for excuses and tried to find someone else to blame. The reality is that none of that -- pointing fingers,

making excuses or trying to find someone else to blame -- will help the people of Pikangikum First Nation.

My question is this: What is it going to take before the McGuinty government says that what is happening in Pikangikum is wrong and does something to help these first citizens of Ontario get clean, safe

drinking water?

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

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): We had this discussion last week. If the member wants to continue this dialogue and this debate,

that's fine, because the finger rightfully has to be pointed towards the federal government. The proof of that, sir, is that I have been to that community twice, and never have the chief or the council or the elders, whom I've met with twice in

their community, brought up the water situation. They discussed with me and engaged with our government on economic development initiatives; we're funding those and proud to do so. But they know that it's the federal government that is responsible

for their water situation. They don't bring it up with us or with me, personally; they bring it up with the federal government. You and I should be working together and with the federal government and say, "Do your job on the First Nation

communities of northern Ontario."

Mr. Hampton: You go there as the Minister of Natural Resources and they talk to you about natural resource issues. They wrote specifically to the Minister of Health and pointed out that this

was a very serious issue. There is an epidemic of bad water in Ontario First Nations communities. One of the problems in Pikangikum is that homes are not connected to the water treatment plant. Unlike the McGuinty government, former Ontario

governments did something. They made funding available so that homes could actually be hooked up to the water treatment plant, so people wouldn't have to carry their water in dirty old pails and wouldn't have to worry about pollution.

Do these First Nations have to come to Queen's Park and show you, once again, sick children and seniors before you do something? Or will the McGuinty government act now to bring clean, safe drinking water to

Pikangikum and other First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I also go to those communities as their advocate, as the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs in the province of Ontario, and we discuss a range of issues that they

want me to advocate for on their behalf to different agencies and ministries of this government and other governments. They know that the water situation is fully a responsibility of the federal government. They don't ask me to take that over; in

fact, the grand chief hasn't asked me to take that over. They want the federal government to live up to its responsibilities to take care of drinking water on First Nation communities right across this country. The McGuinty government also wants

that.

I am meeting with the minister in Ottawa this week to bring up this very issue again. We've been corresponding on it. I've met with him before and I'm going to meet with him again this week, because the

federal government has to live up to that responsibility. That's what the First Nation communities of this country also want.

Mr. Hampton: The McGuinty government tries to hide behind jurisdiction. In January 1992, the Ontario government of the day made available $48 million to hook up First Nation homes to their

water treatment plant. Following that, in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002, more money was made available by provincial governments in this province to hook First Nations up to water treatment plants so that people wouldn't have to drink

unsafe drinking water.

The chief wrote specifically to your government asking for help. The health unit has pointed out the problem. Are you going to help this First Nation, or is the McGuinty government going to watch seniors and

children get sick and say, "Oh, it's all a matter of jurisdiction"? What are you going to do?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I'm working on behalf of this First Nation community and other First Nation communities right across northern Ontario by going to Ottawa and making sure that the federal

government has their feet to the fire, that they live up to the responsibilities they're neglecting right now. They can no longer neglect this responsibility. They have to ensure that there's safe, clean drinking water on First Nation communities

right across this province. I'm going to visit Jim Prentice this week and insist that they live up to this responsibility. We're finding that communities right across the north now no longer have the infrastructure support for safe drinking water

in their communities. They've got to invest in that. That's what First Nation communities also want: They want the federal government to live up to their responsibility. We're going to fight on behalf of First Nation communities to make sure the

federal government lives up to that responsibility.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. During the 2003 election campaign, the Premier promised to bring in a new system of audits for doctor billings in the

province. In April 2004, Justice Peter Cory was appointed to review the audit system, and then in April 2005, he reported with 118 recommendations as to how this audit system could be improved. The Minister of Health at the time promised swift

implementation, and said that he wasn't going to sit on the report. He may not be sitting on it, but it could well be occupied now holding his door open, because we're here 18 months later and there's still nothing.

The whole world -- business, the non-profit sector -- is moving in the direction of greater accountability and transparency, but here we have less accountability. The government's moving in the opposite

direction. Premier, when can we expect a response to this report?

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

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Our government stands alongside Ontario's doctors. We believe fundamentally that they're honest and that they're

reliable in the work they do.

This House, on a unanimous basis, passed a piece of legislation to hold us for the time period until the Cory report is implemented. That may have preceded your time here, I say respectfully. It was a

unanimous consent motion that was negotiated with your party's deputy leader and with the House leader of the third party. That remains true. So it is inappropriate, as was alluded to in the

article by the Toronto Star, to suggest that there is no

accountability there for resources. Indeed, the OPP continues to have opportunities to utilize their fraud inspection capabilities; there's no alteration there. But with respect, the process that we --

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

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: More in my supplementary opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tory: Justice Cory, of course, felt in his report that his recommendations were needed to guard the public interest, in the sense that many other measures are in place to do that. Dr.

Yamashiro of the OMA

section on pediatrics said that the reforms are needed, and Dr. Dindar, a neurologist and member of Ontario Doctors for Fair Audits, said that they were expecting the audit system this fall, and fall is rapidly passing us

by.

