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

April 3, 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-Apr-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 3 April 2006 Lundi 3 avril 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BY-ELECTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

HOCKEY

ON YOUR MARK TUTORING PROGRAM

AMBULANCE SERVICES

HIGHWAY 407

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ONTARIO BUDGET

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RENT BANK PROGRAM

COMMUNITIES IN ACTION FUND /

FONDS COLLECTIVITÉS ACTIVES

RENT BANK PROGRAM

COMMUNITIES IN ACTION FUND

RENT BANK PROGRAM

WEARING OF PINS AND RIBBONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

HYDRO ONE

LONG-TERM CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

TOURISM

HEALTH PREMIUMS

AUTISM TREATMENT

ENERGY RATES

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

COLLÈGE BORÉAL

SMOKING CESSATION PROGRAMS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

VISITORS

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

PETITIONS

ORGAN DONATION

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

LANDFILL

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

LONG-TERM CARE

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

MEMBERS' EXPENSES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT

(STUDENT PERFORMANCE), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

(RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BY-ELECTIONS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I stand to congratulate each citizen who put their name forward in the recent by-elections in Whitby-Ajax,

Nepean-Carleton and Toronto-Danforth. In fact this House, I'm sure, congratulates the three successful candidates: Christine Elliott, PC member for Whitby-Ajax; Lisa MacLeod, PC member for

Nepean-Carleton; and of course Peter Tabuns, NDP for the Toronto-Danforth riding.

Clearly this is springtime in Ontario, and indeed it's the beginning of a rather cool fall and winter for the current government. Yes, the people of Ontario are

looking for new beginnings, and that can easily be seen in the fact that the Liberal government was shut out in the recent by-elections held last Thursday.

Ontarians have sent a clear message to Dalton McGuinty's government: The people of Ontario are tired of paying more and getting less; they are tired of the

growing McGuinty bureaucracy; they are tired of the broken promises; they are tired of a government without a plan to reduce wait times at hospitals, stop the loss of Ontario jobs and halt gridlock

on our roads, and the list goes on.

But our party's success in the by-elections is not just a mid-term verdict on the McGuinty government; it is also a reflection of the quality of the candidates

who are now joining the John Tory team. I'm proud to say that with the election of Christine Elliott and Lisa MacLeod, the Progressive Conservatives have almost doubled the number of women in our

caucus. They offer integrity --

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

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): The 2006 budget is good news for London. The budget is getting a positive response in London. The president

of the London Chamber of Commerce is quoted as saying, "We're getting a fairly good chunk of change ourselves." London city hall's director of roads is excited about the significant increase in

funding for roads and bridges.

In addition to more money for roads and bridges, the budget includes funding to expand the facilities at the London Health Sciences Centre and St. Joseph's

Health Care to increase the number of patient beds at both hospitals. There is also funding for the announced investment of $1.2 million to increase the number of family residency positions by 47%

at Western's Schulich School of Medicine.

There are also several province-wide initiatives that will benefit my constituents in London, including school boards getting more money -- $424 million more --

in 2006-07, an increase in social assistance allowances by an additional 2%, and 14,000 additional child care spaces funded under Best Start.

The investments being made by our government are welcome changes after years of cuts to health care and education by the previous government. The 2006 budget is

good news for my constituents of London-Fanshawe. I am proud to be part of a government that has been focused on making Ontario a stronger province by investing in infrastructure, health care and

education.

HOCKEY

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): Last Friday, I had the pleasure of watching the Owen Sound Attack beat the Kitchener Rangers in game

five of the Ontario Hockey League western conference quarterfinal. The Attack now moves into the semi-finals of this conference, and all hockey fans, including myself, couldn't be more proud and

excited.

The credit goes to a hard-working team of young men who have helped bring more and more fans to the Harry Lumley Bayshore Community Centre. We are also grateful

to the current owners of the Attack: area business people who rallied together when the threat of losing the former Platers franchise occurred in March 2000. The new owners include Brian Johnson,

Bob Severs, Frank Coulter, Peter and Paul MacDermid and Faye Harshman.

The team, coached by Mike Stothers and managed by Michael Futa, includes Neil Conway, Andrej Sekera, Trevor Koverko, Jeff Moor, Scott Giles, Colin Hanley, Bobby

Ryan, Igor Gongalsky, Derek Brochu, Scott Tregunna, Jeff Kyrzakos, Zach McCullough, Joshua Bailey, Marcus Carroll, Bob Sanguinetti, Marek Bartanus, Theo Peckham, Mike Angelidis, Michael Ouzas, Josh

Catto, Matthew Kang, Miles Cope, Payton Liske and Russ Brownell.

As we move into the next round, we will be playing either Guelph or London, and we fully expect to defeat them like we beat the Kitchener Rangers.

Of course, a team is nothing without its fans, and kudos go to Helen Lewis, the Attack Pak Fan Club president, who, joined by many volunteers, works tirelessly

arranging buses for road games, team functions with fans and many other events.

Nothing builds community spirit better than cheering for a winning team, and I'm pleased to be part of that success story.

ON YOUR MARK TUTORING PROGRAM

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Today I would like to recognize the On Your Mark tutoring program for children of Portuguese-Canadian

descent. It's a program that runs out of the Working Women Community Centre in Toronto.

This program is a partnership with the Portuguese Coalition for Better Education and the Portuguese Interagency Network. The tutoring/mentoring program is set up

to reach at-risk Portuguese students in public and Catholic schools. By "at risk" we mean students who, in the early grades -- primary division -- lag behind in literacy and numeracy standards for

their grades, and students at crucial points in high school -- at the transition years and toward the end -- to prevent dropping out and encourage the pursuit of post-secondary education.

Parents note that the greatest improvement in their children is self-esteem in their academic abilities since participating in the program. In most cases,

children more regularly complete homework, and their grades improve.

On Your Mark has successfully engaged 352 students from 27 schools across the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board. There

is currently a list of 31 students waiting to be matched with tutors. If you or someone you know is interested in volunteering a minimum of one hour a week to help make a difference in a child's

future, please contact project coordinator Sonya Neves at the Working Women Community Centre at 416-532-2824.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): In February, Premier McGuinty announced that our government would spend $300 million over the next three

years to achieve a 50-50 cost sharing with municipalities for land ambulance services. He indicated that our government would increase annual funding for such services to $280 million this year,

$333 million in 2007 and $285 million in 2008.

Responsibilities for land ambulances were downloaded to municipalities under the previous government with a never-fulfilled promise of splitting the costs. Since

then, regions like Peel have invested millions of dollars trying to put more ambulances on the road and reduce emergency response times. In 2005, the region of Peel invested $3.2 million in 16 new

paramedics and three new ambulances, attempting to improve response times to emergencies. The region of Peel invested resources to add service hours, train more advance-care paramedics and bring on

new equipment. We know that for heart attacks and other serious emergencies, every minute counts. That's why I'm delighted that the region of Peel will receive over $5 million as part of our

government's plan to strengthen cost sharing with municipalities for land ambulance services. This funding will allow the region of Peel to address such issues as population growth and rising

labour costs while continuing to improve services and decrease response times.

Our government is working with municipalities to narrow the gap and is committed to helping municipalities provide quality ambulance services.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Members know that on Friday beleaguered Liberal Transportation Minister Harinder Takhar and the McGuinty

government finally threw in the towel in the ongoing battle with the 407 ETR. After seven straight court losses, the McGuinty government realized that their win-loss record closely resembled that

of the Washington Generals, the perennial punching bag of the Harlem Globetrotters.

The fact of the matter is that Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal MPPs intentionally made a promise they knew they could not and would not keep. Folks know that the

407 contract had not only been obtained by the Liberals through a freedom of information request while in opposition, but the contract had also been fully in the public realm before Dalton made his

promise to roll back tolls.

Let's face it. In order to get votes, Dalton looked into the camera and made a promise that he knew he could not and would not keep. Instead of admitting this

from day one, Dalton chose instead --

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the standing orders -- I read from page 18,

section 23 -- "In debate, a member

shall be called to order ... if he or she....

"Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member."

I find it highly improper that these motivations are being used.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): On the same point of order?

Mr. Bisson: On the same point of order: I agree with the whip of the Liberal Party but it was -- never mind.

The Speaker: The member for Erie-Lincoln.

Mr. Hudak: Instead of admitting this, Dalton chose to engage in a very expensive legal battle for one purpose and one purpose only: to try to

save face. The problem is, after two and a half years in the courts, the taxpayer is about $2 million to $5 million worse off.

What makes matter worse is that by losing seven consecutive court cases, the government had next to nothing to offer in negotiations and the result is worse

today than if it had begun the process from day one. The Liberals hid behind expensive lawyers for two years instead of admitting they made a promise they knew full well they weren't going to

keep.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to commend the Ministers of Finance and Transportation for the timely inclusion in the recent

budget of $32 million for transportation infrastructure in Ottawa. Through the initiative Move Ontario our government is putting a total of $1.2 billion into transportation, roads and bridges, a

portion of which will be spent in our nation's capital.

As Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli said, "Ottawa needs to maintain and expand its key infrastructure to meet its expected growth -- whether that's roads, transit,

housing, water, or arts and culture. For this reason, I'm pleased that Ottawa will receive $32 million for transportation infrastructure from the province" in this budget. "This unexpected and

much-needed funding will serve to enhance road safety, reduce traffic gridlock and help beautify our streets."

This new money is coupled with the government's previous commitment to modification improvements on the Queensway, as well as a $200-million investment in the

north-south light rail transit that we call the O-Train.

In addition to this, in this particular budget three major cultural projects received provincial support as well. I haven't got the time today to elaborate on

these, but I'll take another day to explain this to viewers, especially from Ottawa, who will be so pleased to know about what has happened as a result of this budget in terms of what it means to

Ottawa.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): One of the biggest problems in getting around Toronto and commuting is gridlock, which costs the Toronto region

over $2 billion annually. Gridlock produces lost time and wasted fuel, and it certainly harms the environment. In order to deal with this gridlock, the McGuinty government has budgeted $1.2 billion

in new infrastructure, spending much of it on the GTA.