Justice Cory put forward 118 recommendations in what was a very clear, comprehensive report. I don't know if that was inadequate or whether there's a problem with the report, but we have it in hand now, and

notwithstanding whatever arrangements are in place temporarily, I think the need for a permanent solution is at hand, 18 months later. When will we see a comprehensive response?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'm pleased to inform the member and other members in the House that a larger bill will be presented this fall that will include the necessary amendments to bring to life

the recommendations of Justice Cory.

I want to say to the honourable member that his comment with respect to "118" does make rather clear that this is a very substantially complex matter. We have sought -- and some might say that we have erred

too much on the side of caution -- to be incredibly mindful of the necessity of our ongoing relationship with Ontario's doctors and with the Ontario Medical Association. I can assure you on this issue that the emotional response within the

physician community is an extraordinary one.

Perhaps I could just quote one more doctor in closing. That was Dr. Samir Gupta, who wrote in today's Toronto Star, "I applaud the health minister for taking the appropriate and well-deserved time to reinvent

a medical audit system that is just, transparent and humane." On that note, I can assure all members of the House that that's what's coming forward.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, Ontarians know that your so-called assessment freeze means that two years from now, they're likely to

be whacked with several years of property tax increases all at once. Seniors on fixed incomes simply can't afford to be hit with years of increases in one shot.

Today, we've released our proposed ideas to fix the system. You have a copy; you've even told me you like it. But you're the government. What are you going to do to fix Ontario's broken property tax system

today, not a year after the next election?

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): My friend from Beaches-East York got two out of three right. He got it right that I have the report; he got

it right that I've read the report. Where he slipped a little bit is when he said I liked the report.

I want to have a serious moment to congratulate my friend for the work that he put into this report. I've had an opportunity to read it, and my folks have. I understand why, on the surface, the recommendations

in the report would seem to be attractive. I want to simply say to my friend that he is wrong when he suggests that, at the end of the assessment freeze, we will see increasing property taxes. That is just not the case. The freeze on assessments

was put into place in order to implement recommendations made by the Ombudsman. When that freeze is lifted, we will see a new cycle of assessments, but there's no relation between that and higher property taxes.

Mr. Prue: With the greatest of respect, the Ombudsman has only two outstanding issues left of his 22 issues. You've already adopted 20 of them. The two of them will not take 18 months to

study. They should not take even 18 minutes to study.

I repeat: We've put forward some of our ideas to ensure that Ontarians are no longer forced to give up their homes because they can't afford endless double-digit property tax increases. But you haven't

answered my question. My question to you is: When are you going to take direct action on this? We're not content that you take that action after the next election. You are the government now. What are you going to do to fix Ontario's broken

property tax system today?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I simply want to remind my friend that he is a member of a party that was in government for five years and didn't address one single iota of political energy to a tax system

which was entirely broken. But I want to say to him, in addition, just in order to get it straight and on the record, that the Ombudsman put forward 22 recommendations. Those recommendations are now being implemented by the Municipal Property

Assessment Corp. The freeze is in place so that the corporation can actually bring about the changes in the process of assessing so that when the freeze is lifted, we'll have an assessment system that is much fairer and much more transparent to

the property owners of the people of this province.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, I am still in disbelief that the members of the NDP and the Conservative caucuses voted against

clean, safe drinking water for all Ontarians when they voted against the implementation of the Clean Water Act last week. A vote against the Clean Water Act is a vote against clean water.

The members of the Conservative caucus sure have short memories. Have they forgotten about the seven people who died in Walkerton five years ago because of the contamination of the municipal drinking water

system? Have they forgotten about the hundreds of people in Walkerton who are still sick from the effects of drinking contaminated water?

In 2002, the Walkerton inquiry made numerous recommendations as to how to protect Ontario's drinking water. The former Conservative government, led by Ernie Eves, pledged to the citizens of Ontario that they

would implement Justice O'Connor's recommendations. Minister, do you have any idea why the Conservative caucus --

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I want to thank the member for Huron-Bruce and her entire community, who has advocated on behalf of delivering clean, safe drinking water

to the people across our province, that community having learned from the tragedy in Walkerton.

I, too, was extremely disappointed last week to see partisan politics put ahead of the people of Ontario, to see the opposition parties turn their backs on people like Bruce Davidson, vice-chair of the

Concerned Walkerton Citizens, who said: "The ongoing challenges to the province's drinking water problems demand a comprehensive approach. The introduction of the Clean Water Act represents a crucial first step in the holistic stewardship of

Ontario's drinking water for generations to come."

I'm proud to be part of a government that is meeting each and every one of Justice O'Connor's recommendations. We will not turn our backs on the people of any community, much less the people of Walkerton, and

I'm ashamed of the opposition for doing that.

Mrs. Mitchell: I represent a rural riding, and I'm shocked by how the members of the Conservative caucus misrepresent the hard-working families of rural Ontario by aligning themselves with the

Ontario Landowners Association.

At the Clean Water Act hearings, Mr. Randy Hillier said, "When there is contempt and disdain by government to the people, there is only one consequence of that: It builds hatred, and from hatred in society

there is a far worse" --

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: She clearly used a word that is unparliamentary. I ask you to have her withdraw.

The Speaker: The member may wish to reconsider that word. Withdraw?