Our Minister of Finance has said, "These investments are the beginning of a new era in public transit." He's right. After decades of inaction, we finally have a

firm commitment to build the most important project which will lessen GTA gridlock; that is, the subway extension to York University. The subway will carry 100,000 riders, eliminate 83,000 car

trips and take pressure off the over-packed Yonge Street line. It will become a critical transportation link between downtown and the 905, and will create a new transportation hub in Vaughan.

The residents of my riding of Davenport are delighted, since this subway will directly affect their ability to attend classes at York University and to see their

relatives along the route to Vaughan. Since the Mississauga and Brampton transit lines will also see improvements, the incentives to leave their cars at home will be even stronger. This is a

win-win project, and I congratulate the McGuinty government on its foresight.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): It's with great honour that I rise in the House today to share some good news with my colleagues, particularly

my good friend the member from Leeds-Grenville, who has shown a great interest in my riding of Northumberland. Our recent budget has been so well received in the riding of Northumberland that I

want to share with you the reaction of some of the mayors from Northumberland.

Mayor Hector Macmillan from Trent Hills describes the funds to be received in this budget as "terrific." I quote Mayor Peter Delanty of the town of Cobourg in

the Northumberland News as saying: "This provincial budget appears to have taken the plight of cash-strapped municipalities seriously." It then goes on to say, "Certainly, it's the first in a very

long time that he has listened to a budget that reflects the province's reaching out to help municipalities: `I tip my hat to the province.'" The mayor of Quinte West is quoted in the Trentonian as

stating that the infrastructure funding is "welcome news." In the Brighton Independent, Mayor Bill Finlay of Alnwick/Haldimand states, "The funds are needed, and we do appreciate it."

I could go on and on with the thanks and praise that I've personally received from the mayors of my riding of Northumberland in response to the recent

budget.

So to you, my good friend the member from Leeds-Grenville, I thank you for showing interest in my constituents in the riding of Northumberland.

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that on March 31, 2006, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the

Lieutenant Governor was pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 82,

An Act to authorize the expenditure of certain amounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006 / Projet de loi 82, Loi autorisant l'utilisation

de certaines sommes pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 2006.

Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act / Projet de loi 85, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'évaluation foncière.

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, April 3, 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 in favour will say "aye."

All 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: Order. Members please take their seats.

Mr. Bradley moved government notice of motion number 88. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Racco, Mario G.

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Murdoch, Bill

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 9.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

RENT BANK PROGRAM

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The strength of Ontario depends on the strength of our communities. Our

government is committed to strong and safe communities. We are aware that affordable and secure housing is fundamental to the vitality of our communities. During the past two years, our government

has worked with municipalities in a new spirit of co-operation to give them the tools to develop housing solutions that are responsive to the needs of their individual local communities.

With that in mind, I'm pleased to inform members of the House today that our government has allocated the sum of $4 million to our provincial rent bank

program. This amount has been divided among the rent banks operated by all of our 47 municipal service managers in Ontario.

As members will recall, our government began the provincial rent bank program two years ago with a funding commitment of $10 million. That amount represented a

tenfold increase in funding for rent banks in Ontario. At the time, about half of Ontario's municipal service managers had rent banks in their jurisdictions. After the creation of our program, rent

banks were established by all 47 municipal service managers in this province.

Since then, our provincial rent bank program has helped literally thousands of low-income households with short-term arrears to keep their homes. Short-term

arrears are often the most common reasons why low-income tenants lose their housing and are forced into shelters. The provincial rent bank program helps to ensure housing stability for those who

face eviction due to short-term arrears caused by an emergency or some other unforeseen circumstance.

Under our program, tenants with lower incomes may apply to their local rent bank through their municipality to receive financial assistance to address

short-term emergency rent arrears. If a tenant's application to the rent bank is approved, the outstanding rent is paid directly to the landlord on behalf of the tenant. Rent bank funding can be

used to cover up the two months' rent arrears.

The results of this program have been excellent. To date, in less than two years, a total of 4,177 households in municipalities across Ontario have received

assistance from our provincial rent bank program. They have avoided eviction due to short-term rent arrears and they have been able to remain in their homes due to the existence of this program. It

is a program that has made a very real difference in the quality of life for many vulnerable families across the province. It is one more step in creating a caring and compassionate society of

which we all can be proud.

COMMUNITIES IN ACTION FUND /

FONDS COLLECTIVITÉS ACTIVES

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): Our government is committed to providing all Ontarians with access to sport and recreation

activities regardless of their age, ability or income. The communities in action fund, or CIAF, grants are a part of our Active 2010 strategy, which aims to increase the level of physical activity

amongst Ontarians so that by the year 2010, when Canada welcomes the world through the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, 55% of Ontarians are going to be physically active enough to benefit their

health. It's estimated that physical inactivity costs our health care system billions.

Part of the CIAF mandate is to support at-risk youth and to support them where it matters most -- in their own home communities. We are working to keep kids

safe and ensure that positive options are available after school. This year's $5 million fund, which was part of Minister Duncan's budget, aims to increase the level of physical activity and sport

participation rates in Ontario by assisting both local and provincial not-for-profit organizations to create and enhance opportunities for physical activity and community sport and recreation.

Monsieur le Président, pendant la période de subventions 2005-2006, nous avons attribué un total de 5,8 $ millions à plus de 150 organismes

à but non lucratif provinciaux et locaux.

In North Bay, for instance -- and I thank the member for North Bay, Ms. Smith, who is a very active promoter of CIAF -- a CIAF grant allowed the North Bay

Canoe Club to introduce 565 children and youth to war canoeing. In Ottawa, a CIAF grant assisted with the development and delivery of recreational programs for four community houses in southeast

Ottawa. The initiative has allowed 620 low-income children, youth and adults to gain access to 12 new recreation programs. A CIAF grant has enabled the Kapuskasing Indian Friendship Centre to

create new fitness programming and also to enhance existing programs through the purchase of new fitness equipment for aboriginal elders and seniors in the Kapuskasing area. This project also helps

to provide recreation for youth and younger adults, and will help to reduce obesity and diabetes rates in this First Nations community.

Dans la région du nord de l'Ontario, la proportion de financement par habitant est 10 fois plus élevée que dans les autres régions. En

fait, la région du nord de l'Ontario a reçu 44 des 145 subventions régionales du FCA pour 2005-2006.

I should point out a big thank you to the northern Ontario caucus, who have been very insistent that the north get its fair share of grants. I'm pleased to see

that 44 of the 145 regional grants for the communities in action fund went to the north, and I thank those members of provincial Parliament.

Last December, I met with several grant recipient organizations at the Metro-Central YMCA, including the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario, the Toronto Dragon

Boats, and Native Children and Family Services of Toronto. In Mississauga, the Erinoak Children's Treatment Centre is developing sport and physical activity programs for up to 300 children and

youth with disabilities in the Halton and Peel regions. In partnership with a wheelchair sports association and the Paralympics association, Erinoak has established an ongoing group for 10

participants and three volunteers to develop wheelchair sports skills. Last week, I attended the KidSport Funzone event, which is funded by a CIAF grant and provided an opportunity for 500 youth in

the Cabbagetown area to test their skills at eight different sport activities. This KidSport Funzone actually travels the province, so I would encourage members to look into this to try to get it

to a school in their riding.

Notre investissement dans ces organismes aide ces derniers à offrir des programmes d'activités sportives essentielles aux gens défavorisés

ainsi qu'à diverses collectivités. Nous voulons garantir que les enfants ontariens puissent disposer d'endroits où ils peuvent jouer, apprendre et faire de l'exercice en toute

sécurité.

I'd like to commend the not-for-profit organizations for their dedication, for the countless hours they put into designing programs, and particularly for the

hundreds of volunteers they recruit and for the key role they play in breaking down barriers to healthy, active living.

We must continue our commitment to working alongside these organizations through programs like the communities in action fund. I am pleased to announce that

the McGuinty government has committed to a third year of this great program, and to inform all members that new applications are now being accepted and there are additional groups that are now

eligible for funding. So I'd ask members to look at those packages that we sent around last week, including conservation authorities and colleges and universities.

Our investment in community organizations like the CIAF will enable the Ontario government to achieve our goal of building a healthy Ontario for healthy

Ontarians.

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

RENT BANK PROGRAM

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm responding to the announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I want to say that it does follow the

mantra of the present Liberal government: "Pay more, get less." I want to point out that since this program was started two years ago, the cost of hydro has gone up almost 25%. The cost of property

taxation on rental units has gone up three times as fast as it has on residential, single-family dwellings. Of course, all the people who are eligible for this program are the same people who have

to pay the McGuinty health tax. For that, what we see in this announcement is that it was a $10-million, two-year program and it's now going to be a $4-million, one-year program, which is I think

20% less, as I figured it out. So it definitely is "Pay more, get less."

When the program was introduced, there was a recommendation that went from the staff at the largest partner in this program, the city of Toronto, that the

provincial rent bank program, beyond 2006 -- that any future funding allocation take into consideration the greater need for such assistance in communities where there is a larger tenant

population, and that the cap on administrative funding be increased to collect the actual cost. That's not what the minister does in this announcement. He reduces it by 20%, as opposed to taking

those things into consideration.

I also quickly wanted to point out -- and it's not necessarily part of the program the minister announced -- that I met with the people of the Co-operative

Housing Association, who had great concern about these same people that this program looks after: people living in co-op housing who find themselves unable to meet the requirements of paying full

rent. But because of the legislation and the Social Housing Reform Act, they cannot change them to a rent-geared-to-income unit within the same complex. So they have to move out of their

community.