Mrs. Mitchell: I would withdraw.

Mr. Hillier's comments do not reflect those of rural Ontarians. Yet the Conservative caucus continues to stand arm in arm with the association since the members of the Conservative caucus are too busy making

deals with Randy Hillier and congratulating the members of the Ontario Landowners Association for the founding convention in the Legislature.

I just want to quote the MPP from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, on February 27, 2006: "They obviously hadn't had a chance to learn the truth about the Clean Water Act." Minister --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Ms. Broten: I would say to the opposition members that I guess it's difficult to appreciate who you have taken sides with and who you have set yourself to. That was a direct quote that

was stated by Mr. Randy Hillier at the hearings.

Perhaps we should take a look at others who are supporting the Clean Water Act. Here's a version of an editorial out of Ontario Farmer. Ron Bonnett says: "It is gratifying to see the provincial government

respond positively to proposals put forth by the farming community on issues such as the Clean Water Act. It is proof" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I need to be able to hear the minister respond.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Health Promotion, I won't warn you again.

Minister?

Hon. Ms. Broten: I know that the members opposite might not care what farmers have to say in this province, but I can tell you that before the introduction of the Clean Water Act, we were

consulting with members from rural communities right across the province.

Let me be absolutely clear: We do not expect rural communities and rural Ontarians to shoulder the burden of source protection measures on their own. That's why we put in place a stewardship fund in the Clean

Water Act; that's why this province is paying $120 million for the science of water protection; that's why we have an initial down payment of $7 million to move forward with early implementation; that's why we're working hand in hand with leaders

in the agricultural and farming communities across the province; and that's how we'll --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question.

RESPITE CARE

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): To the Minister of Health: Against the backdrop of your taxpayer-paid propaganda campaign claiming waiting rooms are empty and wait-lists are dwindling, Mrs. Rosa

Tavares of Richmond Hill wants to know why respite care for her husband has been cut off. It was cut off when they moved from Mississauga to York region.

Mr. Tavares is paralyzed from the waist down. He is in the terminal stages of MS. His wife, Rosa, is the only caregiver. York region CCAC claims there is no funding for respite care and that she would have to

go to the March of Dimes. The March of Dimes tells her that there are 35 people on the waiting list ahead of them and that it could be six months to a year before care is available through them.

Minister, I'd like to know from you, is six months to a year acceptable for the Tavareses to wait for respite care, and if not, what is your advice to Mrs. Tavares?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to compliment the honourable member on his new habit of bringing forward questions without a sufficiency

of information to be able to address them appropriately.

Like always, I will be happy to take this up with the honourable member or through his staff, if they send that along to my office, to investigate the circumstances and to do our very best in the circumstances

for the individuals whom he raises.

I would say to the honourable member two further things. Number one is that we have very significantly increased resourcing for community care access centres, acknowledging that in a population like ours,

which is aging, there are many, many challenges and opportunities to do more. And on that point, it will be very interesting to find out from the honourable member how his party would intend to do more, seeing as they're proposing to cut health

care by $2.5 billion.

Mr. Klees: I will pass the information on to the minister, if a page would come and get it, please.

Minister, please listen to Mrs. Tavares. Here's what she has to say:

"I am desperate and at my wits' end trying to work full-time as the sole means of support for my family and severely disabled husband.

"My family and I did not move to Afghanistan. We moved from Mississauga, Ontario, to Richmond Hill, Ontario. My husband, paralyzed from the waist down, still needs the same level of care despite the

30-kilometre move.

"It is difficult to understand that people from one single province can be treated so vastly different from one region to another."

Minister, do you agree that Mr. Tavares's respite care should not have been cut off, and will you undertake to ensure that that care is reinstated for him and for his family?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I will undertake, as I already have, to look at the matter and to do our very best in the circumstances for the individual whom the honourable member brings the question

around. It would be inappropriate for me to make a clinical decision as I stand here in the Ontario Legislature. That is not my responsibility. All across health care are deployed more than 250,000 individuals, most of them far better and more

appropriately tasked to deal with that matter.

What's left undealt with is the honourable member's inability or unwillingness to rationalize these two things: the desire on the one hand, here in the House today, to see health care spending increase, and

the commitment that his party has on the record and that they're proud of and that they beat their chests around -- a $2.5-billion cut to health care.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a question to the Premier. I too, sir, want to ask you about the Cory report, now in your possession for some 18 months.

Dr. Anthony Hsu of Welland took his own life after struggling with the MRC's draconian process. Before he died, Dr. Hsu led the struggle in this province to make the provincial government establish a fair

system, and his widow, Irene Hsu, continues that fight to this very day.

Premier, can you tell us today, can you assure us, that the legislation that was spoken of by your minister a few minutes ago will contain all of the Cory recommendations?

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

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I can tell the honourable member that it was a very emotional circumstance in addressing the MRC process and the

specific case that the member brought forward. That's why we decided that the most appropriate way to go forward, recognizing that it's an emotional issue and that it's dealing with a lot of public resources, was to ask an esteemed former Supreme

Court justice to do a hard bit of work for us. He has done that and he has given us the recommendations. We're working on bringing those forward in legislation that will come this fall, and I can tell the honourable member that we're seeking to do

so on all points, in keeping with the Cory report.

Just a further point on that: On one or two occasions, we've actually gone back to Mr. Cory and asked him to try to assist us in moving forward in a fashion that is entirely consistent with the report that he

brought forward. This is most certainly our intent.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, Cory called the MRC system "debilitating -- and in some cases devastating."

You promised to act on his report, but now doctors are saying that your government is delaying implementation and trying to water down the Cory recommendations.

Dr. David Bach, president of the Ontario Medical Association, says that it would be "foolhardy" to question Judge Cory's conclusions. He said, "Let there be no question -- our members are very alert to this

issue and our members remember very well the inquisition-like atmosphere that existed before."

Please assure this chamber here and now that the Cory recommendations will be enacted in their entirety in the legislation that you propose to put forward.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I believe, in my earlier answer, I said just that. It is our intention to move forward with legislation that builds very deliberately upon the recommendations presented to

us by Mr. Cory; there is no doubt about that.

I would say that in the Toronto Star piece from Saturday, there were different doctors' voices. We defer at all times to the head of the Ontario Medical Association, but if we read that story, we will see that

different voices from within the Ontario Medical Association have come forward.

On point, we have responded to the situation by getting rid of the MRC; by staying all prosecutions, if you will, that were under way, related to the MRC.

I offer this assurance to Ontario's doctors: Having moved forward in a fashion to eliminate the MRC, it is not our intention to recreate it. We'll be moving forward in a fashion that is consistent with the

Cory report, and we continue to rely on Mr. Cory for advice related to the appropriate way to do just that.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, last week I had the opportunity to be part of an exciting announcement in Sault Ste. Marie that

will see our city's largest employer, Algoma Steel, invest $135 million to build a 70-megawatt cogeneration plant. In addition, this project will create 200 new construction jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating 400 tonnes of

nitrous oxide. The Conservatives and the NDP did nothing to support this type of initiative. Our government's decision to offer incentives for cogeneration is great news for Algoma Steel and other businesses across Ontario.

Along with this project, six other cogeneration projects have recently been announced. Minister, how will these projects help to ensure electricity system reliability in Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): I'd like to thank the member for his question but more importantly for his outstanding work in making sure that this happened in Sault Ste. Marie.

Projects like that are proof that this government, the McGuinty government, is doing things much differently than they used to be done on the energy file.

This was one of the most complex and involved electricity procurements in the province's history.

We're looking at all angles in the energy sector when it comes to planning for the future: generation, transmission, conservation, and energy efficiency.

We directed the OPA to build 1,000 megawatts of new-generation demand-management projects, including high-efficiency combined heat and power projects, because we saw an opportunity to help industry cut their

electricity and their heating bills in one fell swoop.

The seven projects represent a capital investment of $800 million in local communities and 414 megawatts of clean, clean power.

Mr. Orazietti: I'm glad to hear that there'll be more opportunities for industry to participate in the coming months.

Algoma Steel has been pursuing a cogeneration project for well over a decade, but a report they released in 1995, after five years of NDP inaction, said that the economics didn't work. There's a surprise.

Paul Finley, ASI's vice-president of business, commenting on the new strategy, said, "The long-term purchase agreement makes the economics of the project work.... It amounts to a guaranteed return on ...

investment and eliminates" much "potential financial risk."

There are also organizations who are interested in the development of smaller cogeneration projects. Minister, what are we doing to help smaller cogeneration projects materialize in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: The first combined heat and power RFP did see a good range of successful projects. The smallest project was a 2.3-megawatt district energy project in Oshawa, the largest being

a 236-megawatt project in Thorold that the Minister of Tourism helped out with a lot as well.

As I said, there will be more opportunities for industries and companies to take

part in a second combined heat and power RFP later this year. However, for smaller projects that feel the RFP process isn't the

route to go, they can make a bid to the Ontario Power Authority to work on a clean energy standard offer program, which will appeal to those smaller projects that will have great community appeal.

The important point is that one government, in 15 years, has moved for cleaner, greener energy. That's the McGuinty Liberal government. We're undoing mismanagement by the NDP and Conservative --

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

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Attorney General. Can you please confirm in this House a media report that you've been working behind the scenes to reinstate the

Ontario Law Reform Commission?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): I can tell this House that, in the opening of the courts ceremony last January in a speech open to the public, attended by many members of the public

and reported on at the time, Ontario announced that it was going to be pursuing steps to bring back the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which had been taken away by the previous government.

Mrs. Elliott: I can tell you that no one in the PC caucus, in any event, heard about the Attorney General's plan until it was reported this morning in the Toronto Star. I find it very

disappointing that the Attorney General, who claims to have transparency and access to justice as an important part of his mandate, has decided to announce this really important change to our justice system a year later, without anything other

than this media news report. These are the types of decisions that should be the subject of debate among members and the subject of consultation with the public. The fact that members were left in the dark as the media were informed of this

decision and announcement is, quite frankly, irresponsible. At this point, all we have is very little information from this news report about how the commission is going to work and how it's going to be funded.

Mr. Attorney General, why did you decide to inform the media before you made an announcement to this Legislature? And why have you not allowed for the public consultation that you say is so important?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I promise I will get the member a copy of that speech. I will send it over to her and any of her constituents who are interested in the resurrection of a law reform

commission.