I would point out that in this program, those same people are not eligible for this funding, and I think it's very important that the minister take a look at

that. The minister did promise to do a review of the act to look after the shortcomings that the act presently has. But so far, in the past two years, he hasn't seen fit to do it, though he did

announce it to the people who were involved with it, and they were looking forward to the minister moving on that fairly soon so we could look at people in co-op housing and they could move from

one type of unit to the other without having to leave their community.

The other thing I just wanted to point out is that the announcement the minister made refers to seniors, but if we look at the criteria of the program, it

excludes a lot of people. In fact, it is only for people who are working and earning remuneration. The two that I think are really important that are not covered, and one wonders why not, are

people on social assistance, who cannot avail themselves of this program, which seems kind of strange -- because of the level of social assistance, I would think that they would be among the first

to need funding for that -- and it doesn't apply to people who live in subsidized housing. I'm sure that subsidized housing is based on the amount of income they have. So it is every bit as

probable that people with subsidized housing have as great a difficulty paying their rent as people paying full rent. So I would suggest that the minister look at that and make sure all people can

avail themselves of this program.

COMMUNITIES IN ACTION FUND

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I'd like to respond to the minister for Liberal promotion. We have yet another announcement by the

minister who calls himself the Minister of Health Promotion. This ministry continues to do the work of other agencies that were created before it was in place. We have now a partisan Liberal

government ministry handing out money piecemeal to many non-profit recreational groups across the province. Before this minister was involved in this very, very partisan exercise we had the

Trillium Foundation, which handed out money to non-partisan, community-based-decision organizations.

This ministry's charade, as it announces piecemeal grants on a very partisan basis, on a Liberal government basis, to put the best foot forward that it

possibly can in a failing government, is a charade and it should be stopped. The administration is a useless cost that could be transferred into real action.

RENT BANK PROGRAM

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I will be responding to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. He has spoken today about a rent

bank. He's spoken today about a $4-million allocation. What he has not spoken about is his government's failure to institute rent controls. What he has not talked about today is the very serious

issue of building affordable housing, and he has not talked about the 65,000 people on the waiting list in the city of Toronto alone who are looking for affordable housing, and there is none for

them.

I remember some three years ago in the lead-up to the election -- we all remember -- all of the promises that were being made. One of the promises I remember

most clearly and dearly in my heart was when the Premier, at that time the opposition leader, stood up and said, "A McGuinty government will pass a new Tenant Protection Act within one year of

coming to office."

In eager anticipation, we all waited as that year came and went. Then we were into year two and we started to ask, "When can we expect it this year?" But year

two came and went, and now year three is mostly gone. In fact, today is day 913, and you still haven't done what you were supposed to do by day 365. You are nearly 600 days in arrears. Can you

imagine if a tenant were 600 days in arrears? He or she wouldn't be in their apartment, but you sit there smugly on that side and announce that you have $4 million of allocation.

I have to tell you, we know what that means. It means almost nothing. The Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations in Toronto has documented growing evidence

of the number of people who are being evicted in this city. Evictions have gone up markedly under the McGuinty government because what you are doing is not sufficient for those people who are

renters.

I juxtapose the $4 million today with what I think has been a failure and why so many people are finding themselves in arrears. The minimum wage has gone up

only tiny bits at a time, so that a person on minimum wage today in the province of Ontario, working 40 hours a week, makes $14,000 a year. That's all they make. When average rents for a

one-bedroom apartment are closing in on $1,000, you know there's not much for anything else.

We know that the government has come down with a 3%, a 0% and a 2% rate for welfare and ODSP, and these people aren't even eligible. We know that --

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): They're not?

Mr. Prue: No, they're not even eligible. I'm going to get to that in a minute.

We know that with the clawback continuing to exist, the families who would have had $1,450, who have had it clawed back, can't use that for very important

things like the rent.

Now we have this $4 million, as if we're all supposed to stand here and applaud. I know some of your backbenchers did, but did your backbenchers know that most

of that $4 million is just topping up the $10-million fund because you've spent $4 million, which is out there in the system and which has yet to be repaid? All this is is topping up your bank;

it's nothing more than that. You're trying to keep your $10-million fund.

The wording is very strange. You're not talking about this being an expenditure, because it's not. You're not talking about it being new money, because it's

not. What it is is an allocation to top up the fund. This is hardly an announcement that you should be proud of.

You've helped 4,177 people. I think all Ontarians would be truly grateful that these people have been helped. I know I am, because 4,177 people are not on the

street. But it's clear that the reason you're topping it up is because they have not yet been able to afford to pay the money back. This is nothing more than a replenishing fund.

You promised to help the vulnerable due to unforeseen circumstances. But I have to tell you that the most vulnerable are not even eligible. ODSP recipients and

welfare recipients are not eligible and, in most communities, single employable people are not eligible. Who gets the money is some of the families, not even seniors, because you have to have a

job. You can't be on a pension, and that's according to your own government guidelines that you read out here two years ago.

What we need is a Tenant Protection Act. Today is day 913. You're nearly 600 days late. What we need as well is the building of affordable housing so that

people don't find themselves in these circumstances, so that 65,000 families are off the waiting lists in Toronto and 100,000 are off the waiting lists in Ontario. That's what we need, not

announcements --

The Speaker: Thank you.

WEARING OF PINS AND RIBBONS

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: April marks the beginning of Daffodil Month. The Canadian Cancer Society is doing

their fundraising campaign with more than 40,000 volunteers. To bring attention to this, I'm seeking unanimous consent to wear either the daffodil pin or the ribbon, or both, to commemorate

Daffodil Month for the Canadian Cancer Society.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member for Brant has asked for unanimous consent to wear either a daffodil pin or a ribbon

commemorating cancer month. Agreed? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Minister, could you please explain how on earth the

bureaucracy of your government has swelled by more than 7,200 employees since your party took power less than three years ago?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): To the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): Actually, in terms of the number of people in the Ontario public service, I think it's

up by about 1,800. I would just say to the public that at least 600 of them are jobs that were outside consulting jobs that we have brought back into the public service and have saved over $20

million. Two hundred of these people are health and safety inspectors, and I think about 100 of them are meat inspectors: all good investments of taxpayers' dollars to ensure that the health and

safety of the people of Ontario are protected. So we're saving money on repatriating jobs and we're protecting the safety of the public with both the health and safety inspectors and the meat

inspectors.

Mr. Runciman: The truth is, they're operating in true Liberal style, ballooning the bureaucracy, increasing taxes and spending dollars like

there's no tomorrow. Of course, after taxpayers get their say in 2007, there will be no tomorrow for Liberals.

The government phone book is thicker and heavier than it has ever been -- 100 pages thicker, to be exact -- and it has all happened under your watch. We knew

you were on a tax-and-spend spree, and now we know you're also on a hiring spree. Considering how your broken promises on basics such as affordable electricity and no tax hikes are helping drive

employers and highly skilled workers -- is this your substitute for a job creation policy: 7,200 new bureaucrats?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: You're just factually incorrect. Although that may not bother you, I think the public wants to know what the facts are:

1,800 new jobs, 600 of them consultants, on which you spent $25 million more than you should have. We brought them back inside the public service. Secondly, I repeat: We have brought 100 meat

inspectors back in.

He's counting up the people in the phone book, but we found a way to have more people listed in the phone book, not more jobs. Eighteen hundred more jobs, 600

of them consultants that you spent $25 million more than you should have to hire. We brought them back in at that savings. Two hundred health and safety inspectors are protecting our workers in the

field. We brought back in 100 meat inspectors that you had taken out of the public service, to ensure that the health and safety of the people of Ontario is protected. Those are good investments

for the taxpayers, including the $25 million we saved that you were wasting every single day.

Mr. Runciman: A lot of your backbenchers could hurt themselves lifting this.

Minister, according to your own records, this year your government has spent approximately $340 million more in ministry and bureaucratic salaries than it did

last year. That's money that could have been used for more police officers or for shortening waiting lists in the health care sector. Taxpayers are paying to satisfy your government's appetite for

more and more government, while we're getting less and less in return.

How can you justify an increase of roughly $340 million in big government salaries? How can you justify the significant increase in government bureaucrats? How

can you justify these big, big numbers in this big, big government that you're growing at the expense of taxpayers of the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: You're just making the numbers up again. I would say to the people of Ontario: 1,800 more jobs, 600 of them consultants on

whom you were spending $25 million a year more than you needed to spend.

You mentioned our police, security and probation and parole officers: Two hundred and thirty of that 1,800 are those people; 130 are people designed to fix the

challenges of getting our birth certificates out on time; 120 are for safe drinking water and nutrient management, a good investment; 200 are health and safety inspectors; and 100 are meat

inspectors. These are good investments for the people of Ontario.

I would say it takes a little bit of nerve, when you spent $25 million a year more than you should have to hire high-priced consultants when our talented

public service can save $25 million and do that job. That, I think, is a good investment of taxpayers' dollars.

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

Mr. Runciman: Again, to the Minister of Finance: In addition to your addiction to a larger and larger bureaucracy, we saw last week that you

and your government have also taken it upon yourselves to dramatically increase the size of everyone's bank account as well. Under the McGuinty Liberal watch, the number of people on the provincial

payroll making more than $100,000 has increased by a whopping 20% in just one year. The number of ministry staff making more than $100,000 is up a giant 17%, again, in just one year. Minister, how

can you justify such huge increases in such a very short period of time?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: To the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Again, I say to the public, recognize that for two years many of our senior people had their salaries frozen from the time

we came in; that is part of the reason. I would say also that you should recognize that there are fewer people making over $100,000 as a percentage of our workforce than in 2002, the last full year

that you had in office. As I say, many of these people are those who have had their salaries frozen for the last two years. They got a reasonable increase, roughly 4% to 5%, and that is what has

brought them over $100,000.