The member may know that it was the previous government, the Harris-Eves government, that in fact got rid of the law reform commission. The member may also be aware that the federal Minister of Finance, with

which the member may have some familiarity, also got rid of the federal law commission. We understand that you're on the side of getting rid of an independent voice that will provide for the kind of analysis and prescription that will raise access

to justice. You are against that. We on this side of the House support that. That's why we, in fact, are attempting to bring back a law reform commission that will be ideologically indestructible, such that should the member opposite ever get the

chance to try and get rid of it, she won't be able to.

NUCLEAR WASTE

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Later today, I'll be giving a deputation to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on Ontario's

misguided proposal to build a deep geological nuclear waste dump at the Bruce nuclear power plant. The proposed site is less than one kilometre from the shores of Lake Huron. It puts at risk the water quality of the entire Lake Huron region and

makes a mockery of source water protection. Yet, despite the clear threats that your nuclear waste dump poses to the environment and the quality of water in Lake Huron, there is no environmental assessment under Ontario's Environmental Assessment

Act.

Minister, will you stand up for the environment, will you stand up for the Great Lakes and will you order an individual environmental assessment under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act? Will you do

that?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): The member opposite surely knows that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is responsible for oversight and safety with respect to the

nuclear power industry in Canada. The CNSC is responsible for issuing appropriate licences before any work would commence. As a result, the CNSC has set out conditions and scope of any EA required before the work would proceed.

But be absolutely clear, and I want the members across Ontario to understand, that our government would be part of any environmental assessment taking place, to ensure the health and well-being of Ontarians,

because unlike the member opposite, we want to ensure we're delivering clean, safe drinking water. That's why we've supported the Clean Water Act. That's why we're moving forward with a plan for electricity that is clean, green, doubles

renewables, doubles conservation and holds the line on nuclear. That's our plan for the future of the province. What's yours?

Mr. Tabuns: The environmental threat posed by this nuclear waste dump is now of concern on the other side of the border. Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak from Michigan has written to the

nuclear safety commission expressing his concern about the risk and asking that alternatives to this radioactive dump be investigated. An Ontario environmental assessment would look at those alternatives, Minister. You've refused to accept

responsibility for this dump. Unlike other provinces, you've not applied our own Environmental Assessment Act, which is far more rigorous than the federal process. Your government is obsessed with generating nuclear waste. Why aren't you, as

Minister of the Environment, taking action to ensure that a full Ontario environmental assessment is put in place to assess this proposal?

Hon. Ms. Broten: As the member opposite knows, the responsibility for the storage of nuclear waste lies with the federal government and under CNSC responsibility. Our responsibility, and my

responsibility as Minister of the Environment, is to ensure that all steps taken in this province are done in a manner that ensures the health and well-being of all Ontarians.

Our government has a comprehensive plan to tackle climate change, to ensure clean air, to move forward on many fronts to ensure that we deliver a safe, clean, green, healthy future. We take that responsibility

very seriously. We're moving forward to ensure that we generate electricity in a clean, green fashion and that we also protect drinking water in a way that has never been done before. Those who are experts in drinking water indicate Ontario was at

the top of the class before and now we are in a class of our own. I'm proud of the success that we've had with respect to drinking water.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough-Rouge River): My question today is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, Ontario has become the great province that it is today thanks to

the many contributions of newcomers from all over the world. Ontario has a long tradition of welcoming immigrants. In return, newcomers have long contributed to the province's prosperity and cultural richness in numerous ways.

As you know, Ontario received over 140,000 newcomers last year. Many have chosen to settle in my riding. They come with global expertise and a desire to contribute to Ontario's society. I understand that Bill

124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, passed second reading on Thursday, October 19. Minister, can you elaborate on why this legislation is of great importance to Ontarians?

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thanks to the member of Scarborough-Rouge River for the question. Bill 124 is the bill that basically recognizes the fact that

Ontario can no longer afford to allow the barriers that exist for many foreign-trained professionals who are highly qualified and who want to practise their profession as a doctor, engineer, pharmacist. Right now, the status quo is not welcoming

enough. The regulatory bodies are not open enough to change and giving opportunities. With this bill, we're going to work with regulatory bodies, appoint a fairness commissioner and make it under regulatory compulsion that the rules of application

and licensing have to be fair, applicant-friendly and accountable and transparent, because right now we're losing out on too many talented people because of the restrictions and the old, archaic, bureaucratic system which is no longer acceptable

in modern Ontario.

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): By way of supplementary to the same minister: The previous Tory government's track record in assisting newcomers was nothing less than abyssal.

Last week, to our shock, we learned of a Tory nomination candidate in Brampton West implying that voters born in Canada would or should be reluctant to support elected representatives who happen to be

immigrants. I'm glad, and I'm sure newcomers across Ontario are glad, that the McGuinty government is going in exactly the opposite direction.

In addition to the $130-million investment in support services for newcomers, can the minister advise how this new legislation proposes to help newcomers?