The last thing I would say is that the average salary paid to people making more than $100,000 has actually dropped slightly. So I would just say to the member

that in 2002, the last year you were fully in office, a larger percentage of the public service was actually making more than $100,000 than in the year we are seeing reported here.

Mr. Runciman: That's scary. We have a minister in a financial portfolio using that as justification, when they're putting more people onto the

$100,000 list and then saying, "The average dropped a little bit."

Minister, it doesn't take stats 101 to realize that your big fat government is getting richer and richer on the backs of ordinary Ontarians, with no results to

show for it. I point out to the minister that the average wage in Toronto, our richest city, is only $35,000 a year. Now what you've done here is boosted the $100,000 club by 20%. people truly

deserve to be making three times the average Toronto salary? Within the ministries alone, you've added more than 400 people to the $100,000 club. What results can you display for us here today that

would justify these huge increases? Stand up and justify them, Minister.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I would say that we are looking at peace and stability in our education system, and we're looking at smaller classes and

marks going up. In terms of health care, we're looking at shorter waiting lists. A dramatic number of our hospitals -- 140 hospitals, I think -- are now in with their plans for balancing their

budgets. We are making significant improvements in health care, education, the environment and our economy. Those are the results the province of Ontario is looking for, and those are the results

we're achieving. We're achieving them with a very dedicated public service, and I'm very proud of them.

Mr. Runciman: I hope the minister's writers are not in the $100,000 club, because they're not earning their salary.

Only the McGuinty Liberal government would allow a 50-cent TTC fare increase in one year and, at the same time, watch over a 41% increase in the number of TTC

employees making more than $100,000 a year. That's McGuinty Liberal results for you. Only the McGuinty Liberals would charge taxpayers almost $700 million for a subway that won't be built for years

and then sit back and watch while the fares go through the roof again. That's McGuinty results. This is the way the McGuinty government operates: You take more and more from Ontarians and deliver

less and less in return. That's a fact.

Minister, why is your fat and bloated government adding to the $100,000 club so rapidly and delivering so little in the way of results?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Again, I repeat to the public what I said earlier -- you have to deal with some facts here, I say to the official

opposition. Again, 1,800 additional people -- I've already enumerated for you where the bulk of them come from, including 600 consultants' jobs that were brought in-house at a saving of $25

million.

I would just say again that if you look at managing the finances, the Premier's chief of staff is paid 20% less than the former government's chief of staff;

the policy director, 14% less than the previous government's. We're not spending $300,000 a year on a communications consultant for the Ministry of Health. We are looking after the taxpayers'

dollar, making sure that every cent of it is accounted for, and finding ways to deliver quality service in the most cost-effective manner, including, I repeat to the public, $25 million a year for

outside consultants brought back in-house --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

HYDRO ONE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. In the last election, Dalton McGuinty promised people

across Ontario that he was going to freeze hydro rates, but in your first two years, the Premier told working families to bite the bullet and pay more for electricity. Very soon, the McGuinty

government is going to tell working families to bite the bullet again and face another double-digit increase in hydro rates.

My question is, when people are having a tough time paying the bills, how does the McGuinty government, the sole owner and shareholder of Hydro One, justify a

$500,000-a-year pay increase for Hydro One's boss?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I would like to thank the member for the question. The member is well aware that salary rates

for employees are actually made by the boards themselves and not by the government. Having said that, I think it's reasonable to have a conversation with those boards to understand fully how they

arrived at those salaries. I am sure that's exactly the same conversation that the leader of the third party had when he was in cabinet when the chairman of the board back in 1993 made $500,000 and

certainly spent a great deal on his travel and relaxation, vacations, cars and any number of things.

I'm quite prepared to have that conversation, and I will. I have made the calls to the various boards, and I will sit down with them around how they make their

salary determinations.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, I want to recite some of Mr. Parkinson's achievements over the last year. He managed to lock out Hydro One's engineers

at a time when the transmission system was under stress -- for three months they were locked out; he managed to drive up hydro rates; and he managed to get caught using the Hydro One helicopter for

personal joyrides to and from his cottage.

We believe Mr. Parkinson's pay package should be reviewed and reduced, so my direct question to you, Minister, is, are you prepared to order a review and

reduction, or does the McGuinty government stand behind Mr. Parkinson's outrageous $500,000-a-year pay increase?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I really do understand where the leader of the third party comes from. For example, I know that when he had that

particular Ontario Hydro CEO, he alone spent something like $1,000 just on a chauffeur when Clinton was there, for his inauguration. He had $94,000 worth of expenses. So I'm well aware of exactly

where he is coming from.

I indicated that I will sit down with the chairs and the boards who have the responsibility. I also would like to remind the member that in fact it was this

government who extended the salary disclosures to the electrical sector, because the previous government had a provision where they did not have to disclose. So I'm quite prepared to sit down and

have a conversation with the board who is charged with the responsibility of determining those salary remunerations. I indicated I will do it, and I will do it.

Mr. Hampton: Unlike the McGuinty government, I'm interested in more than just talk. When a certain Dalton McGuinty was over here, this is what

he used to say: He used to question the pay increases for Eleanor Clitheroe. He used to question, for example, the $172,000 for vacation pay or $175,000 for a car allowance. But apparently, now

that Dalton McGuinty is over there, these kinds of pay hikes are okay.

My question, again: Were you and Dalton McGuinty just insincere? Didn't you mean any of the things you said when you were over here? Or are you going to review

and reduce this outrageous $500,000-a-year pay increase when literally hundreds of thousands of Ontarians are having trouble paying their hydro bills?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: As I indicated, I'm well aware that the leader of the third party is concerned, because in fact he approved $94,000 worth

of expenses for Mr. Strong when he was CEO, for that car and the chauffeur and, I think, $58,000 in airline tickets. So I'm well aware of where he comes from.

I have indicated that I'm quite prepared to sit down with the board who's been charged with the responsibility and have that conversation with them. I don't

think there's any difficulty in ensuring that there is some transparency around the process. That's why we did open that up through legislation, so it wasn't hidden anymore. Because for so many

years it was hidden, and now it's open and transparent.

I repeat, I am quite prepared to sit down with the board. I will sit down with the board, and I will do it. When it comes to others within that sector, I would

like to remind the member that many of those salaries at the level above $100,000 that are reported are actually negotiated salaries that I'm sure he wouldn't want --

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

Mr. Hampton: To the Minister of Energy again: Minister, maybe you need another briefing, but we were always able to find out the salaries of

people at Hydro One and OPG because they had to file them with the Ontario Securities Commission. That's how Dalton McGuinty got the information, right? So you can blah blah blah about that all you

want.

The question is this: At a time, for example, when the McGuinty government says you don't have any money for poor kids, at a time when you say you have to

continue to claw back $1,500 a year from the poorest families in this province, how do you justify a $500,000-a-year pay increase for somebody who got caught using the government Hydro One

helicopter to fly back and forth to his cottage?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I'm quite prepared to sit and have the conversation. Actually, I believe Mr. Bob Rae is on that board of Hydro One. I'm

quite prepared to have the conversation as to how he made those determinations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: We did in fact enable that there would be full disclosure so that somebody didn't have to file for it, that in fact

anybody over the $100,000 salary in the electricity sector was automatically put on. So although the member would like to suggest that it's otherwise, the fact of the matter is, we made it far

easier for people to have full disclosure.

I think I have said this three times, but I'll repeat it again in case the member didn't quite understand it: I will sit down with the boards and chairs of the

various entities and agencies and have a conversation as to how their compensation committee actually came to the remuneration policies that they have in place.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, I'm not interested in your personal conversations; I'm interested in what the position is of the McGuinty

government.

Here's the reality: For the poorest kids in Ontario, they've had their incomes cut by over 40% over the last 10 years, and the McGuinty government is complicit

in that.

Meanwhile, this is what the McGuinty government has had for Mr. Parkinson: $780,000 a year in base pay, $702,000 in bonus pay, $129,630 a year in undisclosed

perks -- I guess maybe those are the golf memberships -- and a $125,000-a-year subsidy of his mortgage on his home.

Minister, when you have that kind of largesse for a Hydro One boss who hasn't been doing a very good job, who got caught using the company helicopter to take

him back and forth to his cottage, why don't you have just a little bit of money for the poorest kids in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: Although I have not been in this House long, trust me; I was around for the social contract, so don't talk to me about

what that member of the third party did for kids in this province, for the public employees in this province and for the teachers in this province.

The folks across the way like to take a lot of credit, but those things came out of your government, all of the problems that we've suffered in that education

sector. So don't go huffing and puffing to me about poor families; you wouldn't know one.

I'm telling you that in fact we will sit down with the boards, the chairs, and have that discussion. He's well aware that it's the same process that Maurice

Strong had for compensation when he was in government; there is no difference. We will do it exactly, we will make it transparent and we will talk about how they got to where they are.

Mr. Hampton: Except, Minister, I remember Dalton McGuinty over here, so holier-than-thou, so earnest in his denunciation of these kinds of pay

increases. Now what do we see under the McGuinty government? Huge pay increases for someone who was found literally using public equipment at the private trough. We see a Hydro One executive who

frankly is getting a gargantuan pay increase. Meanwhile, the McGuinty government says to the poorest kids in the province, "We're going to continue to take $1,500 a year out of your pockets."

Don't tell me about more of your personal conversations. I want to know this: How does the McGuinty government justify this shameful double standard --

outrageous pay and perk increases for the Hydro One executive, and broken promises and empty words for Ontario's poorest kids?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. When you think back over the number of years and the lack of policy, the lack of

generation, the lack of virtually anything when it came to electricity in this province -- no planning, no strategy, no generation, no transmission, 40% increases in rates, social contracts -- he

actually has the audacity to suggest that everything was wonderful under his regime and has not listened to what I have said. I am quite prepared to sit down and talk to the boards. The boards have

the responsibility, the same as they did under the third party or as they did under the previous government, with the salary compensation. They have a compensation committee. They have put it

together and they make good decisions. Based on that, I will have the discussion with the agencies and with the chairs. I have said it now five times. I am quite prepared to sit down and have those

conversations, and I have every intention of doing so.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Acting Premier. On September 16, 2003, your Premier said, "When it comes to

our seniors, we're not putting out some gimmick or bogus promise. We've got a genuine commitment.... It's all about improving ... home care and ... nursing home care." He promised $6,000 in

personal care for every resident in a long-term-care facility. You have now broken that promise, according to the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors and the Ontario

Long Term Care Association. When are you going to keep that promise?