Hon. Mr. Colle: I'd like to thank the member from Scarborough Centre. The key thing here is that we're telling regulatory bodies, we're telling employers, and we're telling government agencies

in Ontario not to look at where the person was born, not to look at the person's religion or the person's accent, but to look at what the qualifications of the person are, to look at the ability of the person. Those are the things we're trying to

achieve by letting people understand that we must look beyond the appearance of a person and look at their global experience, as you mentioned, the international experience. Don't just give an excuse that that person is not qualified because they

don't have Canadian experience. Look at the person's international experience.

In other words, the old ways of closing doors is hurting our economy, it's hurting our society, it's hurting hundreds of thousands of newcomers every year. That's why we're saying to just look at the person's

ability, look at the person's willingness to work. Don't just pigeonhole people according to where they came from, look at what they can do. That's what Bill 124 does.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity

that they deserve; and

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

sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to increase operating

funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million," as promised by the McGuinty election platform, "which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over the next two years...."

I'm pleased to sign and endorse this, and present it to Chad on behalf of my constituents.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions that have been signed by residents in Shelburne and Orangeville and sent to me by SEIU Local 1. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly dealing with access to trades and professions in Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GASOLINE PRICES

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

"Whereas gasoline prices have continued to increase at alarming rates in recent months" -- and I can't imagine what the 1.5-million barrel decrease in OPEC's decision is going to do to those prices.

"Whereas the high and unstable gas prices across Ontario have caused confusion and unfair hardship to Ontario's drivers while also impacting the Ontario economy in key sectors such as tourism and

transportation; and

"Whereas the member from Superior North and the member from Essex, as well as the current ministers from St. Catharines, Eglinton-Lawrence and Sudbury have introduced legislation to freeze gas prices;

"Therefore

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

"That the government of Ontario consider an immediate temporary gas price freeze and fair and transparent gasoline pricing by supporting the previous members' bills while international gas prices stabilize" --

Bill 10, Bill 18, Bill 80, Bill 32 and Bill 16.

I affix my signature in full support.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed my signature to this petition as well.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I gladly sign the petition and give it to page Sarah.

HIGHWAY 26

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

"Whereas the redevelopment of Highway 26 was approved by MPP Jim Wilson and the previous PC government in 1999; and

"Whereas a number of horrific fatalities and accidents have occurred on the old stretch of Highway 26; and

"Whereas the redevelopment of Highway 26 is critical to economic development and job creation in Simcoe-Grey;

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

"That the Liberal government stop the delay of the Highway 26 redevelopment and act immediately to ensure that the project is finished on schedule, to improve safety for area residents and provide economic

development opportunities and job creation in Simcoe-Grey."

Obviously, I agree with the petition and have signed it. Thank you.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Here are petitions that have been signed by residents of Southampton and Port Elgin that have been sent to me by SEIU. They read as follows:

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition signed by a number of residents from mainly the city of Toronto that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to establishing measures that will break down barriers for Ontario newcomers; and

"Whereas these measures will ensure that the 34 regulatory professions in Ontario have admissions and application practices that are fair, clear and open; and

"Whereas these measures will include the establishment of a fairness commissioner and an access centre for internationally trained individuals; and

"Whereas, through providing a fair and equitable system, newcomers will be able to apply their global experience, which will not only be beneficial to their long-term career goals but also to the Ontario

economy as a whole;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That all members of the House support the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, Bill 124, and work to ensure its prompt passage in the Ontario Legislature."

I agree with the petition and am pleased to affix my signature to it.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition regarding Hydro One line maintenance.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Hydro One Networks Inc. provides hydro to many communities in the region of Parry Sound-Muskoka; and

"Whereas there have recently been several lengthy power outages in this region affecting both private residences, schools and businesses; and

"Whereas rural customers pay ... the highest distribution and delivery charges for electricity;

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

"That the Minister of Energy and the Ontario Energy Board require Hydro One Networks Inc. to make improvements in line maintenance and forestry management in the region of Parry Sound-Muskoka to ensure

reliable energy for its customers."

I support this petition.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's my pleasure to read a petition given to me earlier this afternoon at the home of Mr. Haroon Khan in Mississauga. I bring greetings of "Eid Mubarak" to

him and to his many friends and family. It reads as follows:

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

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIGHWAY FUNDING

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

"Whereas the federal government collects over $5.2 billion annually in tax revenues from the sale of gasoline products; and

"Whereas the federal government, in addition, collects over $1.8 billion annually in GST revenue from the sale of gasoline products; and

"Whereas the previous federal Liberal government refused to commit additional funding for assisting road infrastructure in the province of Ontario;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to" continue working "with the new federal Conservative government in achieving" a further

expansion of the "federal-provincial program to assist in further development of Ontario's interprovincial roads such as the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 401."

I affix my signature in support.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge):

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

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll affix my signature to this and send it off with page Norah.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The time for petitions has expired.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Administrator of Ontario has been pleased to assent to certain bills

in his office.

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 14,

An Act to promote access to justice by amending or repealing various Acts and by enacting the Legislation Act, 2006 / Projet de loi 14, Loi visant à promouvoir l'accès à la justice en

modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois et en édictant la Loi de 2006 sur la législation.

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.

Bill 51,

An Act to amend the Planning Act and the Conservation Land Act and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 51, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la

Loi sur

les terres protégées et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario / Projet de loi 89, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la

famille et la

Loi sur les coroners pour mieux protéger les enfants de l'Ontario.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG-TERM CARE HOMES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES FOYERS DE SOINS

DE LONGUE DURÉE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 17, 2006, on the motion for second reading of Bill 140,

An Act respecting long-term care homes / Projet de loi 140, Loi concernant les foyers de soins de longue

durée.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The Chair recognizes the member for Nickel Belt.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to continue the debate.

Before I start, I'm just going to note that there are some folks in the gallery with us right now and others who will join us. They are: from SEIU, Service Employees International Union, Cathy Carroll,

secretary treasurer, Local 1.on, John Van Beek, Rabia Sayed, Winston Smith, Matt Galatis and Charlie Renaud; and from the Ontario Nurses' Association, Lawrence Walter and Shalom Schachter. I thank them for being here today.

When I last left off, I was in the process of talking about a resolution that was before this House on November 7, 2002, in the name of Mrs. McLeod, who was the former Liberal leader. I think the reason the

resolution was before this House was because of the very shocking results of a study that had been done in 2001 by PricewaterhouseCoopers that showed that Ontario long-term-care residents were receiving the lowest standards of hands-on care in

relation to a number of other jurisdictions that PricewaterhouseCoopers had studied.

Indeed, Mrs. McLeod came forward on that day and said, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Ernie Eves government should immediately establish minimum standards of care for nursing homes and homes for the

aged, including the reintroduction of minimum hours of nursing care and the requirement for a minimum of at least one bath a week." It's worth noting that this came because there had been a minimum standard of 2.25 hours of hands-on care per

resident per day under the New Democratic Party government that was cancelled by the Conservatives in 1996. There also had been a requirement around baths per week that was also cancelled by the Conservatives. I think it was as a result of these

things being cancelled that the standard of care for residents dropped so badly, and that was so clearly evident in the PricewaterhouseCoopers studies.

So Mrs. McLeod came forward with this resolution. She had the following to say: "I've chosen to use the opportunity to present this particular resolution because of a growing personal sense of outrage I have

at the Harris-Eves government's, in my view, deliberate abandonment of our most vulnerable seniors."

She went on to say, "The minister says," -- that was the Conservative Minister of Health at the time -- "`We don't want numerical standards, because if you have a numerical standard, a minimum becomes a

maximum.' A minimum only becomes a maximum if the funding body, the government, only funds to the level of minimum care. If they provide more dollars, more care can be given; you don't get held to the minimums. But at least you need some basics,

some basics for which this government can be held accountable."

Well, I agreed with Mrs. McLeod then about holding that government accountable, and I agree that we should be holding this Liberal government accountable for the election promise that it made with respect to

minimum standards of care, which of course, as I said the last time and I'll repeat again right now, was to reinstate the minimum 2.25 hours of hands-on nursing care that had been cancelled under the Conservatives.

Who else had something to say, though, that morning? There were a number of other Liberals here, and they're in this present assembly. Here's the member for Hamilton Mountain, now the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs and minister responsible for democratic renewal, who participated in the debate. She said, "I'm pleased to rise and support my colleague's resolution for minimum hours of nursing care and the requirement for a minimum of

at least one bath per week. It's almost a shame that we need to make this resolution, that we've come to this in Ontario in 2002, isn't it?

Well, she's absolutely right. It sure is a shame that it has come to this in 2006; that in a piece of legislation affecting long-term care, the government did not come forward with the specific promise it made

during the election of 2003 to reinstate those minimum standards of care that had been done away with by the Conservatives.

Here's the member from Sarnia-Lambton, now the Minister of Culture. This is what she had to say, "I find that, in this day and age, to actually have to be in this House to ask for a resolution to establish

minimum standards, is almost as if we're returning to the Dark Ages when it comes to our long-term-care standards....

"Again, cutting minimum hours of standards for nursing care means that there is no accountability mechanism, so they don't have to answer as to why these hours are not being provided." I agreed with the member

then and I agree with her now. It is like we've returned to the Dark Ages, when we have a Liberal government bill before us that does not reinstate minimum standards of hands-on care per resident per day. That is like returning to the Dark Ages. I

thought the Liberals learned something in 2001 with the PricewaterhouseCoopers study, but I guess they haven't.

Let me quote another participant in the debate: the member from Kingston and the Islands. He's now the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In his particular comments he did reference the

PricewaterhouseCoopers study, just like I did during that debate. He referenced that study, and he said the following:

"That's really what this is all about. Even with the government's new investment on the operating side, for which I applaud them, we will still rank dead last. The decision we have to make in this province is,

with the generally high standard of living we have, where we're rated one of the best countries in the world and we are the best province in the best country in the world, do we really think, in terms of the way we take care of our seniors, that

it's good enough to rank dead last when it comes to nursing services and personal care services we provide for our seniors in the homes? That's what it's all about."

Mr. Gerretsen was absolutely right then, and that is absolutely the matter before us right now, because why is it, after a study has clearly demonstrated that Ontario seniors rank dead last in terms of the

hands-on care they were receiving, this government in this legislation does not keep its election promise to reinstate minimum standards? We haven't moved forward at all in that regard.