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): Seniors are obviously crucial to this government and, I think, to all members of the

Legislature. I would just remind ourselves that since we did get elected in 2003, we have been making some very good progress. We have increased funding for staffing by $191 million. We've

increased funding for this upcoming fiscal year, the one that starts right now, by $155 million. We've increased funding for long-term-care beds by $340 million. We've given residents' councils

much greater say in long-term-care homes.

We have been making significant investments in this area. I've just outlined for you $191 million, $155 million and $340 million. So I guess the response to

the member of the official opposition is, we have been making significant progress with significant investments in this crucial area.

Mrs. Witmer: It is the residents, it is the family council members, it is the staff who are saying that there is an ever-increasing need for

additional financing. In fact, of the commitment you made -- $6,000 extra -- you've only provided $2,000. They need 20 minutes of additional care in order to meet these complex needs. Many of these

people have dementia. They are demanding that you provide more money in order that they can have 20 minutes of additional personal care time for each resident. I ask you today, are you prepared to

help these residents who need help getting up, shaving, toileting and getting to the dining room in order that they can have a quality of life and the dignity that they deserve? Or are these people

simply paying more, like everybody else, and getting less?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: You can say that, but it doesn't make it fact. The fact of the matter is that as a result of the $191 million I just talked

about, there are 2,000 more staff performing services for our valued seniors, including, I might say, 600 nurses. That's by March 31, 2006, which was just a few days ago. So we are making

investments and we are doing more with these investments.

Finally, I would just say to the public: Recognize that the party that's asking this question has committed to cutting $2.4 billion out of our health care

budget. It can't be done. You can't say, "Increase services. Do more for our seniors," and then cut $2.4 billion out. I must say, it's the same party that raised fees on long-term-care residents by

15% on Canada Day long weekend. We won't do that. We will value our seniors and make the necessary investments to ensure they have dignity and care in their age.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): To the Acting Premier: Your Minister of Education bragged in this House that funding for students with

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): Again, this is related. The agreement that my colleague Mr. Colle reached with the

think the member knows, put substantial additional resources into education. We do rely on the school boards to make sure that they provide the necessary services. We work co-operatively with the

school boards in the province of Ontario.

So there are two things I've talked about: substantial increased funding and the agreement that my colleague reached with the federal government on new

services for our newcomers. Both of those things, we hope, are providing those services. If they're not, my colleague -- who, by the way, is not here today because there's an illness in the family

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, typical of the leader of the third party.

He was scheduled to arrive here and left just a little while ago to go home to an illness in the family. Both of those things --

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

Mr. Marchese: Minister, I would say this: If the Minister of Education were not so distracted by his national aspirations, he would know, and

you would know, that 71% of Ontario's ESL students live within the GTA, yet half of these schools have no ESL teachers. In fact, People for Education reports that the number of students forced to

do without ESL teachers has increased since he became a minister.

I know that you don't want to hear it -- and many other people don't want to hear it, because the Tories did not have a great record on anything -- but

children with ESL needs were doing better under the Conservatives, and the charts by People for Education over the last seven, eight, nine years prove it. When will you fix the funding formula so

that these struggling children will get the support they need?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: It is an important area. Again, just so the public is aware of the facts in the case, since we came into office, we have

three.

It's an important area, and because it's important, we have made that 20% increase in funding since we took office less than three years ago. It's up by $64

made. Obviously, we'll continue to look at ways we can do it even better, but a 20% increase in funding is not insignificant. I think it will be very helpful in that program.

TOURISM

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): My question is directed to the Minister of Tourism. Minister, as you know, tourism is of vital importance to

Ontario and, in particular, to my riding of Niagara Falls. It is for this reason I've been following the US government's western hemisphere travel initiative quite closely. If it comes into effect,

this proposal would make it mandatory for any persons entering or re-entering the United States to carry a passport or, potentially, a single-purpose travel card. Business owners and tourism

industry partners in my riding have serious concerns about the implementation of this policy by the US government.

I understand that Prime Minister Harper met with President Bush last week in Mexico. According to newspapers over the weekend and today, the Prime Minister has

acquiesced to the passport proposal. In fact, the mayor of Niagara Falls, Mayor Salci, and the mayor of Niagara-on-the-Lake have expressed their concerns. Minister, my question is, what is the

impact of the Prime Minister's statement in Cancun on Ontario's tourism industry?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): Thank you very much to the member. I

understand his concern, and I think all members from the Niagara region, where I'm from, for instance -- I was astounded and dismayed that the Prime Minister would capitulate so quickly, would run

up the white flag on this issue. This province, this Premier, myself, I'm sure all members of this Legislature, have been fighting to avoid this particular devastating effect on our tourism

industry.

According to the Canadian Tourism Commission, Canada could stand to lose 7.7 million US visitors between 2005 and 2008, and $1.8 billion in tourism revenues,

should this policy be implemented. I thought the Prime Minister had a special relationship with President Bush. I thought that, as his campaign slogan said, he was going to stand up for Canada.

Instead, we see the complete acquiescence, not to the United States' position but to the position of the President of the United States. You and I both know that, all along the border, there are

people on both sides of the border who are adamantly opposed to this particular stance that the Prime Minister has taken. I'm sure they will --

The Speaker: Order. The supplementary.

Mr. Craitor: Minister, this is obviously an important issue, not only to my riding but to every riding in Ontario. In fact, you and I have had

the pleasure of meeting with a number of the politicians on the American side to express our concerns about this proposal.

As you pointed out, in my riding we have a large number of Americans coming for day or overnight stays. People come into Ontario not only for an extended

vacation but also for events such as festivals, sporting events or shopping. Minister, according to the US Department of State, only approximately 25% of American citizens have a valid passport.

Having to incur the cost of a passport or other singular travel card would be a huge deterrent for overnight tourists to Ontario. Given the Prime Minister's misstep in Cancun, what can we do in

Ontario to protect our tourism industry?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You can be assured that one of the things that we'll be doing is drawing to the attention of the federal minister

responsible for tourism under the Prime Minister that this is a misstep, as you have characterized it.

You know, I thought we were making some considerable progress. I met with Governor Taft of Ohio a couple of weeks ago here in Toronto. He was certainly on-side

with Ontario. The Great Lakes governors are concerned about this. I was just informed that there was a meeting in the United States of governors of all the bordering states who are taking the same

stance that Ontario is taking.

I know this doesn't affect Alberta, the home province of the Prime Minister, as much, but it certainly has a devastating effect in Ontario. I'm sure that the

federal finance minister and the federal Treasury Board president, both of whom sat in a previous cabinet, and the Minister of Health nationally will be giving a spanking to the Prime Minister for

totally capitulating to the US president on an issue which is so important to the people of the province of Ontario.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Acting Premier: I've raised this issue with the Minister of Health by

letter, verbally and in this House before. As you would be well aware, members of the military and RCMP are specifically excluded in the Canada Health Act from the definition of "insured person"

with respect to provincial health care. Yet your government, since instituting its punitive health tax in May 2004, continues to charge members of the military a premium for health services that

they are categorically not eligible to receive. The federal government provides all health care for the military. Will you commit today to stop punishing the members of our armed forces and our

RCMP with this punishing health tax just to bloat your government more?

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): Certainly I can speak on behalf of the Minister of Health that we want to make certain

we treat everyone fairly and equitably. I am aware that the Minister of Health is looking into this matter. I believe it's probably not a totally simple matter in terms of the solution. I will

undertake what I think he has undertaken here in the House, and that is to make sure that we treat everyone fairly and equitably, all people, but our armed forces in particular. I can assure you

he's looking into it and I can assure you that when he's completed his look at it, he'll be back to the Legislature with a response.

Mr. Yakabuski: May 2004 to April 2006: It's just about two years. How much more looking does he have to do? In Alberta and British Columbia,

where they also charge health premiums, RCMP personnel and military personnel are exempt. It doesn't take much looking into.

You talk about being equitable. When will you treat the people of our military and the RCMP with some fairness and stop this pay more, get less? For the

military, it's pay more, get nothing.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Again, I would say it's extremely important that we treat all people fairly and equitably. I repeat, the Minister of Health

has agreed to look into this matter. Some of these matters are not quite as simple as they sometimes appear here in the Legislature.

I will do what I undertook to do in the first part of this question, and that is to ensure that the Minister of Health is looking into it, that we find a fair

and equitable solution and that we report that back to the Legislature. I undertake to do that, and I'm sure the Minister of Health will look after that.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. On Saturday, I joined families and

friends of autistic children to mark the one-year anniversary of Justice Kiteley's decision. In that decision, she found that your government had violated the charter rights of autistic children on

the bases of disability and age, that your Minister of Education had violated the Education Act by failing to have appropriate services in place for autistic children and that it had also failed to

direct school boards to provide IBI in schools.

One year later, there are hundreds of autistic children who languish on waiting lists, waiting for treatment. There are hundreds more who can't get IBI in the

classroom because your government refuses to direct school boards to provide this. In light of the $3-billion windfall that your government had this past fiscal year, how is it that even one

autistic child is on a waiting list, desperate for treatment?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to address this issue. There is

no question that there are wait lists for autism therapy, for IBI. I should tell you, however, that we have made significant progress. In April 2004, there were about 530 kids receiving IBI; by

December 2005, there were over 700 kids receiving IBI therapy. Is there more to be done? There certainly is more to be done.

We have also stepped up the pace in terms of assessments. We are assessing kids much more quickly than we used to. Again, is there more to be done? Yes, there

is more to be done. I'm very pleased that since we have been elected to govern, we have more than doubled spending on autism-related services.

I look forward to the supplementary.

Ms. Martel: Here's the reality: At the end of March 2005, there were 399 autistic children who qualified for treatment and who were on a

waiting list. There were over 200 more who were still waiting for assessment to determine if they were qualified. Between those waiting for an assessment and those waiting for treatment, more

children were not receiving treatment than were. In the face of that, this minister diverted $2 million to children's protection services instead of putting that money into IBI treatment. Now we

have a scenario, a year later, of hundreds more children on a waiting list who qualify for treatment and can't get it, hundreds who are waiting for an assessment and hundreds more who were cut off

by your government from IBI when they turned six, despite your election promise, and are still waiting to get their treatment reinstated.

Minister, your government had a $3-billion windfall. How is it that any autistic child in this province is waiting for treatment either in or out of

school?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: The member, as unfortunately often is the case, is somewhat less than accurate in her accusations. It really doesn't

matter how much she pretends to be sincere about this, her sincerity pales when we compare it to what we have been doing as a government. We have more than doubled spending. In the past year, we

have spent approximately $95 million on autism-related services. We are positioned to spend even more than that this year.

The reason why the wait lists are longer now is because no child is being denied services because of their age. The message that she is giving is misleading

and very, very unfortunate, because --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I need you to withdraw that.

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. But you know --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Ms. Martel: Why don't you tell the truth, Minister?

The Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt needs to withdraw that comment.

Ms. Martel: I withdraw the comment.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As you know, I am the chairman of the public accounts committee,

and I can say that the member from Nickel Belt has more knowledge on this than any MPP in this Legislature.

The Speaker: New question.

ENERGY RATES

Ms. Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Energy. There's speculation that Ontario's energy rates will be

rising, as they are in North America and across the world. Energy keeps the lights on and it heats our homes. It's not something we can choose to live without; it's a necessity. My constituents are

concerned about the rising energy costs and what they could mean to their monthly energy bill. Minister, can you explain these rising energy costs in the context of other jurisdictions in North

America?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I thank the member for the question. I also would like to thank the member for the work that she

does on behalf of her constituency and working with me around energy-related issues in particular.

There's no question that energy prices are going up. They're going up right across North America. We saw the increase in natural gas: $14 US in September, $15

US in December. We know that the price caps have come off in the United States. On April 1, they had increases that were virtually anywhere from 10% -- in one case in one of the states, they were

anticipating as high as 117%. So we know. In terms of our competition, places like Massachusetts are at 32%. We have 40% in another, and they are rising.

However, what we've done is put in place the Ontario Energy Board, which looks at regulated price plans on a year-to-year basis. We took off the cap that was

artificial at 4.3 cents, and we --

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

Ms. Di Cocco: The Ontario Energy Board is not a household name. When people get their energy bills, they'll see the name of the local

distribution company, not that of the Ontario Energy Board. Yet I understand it's the Ontario Energy Board that sets the energy price in the province. With all this talk of energy prices

increasing, could you explain how the Ontario Energy Board determines the price of power?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: The Ontario Energy Board is the regulatory board charged with the responsibility of determining the price for the next

year. They look at all of the sources of generation over the period of the year, forecast what that price will be, and then they set the prices. As you recall, last year it was 5.0 cents and 5.8

cents for 750 kilowatts and 1,000 kilowatts, and then reversed in the winter months.

So the Ontario Energy Board has the opportunity to work with the local distribution companies to reflect the needs in that community. They have to apply to the

energy board for a rate increase or, in some cases, a decrease. It is the Ontario Energy Board that then looks at what supply is in the generation and how all the generation is mixed, and then

forecasts that out for the next year. They in fact have been charged with that responsibility and will be coming out with their forecast by May 1.

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Minister, in estimates you said that CAIS

is not working and that long-term dollars were needed. That was six months ago. Last week you cut the ag budget 21%; this week you've increased the ag ministry staff, the $100,000-a-year club, by

11%. Minister, you've given your staff long-term funding. When will you be giving farmers long-term funding?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): Wrong information.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'm happy to have this opportunity to state again that the budget at

the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has increased this year with respect to the support that has been requested by farmers and the support that has been given by this government.

They have asked for a multi-year partnership with the federal government. The budget document makes it very clear that we are prepared to enter into that.

In the short term, it became clear as well that the federal government was not going to provide the support, so we provided $125 million to farmers as a show

of good faith, which they asked for. They asked the Premier and myself. So that is the commitment to date. I have said to farmers that we are at the ready when the federal government is ready to

come to the table to establish a multi-year partnership, which is exactly what they need to inspire stability and sustainability in this industry.

Mr. Barrett: Minister, my point was that staff in your ministry making over $100,000 a year have gone up 11%, funding for grain and oilseeds

is going down 52%, and you've just told us and the farmers to go to the federal government. We are going to Ottawa. We're going to Ottawa this week. One question: Minister, are you going to Ottawa

to be with the farmers? I know that you have been at the table with other ag ministers.

Another question: Specifically how many $100,000-a-year bureaucrats does it take to draw up a risk management program, or are we simply paying more and getting

less?

Minister, my question: Do you now have a plan for risk management, a plan for a program for us to take to Ottawa this week?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: What I have committed to the agriculture community is a response to what they've asked for. They've asked for a

multi-year partnership with the federal government. In terms of what that plan is going to look like, I expect that the stakeholders are going to have a lot to say, a lot of advice for us, when we

meet together with our federal colleague. I heartily say that you can invite partnership when you go with a deal and say, "This is what it's going to look like."

The province of Ontario has made it very clear. I believe we've taken a leadership role, when you consider where other provinces are in Canada, in that we have

come to the table. There is money there. We made it very clear that we believe there needs to be a multi-year strategy, that the stakeholders have a very key role to play in helping us shape that

strategy and that it must have the participation of the federal government if it's going to be viable at all. That is the consistent message we've had time and time again. Our government is --

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Farmers are going broke every day.

COLLÈGE BORÉAL

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Ma question est pour le ministre de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités. Vous savez

que le Collège Boréal à Timmins a fait une soumission avec votre ministère pour construire un édifice permanent afin de situer le Collège Boréal. Vous savez que,

présentement, le Collège Boréal à Timmins est situé dans un édifice où ils louent, et que c'est complètement inadéquat, comme certains de vos ministres

le savent -- M. Ramsay, M. Bartolucci et d'autres qui l'ont visité -- que cet édifice n'est pas bon pour les étudiants de ce collège et pas bon pour l'expansion nécessaire

pour offrir les programmes nécessaires dans ce collège.

On a une question très simple. La communauté est là. Le collège a fait son ouvrage. La communauté vous a envoyé 600 lettres. On

vous demande aujourd'hui, quand est-ce qu'on peut s'attendre à une annonce positive pour commencer la construction du Collège Boréal à Timmins?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I thank the member for the question. With respect to the

suggestion about a new campus in Timmins, I've spoken to quite a few people about that, including the present president of the Collège Boréal, the previous president of the college, my

colleagues such as Minister Ramsay and of course the minister responsible for francophone affairs, Madeleine Meilleur, and about the present state of facilities up there.

We've done a couple of things. First of all, I've had discussions with respect to Collège Boréal's ideas throughout the province and its plans for

the province, which include a larger platform in the greater Toronto area as well as improved facilities throughout Ontario.

We've also had discussions with the president of La Cité in order to figure out how we can offer more francophone education to students throughout Ontario

in our college system. So we've got several discussion going on, one about the operating strength of the two colleges -- we want to ensure an even stronger future; we're having those discussions at

the moment -- and the second about new capital plans for the colleges. The capital plans need to follow the operating discussion. I'll have more to say about the two after I hear the

supplementary.

M. Bisson: Monsieur le ministre, ce qui est clair est que l'ancienne présidente, Gisèle, et le présent président vous ont

parlé. Oui, ils vous ont parlé, vous avez parlé, mais ce que les autres attendent est une réponse.

Ce qui est clair est que la situation à Timmins est inadéquate. On est dans une situation où c'est très difficile pour le collège

d'être capable d'opérer, numéro un, mais numéro deux, d'être capable d'offrir les programmes nécessaires aux étudiants, d'être capable de renforcer ce

collège et faire le succès qu'on sait ce collège peut avoir.

Donc, monsieur le ministre, très simplement, nous autres avons fait notre ouvrage. Le collège a fait sa soumission. C'est le seul projet qui a

été mis en avant par le Collège Boréal. Le seul que vous avez situé au sud de la province était fait à travers Glendon. Le collège a fait son ouvrage. La

communauté a fait son ouvrage. Vous savez que c'est un bon projet. C'est supporté par la communauté francophone et la ville de Timmins. Ma question : quand est-ce qu'on peut

s'attendre à une annonce financière pour assurer la survie de ce collège?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: Once again, I look forward to going up to Timmins and speaking to the local community. We're working on several fronts to

improve francophone education at the college level in Timmins, the surrounding area and throughout Ontario.

The first step is to have the discussion about the operating dollars and about how to ensure that students have access throughout the province. We're having

those discussions right now with the presidents of both Borèal and La Cité.

It's important to ensure that we have a strong future for college education in French throughout Ontario. It follows from that discussion that we will have a

conversation about capital plans and capital projects. There are a number, not simply in one community, and we want to ensure that the capital discussion follows the operating discussion.

This government, the McGuinty government, has committed more operating dollars for colleges. That means more opportunities for students in every language. We

also have a separate access committee for French-language education that has already had some meetings and will have more. The future for French-language college education in Ontario looks very

bright in Timmins and elsewhere.

SMOKING CESSATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. It is often said that quitting smoking is one of

the most difficult tasks someone will ever undertake, but many smokers feel that they lack the resources to properly embark on a cessation program.