But it wasn't just some of the Liberal members and PricewaterhouseCoopers who had something to say about minimum standards. I want to reference now a report that was made public in April 2005 by a coroner's

jury here in Ontario. That coroner's jury investigated the very tragic deaths of two residents at the hand of another resident in a long-term-care home in this province. The home was called Casa Verde Health Centre here in Toronto. These two

tragic deaths occurred on June 9, 2001. The jury began the inquest at the end of January 2005. They reviewed 85 exhibits. They heard from 43 witnesses over nine days of deliberation. They made 85 recommendations for change in this report, and

those changes involved the Ministry of Health, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, the Office of the Chief Coroner, the College of Physicians and Surgeons etc.

I want to highlight three important recommendations among the many important recommendations that were made by the coroner's jury. Three bear repeating here today in light of this discussion of the lack of

minimum standards in this bill.

Recommendation number 28 from the coroner's jury: "That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care retain PricewaterhouseCoopers or a similar consultant to update the January 2001 report of the study to review

levels of service and responses to need in a sample of Ontario long-term-care facilities and selected comparators, and to have an evidence-based study of the present situation determine the appropriate levels of staffing for Ontario long-term-care

facilities, given the significant number of Ontario residents with cognitive impairment and complex care needs in all long-term-care facilities. This would include determining the appropriate amount of direct registered nursing care that is

required, the indirect registered nursing care and the total hours per resident per day of all overall nursing and personal care services on average." That was recommendation 28.

Recommendation 29 by the coroner's jury: "That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in the interim, pending the evidence-based study, should fund and set standards requiring long-term-care facilities to

increase staffing levels to, on average, no less than 0.59 registered nursing hours per resident per day and 3.06 per resident per day overall nursing and personal care for the average Ontario case mix measure. The funding formula for the nursing

and personal care envelope must be immediately adjusted to reflect this minimum standard."

Again, in recommendation 30 by the coroner's jury: "That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, once the updated evidence-based study is received, should set out standards based on this information for all

Ontario long-term-care facilities to ensure that Ontario long-term-care facility residents are given appropriate nursing and other staff hours. At a minimum, the staff hours must be comparable to all other similar jurisdictions and are sufficient

to meet the needs of present and future Ontario long-term-care facility residents."

You would think that after the PricewaterhouseCoopers result, you would think that after the coroner's jury recommendations, you would think that after the specific promise made by the Ontario Liberal Party in

the election of 2003 that a reinstatement of minimum standards -- indeed, a reinstatement of those standards to 3.06 hours of hands-on care per resident per day -- would have found its way into this long-term care legislation. But it didn't.

That's why this legislation is so aptly named by us as the "No minimum standards for seniors act," because that is the reality. There are no minimum standards for seniors with respect to hands-on care now, there haven't been for 10 years, and the

government fails in this legislation to live up to the promise that it made to reinstate some standards.

What are the consequences? I think one of the consequences is that the situation now is either the same as it was in 2001 or worse -- worse -- for residents in long-term-care homes in this province.

The Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors put out a release, March 9, 2006, that said the following: "Residents now receive just over two hours of nursing and personal care over a

24-hour period. OANHSS believes that this level is unacceptable and should be closer to at least three hours." Don't forget that OANHSS operates about 26,000 long-term-care beds in the province of Ontario, so they know what's happening in

long-term care.

They also said the following: "More personal support workers are needed. Currently, these front-line staff each care for about 10 residents, and they are stretched to the limit trying to meet residents' basic

needs."

Point number three: "Homes are not able to provide anywhere near the level of rehabilitation and restorative care that residents need."

Point number four: "Only a small fraction of residents currently receive professional mental health services, even though 65 per cent have Alzheimer disease or some other form of dementia."

That, from one of the advocate organizations in the sector that is responsible for about 26,000 homes, is the standard of care in the province now. That's less than what it was in 1995, when there was a

standard in place under the NDP.

That's probably why ONA, for example -- the Ontario Nurses' Association -- put out a release on October 3 with respect to the government's "No minimum standards for seniors act" and said the following: "The

Ontario Nurses' Association ... says new legislation for long-term-care facilities is missing key elements that are essential to safer long-term-care environments: minimum staffing standards, improved working conditions and adequate transparency

and accountability regarding how public funds are being spent.

"`Many of the residents in long-term care are in need of complex nursing care,' says ONA President Linda Haslam-Stroud. `Some facilities have just one registered nurse responsible for the care of 200 or more

residents, and not enough staff to provide this care. These residents require the broader skill set that registered nurses bring, and without legislating minimum staffing requirements, care is not going to improve.'"

She ended by saying, "Legislating minimum staffing standards would also improve working conditions in nursing homes."

The SEIU, which also represents a number of workers in long-term-care homes across the province, has done some really excellent work over the past number of weeks comparing the number of hands-on-care hours

that are being received in a number of homes where their workers are represented. I just want to read into the record some of those homes that they focused on and the level of care hours, because you will see that the overwhelming majority of

those residents are receiving less hands-on-care hours now than they would have in 1995, over 11 years ago. Something is wrong with this picture.

At Extendicare in Peterborough, residents received 2.48 hours of hands-on care; Grace Villa in Hamilton, 2.20 hours of hands-on care per day; Blenheim Community Village, retirement residenc