Many feel that nicotine replacement therapy is the best way of weaning themselves off cigarettes, but it's often too expensive a method for your average

smoker. Having lived with a woman who quit smoking at least 10 times, I would have to agree that it is the worst habit to stop. But she has been off cigarettes for 20 years now and her health is

good.

Certainly our government has recognized, through the smoke-free Ontario legislation and related programs, that funds directed towards helping people to quit is

money well spent, saving lives while protecting workers and preventing serious illness. Minister, are you considering adding nicotine replacement therapy to the government's cessation programs?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): I want to begin by thanking the honourable member for Ottawa-Orléans, because he has

taken a real interest in the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. As a result of his intervention in committee, power walls will soon be a thing of the past across Ontario. I thank the honourable member.

In January, I was pleased to help launch the STOP study, which is Smoking Treatment for Ontario Patients, with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

We've committed $3 million from the smoke-free Ontario fund. In January, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health used part of these funds to provide nicotine replacement therapy for 14,000

Ontarians.

The response was overwhelming. When the program was announced, their 1-800 toll-free number received over 100 calls a minute. So the vast majority of people

who smoke in this province do in fact want to quit. We believe there is a role for the government of Ontario to provide the kinds of tools, such as nicotine replacement therapy, to help these

individuals with their addiction.

Mr. McNeely: Minister, it is good to hear that the Ministry of Health Promotion is leaving no stone unturned when it comes to different

approaches to smoking cessation, because every smoker will have different needs but many have the common goal of trying to quit. In terms of other methods of cessation, what programs does your

ministry offer today to help smokers quit?

Hon. Mr. Watson: I'm very pleased to report that of the $50 million, $14 million is going to smoking cessation programs. I'm also very pleased

to announce that we have a website. I'd encourage individuals who smoke and want help to quit smoking to go on to www.smokershelpline.ca.

I'm also pleased to be part of a caucus and a government under the leadership of Premier McGuinty which is, quite frankly, doing more to help people who are

smoking, to encourage young people not to smoke in the first place and to ensure that the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which comes into effect on May 31, is going to be properly advertised and

enforced.

It's regrettable that the Conservative Party -- exactly half of their caucus either voted against the legislation or were not even here to vote for the

legislation. I will side with the medical community, the Canadian Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke, and the Lung Association. I'll allow the Conservative Party to cozy up to big tobacco and the

front people for the tobacco industry --

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

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question for the Deputy Premier. This weekend, headlines across the province screamed about the incredible

bloat of government payrolls. One I can understand is John Corcoran, a polygraph examiner, who was paid over $100,000. I can understand, because he is probably run off his feet with double

overtime, keeping track of the Premier and his cabinet ministers. I can understand that one. But otherwise, Deputy Premier, there is great concern among taxpayers, who, I remind you, are paying

over $2,000 more per family in taxes, fees and costs than they did before Dalton McGuinty was elected.

Given this 23% bloat in government payrolls, specifically what controls are you going to bring in this year to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): I'd just say to the public, when they use the 23% figure, recognize this: In 2001, when

they were in government, the increase in people earning $100,000 was 60%. Did you bring these great controls you're talking about now? No. The following year, what was the increase? It was 60%

before; it was 65%. Did you bring in these great controls? I just say to the public, recognize what we're dealing with here: a kind of bitter opposition that says, "Do some things we would never

do."

What we are doing is making sure we manage the public service in a responsible way. We brought in roughly 600 consulting jobs that you were spending $25

million a year more on than you should have.

I think the public expects us to manage things well. You had a 60% increase and a 65% increase in these numbers. You did nothing. We are managing the public

service in a responsible way.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): This completes the time allocated for oral questions.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): On a point of order, the member for Simcoe-Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): With 7,200 more bureaucrats, you'd think the government could answer its order paper questions on time. We have

a question to the Ministry of Natural Resources, standing in the name of Mr. Miller, that should have been answered weeks and months ago; there are four questions to the Ministry of the Attorney

General, standing in the name of Mr. Runciman, that are overdue; and there are five questions to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, standing in the name of Mrs. Witmer, that have not been

dealt with. Talk about getting less for more.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. I did have some difficulty following which questions hadn't been responded to. I'm informed that many questions -- or

some questions, anyway -- were responded to today. I can tell you that, from the list that I'm aware of, there are four questions that haven't been responded to, standing in the name of Mrs.

Witmer, if that's satisfactory. I would like to remind the Minister of Health that you're required, under standing order 97(d), to provide answers to written questions within 24 sitting days, and

the responses are now overdue. I would ask that you give the House some indication as to when the answer might be forthcoming, and I suspect it needs to come from the Acting Premier.

I'm wondering when we can expect the responses from the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I'll undertake, Mr. Speaker, to get back to you as quickly as possible, like today.

VISITORS

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask members of the Legislature to join me in welcoming five leaders of

our faith community seated in the west gallery today: Pastor Douglas Sargeant, Reverend Don Meredith, Reverend Steve Chu, Mr. Matthew Gibbins and Pastor Albert Wai.

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): On Wednesday, March 29, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Mr. Barrett, provided me with written

notice of his intention to raise a point of privilege, as required by standing order 21(c). I would like to thank the member for giving me sufficient time to review this matter.

The member's point of privilege concerns security in and around the legislative precinct.

I wish to advise that I will be deciding on this matter without further hearing directly from the member at this time, as standing order 21(

d) permits me to

do.

I have carefully reviewed the member's written submission and cannot find that he has made out a prima facie case of privilege.

I want to note that the member and I have met personally to discuss this matter, and I've written to the member to provide clarification on certain points

related to the issues he has raised. As this is a matter that lies within the administrative jurisdiction of the Speaker, I believe that this is an appropriate way to deal with this issue, and I

want to thank the member for providing this opportunity to do so.

PETITIONS

ORGAN DONATION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas" over "1,920 Ontarians are currently on a waiting list for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas the number of Ontarians waiting for an organ transplant has virtually doubled since 1994; and

"Whereas hundreds die every year waiting for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas greater public education and awareness will increase the number of people who sign their organ donor cards and increase the availability of organ

transplants for Ontarians; and

"Whereas the private member's bill proposed by Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees will require every resident 16 years of age and older to complete an organ donation

question when applying for or renewing a driver's licence or provincial health card, thereby increasing public awareness of the importance of organ donation while respecting the right of every

person to make a personal decision regarding the important issue of organ donation;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 67, the Organ and Tissue Donation

Mandatory Declaration Act, 2006."

I affix my name in support.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"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;

"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, 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 (2006 and 2007)."

This has been signed by a number of residents of the Kenora and Keewatin area, and I affix my signature as well.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to introduce this petition on behalf of Chateau Gardens in Niagara-on-the-Lake, a long-term-care

facility. The petition 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;

"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, 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 (2006 and 2007)."

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

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Last week, I was pleased to visit the Strathaven Lifecare Centre. I met with Patrick Brown, the administrator,

Stella Jackson and Sharon Courts. They presented me with a number of petitions.

"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, 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 (2006 and 2007)."

I am pleased to sign and endorse that on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly regarding community mediation. I'd like to thank

especially Darcy MacCallum, Sara Syeed and Tarzia Ahmed for collecting some signatures for this petition. It reads as follows:

"Whereas many types of civil disputes may be resolved through community mediation delivered by trained mediators, who are volunteers who work with the parties

in the dispute; and

"Whereas Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services established the Peel Community Mediation Service in 1999 with support from the government of Ontario

through the Trillium Foundation, the Rotary Club of Mississauga West and the United Way of Peel, and has proven the viability and success of community mediation; and

"Whereas the city of Mississauga and the town of Caledon have endorsed the Peel Community Mediation Service, and law enforcement bodies refer many cases to the

Peel Community Mediation Service as an alternative to a court dispute; and

"Whereas court facilities and court time are both scarce and expensive, the cost of community mediation is very small and the extra expense incurred for lack

of community mediation in Peel region would be much greater than the small annual cost of funding community mediation;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, support and fund the ongoing service delivery of the

Peel Community Mediation Service through Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services."

I am pleased to sign and support this petition and to ask page Olga to carry it for me.

LANDFILL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is currently a proposal to more than double the size of the Carp landfill in west Ottawa; and

"Whereas this site has been in operation for some 30 years and had been expected to close in 2010; and

"Whereas the surrounding community has grown rapidly for the past 10 years and is continuing to grow; and

"Whereas other options to an expanded landfill have yet to be considered; and

"Whereas the municipal councillors representing this area, Eli El-Chantiry, Janet Stavinga and Peggy Feltmate, and the MPP, Norm Sterling, all oppose this

expansion;

"We, the undersigned, support our local representatives and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the Minister of the Environment does not

approve the expansion of the Carp landfill and instead to find other waste management alternatives."

I would like to thank Barbara Keith for sending in many names of petitioners with whom I agree.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "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;

"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, 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 (2006 and 2007)."

I've signed the petition.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I have this petition that was presented to me last Friday by the president of the resident council of the Sara

Vista Nursing Centre in Elmvale -- I know they're watching right now -- Andrew Dalrymple, who's the president, and Karen Locke, who's the administrator, and I thank them greatly.

"To the Legislative Assembly the 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;

"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, 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 (2006 and 2007)."

Again, I thank the good people of Sara Vista Nursing Centre in Elmvale, and I agree with the petition.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough-Rouge River): In support of my colleagues from Peel region, I present the following petition to the Ontario

Legislature:

"Support Community Mediation

"Whereas many types of civil disputes may be resolved through community mediation delivered by trained mediators, who are volunteers working with the parties

in the dispute; and

"Whereas Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services established the Peel Community Mediation Service in 1999 with support from the government of Ontario

through the Trillium Foundation, the Rotary Club of Mississauga West and the United Way of Peel, and has proven the viability and success of community mediation; and

"Whereas the city of Mississauga and the town of Caledon have endorsed the Peel Community Mediation Service, and law enforcement bodies refer many cases to the

Peel Community Mediation Service as an alternative to a court dispute; and

"Whereas court facilities and court time are both scarce and expensive, the cost of community mediation is very small and the extra expense incurred for lack

of community mediation in Peel region would be much greater than the small annual cost of funding community mediation;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, support and fund the ongoing service delivery of the

Peel Community Mediation Service through Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services."

In support this petition, I'm glad to add my name to the list and have page Elyse present this to you.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have petition from the Country Lane long-term care residence in Chatsworth. Barbara Stott is their

program manager. It's a petition 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;

"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, 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've also signed this.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

follows:

"Whereas, without appropriate support, people who have an intellectual disability are often unable to participate effectively in community life and are

deprived of the benefits of society enjoyed by other citizens; and

"Whereas quality supports are dependent on the ability to attract and retain qualified workers; and

"Whereas the salaries of workers who provide community-based supports and services are up to 25% less than salaries paid to those doing the same work in

government-operated services and other sectors;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to address, as a priority, funding to community agencies in the developmental services

sector to address critical underfunding of staff salaries and ensure that people who have an intellectual disability continue to receive quality supports and services that they require in order to

live meaningful lives within their community."

I'm pleased to support this and give it to Mark, one of the legislative pages. Where are you from, Mark?

Interjection: Sudbury.

Mr. O'Toole: From Sudbury.

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): It's a great pleasure to stand and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the population of the region of Peel has been experiencing significant growth for the past 15 years, and it now has the ... highest growth rate in the

province;

"Whereas demand for social services in Peel has exploded as a result of the population and other social changes; and

"Whereas provincial social services funding has not responded to the increases in population, and therefore, the people of the region of Peel receive 50% less

funding on a per capita basis than the average provincial per capita funding for social programs;

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

"That the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services correct the funding inequity in all of its social programs

with new funding formulas that address population and needs."

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

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

MEMBERS' EXPENSES

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wanted to raise a fairly simple point of privilege. As I

understand, under standing order 21, you require an hour's notice. I gave you notice of the point of privilege about five minutes ago. I'd ask for unanimous consent to be able to raise it now,

rather than an hour from now when we're in the middle of a debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member has asked for unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Sterling: This past weekend, I travelled about 500 or 600 kilometres in the area that I represent, Lanark-Carleton. Lanark-Carleton, the

riding that I represent, takes in the west part of the city of Ottawa and all of Lanark county. If you look at the total size of the riding, it's about 200 kilometres by 200 kilometres. Therefore,

it's necessary for me to travel a considerable distance to go from Carp to Smiths Falls to Perth to Fitzroy Harbour. These are distances that are quite significant.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to make those trips in my automobile at the present level of compensation of 34.5 cents per kilometre. This relates to

the fact that rural members are being dealt with, in some ways, in a different manner than those who represent urban areas, where their constituents are fairly closely aggregated in one smaller

geographic area.

My point of privilege is this: I believe that all members of this Legislature are supposed to be given the same kind of resources in order for them to be able

to represent their people. Because of the fact that the recovery of costs, at 34.5 cents per kilometre, was struck about five years ago, when gas costs were about half of what they are at the

present time, and there have been increased insurance costs, I think rural members on all sides in this Legislature are finding it increasingly difficult to afford a car, to make the payments on

the car, to make their insurance payments and to buy the fuel necessary for that particular car.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, as Chair of the Board of Internal Economy, to raise this issue with the board. I would also like to ask for your

ruling as to whether or not adequate compensation to pay costs -- and I might add that I have asked the Canadian Automobile Association what the actual cost of driving per kilometre is, and they

have told me that it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 45 cents to 55 cents per kilometre.

I raise this as a serious point of privilege, so that many members, particularly in the rural areas, where you're required to put on 250 kilometres in order to

attend a particular event, may be properly compensated for their costs. All we're asking for are the costs associated with operating vehicles while doing legislative business.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Lanark-Carleton. I don't find this to be a prima facie case of privilege, but I will undertake to

relay this message to the Speaker and have it brought to the Board of Internal Economy.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT

(STUDENT PERFORMANCE), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

(RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES)

Mr. Bradley, on behalf of Mr. Kennedy, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 78,

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

Loi modifiant la

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The leadoff speaker will be Mr. Bradley.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I will be sharing my time with the

members from Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot and Don Valley West.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Where's the minister?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member shouldn't be asking that. You should always know where somebody is before you ask that question.

I must say that I once asked that of a former education minister, and he politely said to me, "I was at my father's funeral." I just about crawled under the

desk when he said that. It was Tom Wells at the time; he was very kind. I was up on some question of some kind, and I

preambled it with, "He wasn't here yesterday. Why wasn't he here yesterday?" I

must say he was very gentle about that when he said it. So I learned that you should always know where the person actually was before you say anything. I just caution my good friend the member for

Oak Ridges on that particular matter.

There will be other speakers on this. The members for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot and Don Valley West are both eager to proceed with their comments

on this particular piece of legislation as the government leadoff. As with all members of the Ontario Legislature they have a deep and abiding interest in this legislation, which is designed to

bring even further improvement to the field of education.

As members of the House would know, education has advanced considerably in the last two and a half years in terms of its impact in the province of Ontario, on

its students who are within the system. I think that when you talk to people directly involved in the system -- to students, to parents -- many have found some impressive improvements that have

taken place. When teachers walk into the classroom, there's a new bounce in their step as they bounce in, because they've had taken away from them the cloud that was there before, the constant

tension which was within the classroom. You get from principals and vice-principals and teachers and secretaries and caretakers -- just everybody in the system -- and the students themselves, the

renewed morale which is in the education system.

We try with legislation of this kind to consult widely, of course, both before the legislation is introduced and subsequent to the introduction of legislation,

when there are committee hearings, when those are necessary, and simply receiving input from the public. There's always an interest in education bills, and the minister has developed legislation

which he believes and the government believes, and I think many in the province will believe, will have a positive impact on the education system. It is ever evolving, it is ever endeavouring to

improve itself, and with the guidance and assistance of the government, it is bound to do so. So I think this is the kind of legislation which will be subject to debate, as it should in this House,

and will ultimately bring some further positive change to the field of education in our province.

The Premier has stated, the minister has stated and the government has stated that education is of great importance to this government. Quite obviously, the

Premier has shown through investments that have taken place in education -- and there have been significant increases in the investments in education over the past two and a half years by the

Liberal government in Ontario -- has demonstrated at the preschool level, the pre-formal school level in terms of child care and early childhood education, within the elementary school system and

the secondary school system, and then, of course, the post-secondary system, some pretty dramatic increases that have been forthcoming and will be forthcoming in the future to the field of

education.

It is not the funding alone that will make the difference, but also some policy changes which we hope will be very positive. I look forward to hearing all

members of the House, particularly my colleagues on the government side, because I know they're enthusiastic about the legislation, but I'm also interested in hearing, as I will, by either being in

the House or reading Hansard, what members of the opposition will have to say and what the general community will have to say about this legislation.

So I'm now going to permit my colleagues from Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot and from Don Valley West to continue this debate, providing the government

lead on this important piece of educational legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will also permit the member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot to take the floor.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I rise to add some brief comments to the wonderfully articulated comments by the

honourable member from St. Catharines, who has a deep and abiding lifetime interest in education and its advancement. I also rise, obviously, today for second reading of some very important

legislation for the direction of education in Ontario.

If passed, this legislation would be a tremendous boost for improved student performance. In March, the McGuinty government, for the first time, set provincial

outcomes to maximize our educational initiatives and remove barriers to greater student achievement. The one-size-fits-all approach in education adopted by the previous government is ineffective.

This bill is a significant tune-up that will modernize education as a condition for success for our students.

The student performance bill contains several limited but substantive amendments to the Education Act and the Ontario College of Teachers Act. These amendments

provide the legal support necessary to enable our most important objective in education in this province: improved student performance. This legislation proposes to achieve this with four main

drives. They are: initiatives to support teaching excellence, new responsibilities for boards and the ministry, a real partnership in education based on respect, and openness to the public.

This legislation proposes some critical changes to enhance teaching excellence. For example, it would revoke the pen-and-paper test, which didn't evaluate a

teacher's actual classroom experience and effectiveness, in favour of a new teacher induction program. It would also repeal legislation that limits teachers' professional activity days to four days

per year. This legislation would also facilitate the extension of teacher collective agreements from two- to four-year terms. These are all significant ways of supporting improved teaching

excellence. My colleague Kathleen Wynne, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education --

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): Great member.

Mr. McMeekin: -- a great member -- will speak more about these key components of the bill.

The proposed legislation also contains measures that would support the government's ability to build confidence in public education with new responsibilities

for school boards and the ministry itself. The ministry has identified areas of key provincial interest, such as class size, fiscal responsibility, improvements in literacy and numeracy, and safe

schools. This legislation, if passed, would clarify ministry and board responsibilities as they relate to these interests, and particularly as they relate to student performance.

What I'd like to do now is talk a bit more about how this proposed legislation would help to facilitate two important objectives: partnerships in education

based on respect and increased openness to the public.

All of the amendments being proposed hinge on our ability to create and sustain lasting partnerships in education, partnerships based on respect. Achieving

excellence in education demands a genuine partnership in which there is shared respect, mutual responsibility-taking and agreement about results at every level of the educational system. This

legislation, if passed, would help build on the new era of respect and partnership that has become evident in the system.

It would respect school board trustees for the important work they do by giving them realistic supports, removing penalties in the act related to trustee

compliance, and strengthening and clarifying their role in stewarding education. This legislation would help us to respect student trustees by empowering and recognizing them through new

scholarships, non-binding votes, procedural rights and increased resources. As my colleague Kathleen Wynne will outline in more detail, this legislation would enhan