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

March 9, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Mar-09 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 9 March 2005 Mercredi 9 mars 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANDFILL

KIDSABILITY

HYDRO PROJECT

ENERGY CONSERVATION FORUM

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

INDUSTRIE FORESTIÈRE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY /

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

DEFERRED VOTES

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GREENBELT

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

GREENBELT

FOREST INDUSTRY

CHILD ADVOCATE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

AUTISM TREATMENT

IMMIGRANTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PETITIONS

TAXATION

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

LOI CONTRE LE TABAGISME

ONTARIO FARMERS

CHILDREN'S TREATMENT CENTRE

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

ONTARIO FARMERS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FILM CLASSIFICATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE CLASSEMENT DES FILMS

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

FILM CLASSIFICATION ACT, 2005

(CONTINUED) /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE CLASSEMENT DES FILMS

(SUITE)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANDFILL

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I would like to welcome the citizens of rural Ontario who are here today trying to get the attention of the

McGuinty government, which so far doesn't seem to know they exist. Again the Minister of Agriculture managed to duck the event.

These farmers will appreciate an issue that I've been fighting this government on since it was elected back in 2003. The issue is the proposed landfill site in

Tiny township known as site 41. Thousands of signed petitions, thousands of letters and a private member's bill paralleling the Adams Mine Lake Act have all been ignored by the government.

The final design for site 41 is awaiting approval. Environment Minister Leona Dombrowsky has talked in this House about how her government's greenbelt

legislation protects farmland, but will she protect the very farmland upon which the landfill is supposed to exist? Site 41, among other things, is an example of class 1 farmland literally going to

waste. Will she protect the landfill from potential groundwater contamination? I hope the minister has watched the video I sent her some time ago that shows overflowing wells on the property of

site 41. The video paints a telling picture of the potential for groundwater contamination if the property is developed as a landfill.

In response to my application for a review of site 41's certificate of approval, Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller said the following in his 2003 report:

"The ECO believes that a broad review of the site 41 C of A was warranted to increase government accountability for environmental decision-making on this highly contentious proposal. It would have

been appropriate for the Ministry of the Environment to evaluate the certificate of approval in light of the province's intention to strengthen source water protection requirements."

I ask the minister to remember this, and her own words about improving source water protection in this province: Minister, if you care about protecting farmland,

if you care about protecting our water, you will stop site 41 now. If you care about the citizens of rural Ontario, show an example and stop site 41 once and for all.

KIDSABILITY

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I was delighted recently to attend the opening of KidsAbility's newly expanded centre in Guelph.

KidsAbility provides treatment for children with physical challenges, developmental delays and autism.

Our local KidsAbility has a unique partnership with the city of Guelph. They are located at the West End Community Centre, allowing special-needs kids easy

access to all the recreational facilities enjoyed by other kids in Guelph, but their treatment space was woefully cramped. With support from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, KidsAbility has

recently expanded, with five times the amount of space, including their own waiting/reception area, seven child-friendly assessment and therapy rooms, and a family resource centre. They've also

added new services, including the SPOT program, which offers therapy support for children attending licensed child care, funded through Wellington county by the Ministry of Children and Youth

Services. They've added Together for Kids with Disabilities, a project which improves access to recreation and leisure opportunities, again funded by the Trillium Foundation. They've expanded their

therapy services, preschool autism services and infant hearing services to serve more kids in our neighbourhood, and a developmental pediatrician has joined the team.

Congratulations to the wonderful staff at KidsAbility and the West End Rec Centre, and to their long-standing supporters at the Guelph Rotary Club. This is

indeed good news for special-needs kids in Guelph-Wellington.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'd like to welcome members of the Kapuskasing Energy Regional Resource Association, or KERRA, to Queen's

Park. Some of them are here in the members' gallery.

After travelling through the night, I greeted 100 concerned citizens at 8 o'clock this morning outside of Queen's Park. They have travelled more than 900

kilometres to urge the Ontario government to move forward with the Mattagami hydroelectric development project. Among the representatives are Colette Goulet, businesswoman and chairperson of KERRA;

Martha-Lee Riopel, councillor for the town of Kapuskasing; and Stan Louttit, the grand chief of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council, as well as other councillors and citizens.

The Mattagami River hydro project has been put on hold for too long. KERRA wants the government to understand that this project supports the government's

commitment to renewable energy and also supports regional economic development. It does this by providing an opportunity for the Moose Cree First Nation, Tembec and SNC-Lavalin to partner in the

redevelopment of four hydroelectric dams on the river. It promises to generate an additional 384 megawatts of renewable, clean energy for the province's grid.

KERRA has the power; now the government must turn on the switch. I say to the government: Work with KERRA; work with the partners in this project. It's obviously

very important to the people of northeastern Ontario.

ENERGY CONSERVATION FORUM

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): On Saturday, March 19, co-hosted by myself and the Honourable Madeleine Meilleur, MPP for Ottawa-Vanier, a

community energy conservation forum will take place in my riding at Ottawa city hall from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. The event is to highlight the importance of energy conservation through a variety of

exhibits, speakers and information sessions.

Here the public will have the chance to browse more than 16 exhibits offering innovative and interesting methods for energy conservation in their home, office or

small business. Additionally, the public has the opportunity to sit in on one of the many speaker sessions, offering more information on new energy-efficient products and programs. Those who attend

can also bring their old light bulbs to trade in for new, energy-efficient versions that will, in turn, save money on future energy bills.

In addition to fresh fruit and beverages at the door, those who attend can enter a draw for a set of energy-efficient LED holiday lights or a personal energy

audit for their home. All the prizes were graciously donated to the event by a variety of exhibitors, and I extend sincere thanks to them for their generosity and dedication to energy

conservation.

Finally, I want to thank all of the staff members, volunteers, exhibitors and sponsors for their time and energy devoted to making this day a reality. I offer

special appreciation to our sponsors: the city of Ottawa, Hydro Ottawa, Enbridge and the Ottawa Citizen. I'd like to take this time to give special thanks to Madeleine Meilleur and her staff, my

Toronto staff and those in the constituency office, and I want to thank my former legislative intern, Rebecca Sciarra. Without her leadership, this day would not be possible. Well done,

Rebecca.

I look forward to seeing you all there at the conservation forum.

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise to discuss the Stevenson Road interchange in my riding of Oshawa. As the Minister of Transportation is

aware, the commitment was reinforced by him in this Legislature, and the previous government went through the process of studying, consulting and going through the environmental assessment for the

new interchange.

This interchange will complement the recent General Motors announcement, as GM staff and providers will use this interchange, not to mention the current

businesses and new businesses yet to come who will depend on the interchange to increase serviceability and potential customer traffic.

Minister, the concern, the problem, is that the interchange timelines for completion have been substantially extended, virtually doubling them, when not so far

away more advanced projects were listed as only taking half the time to complete. The acquisition process alone substantially delayed the process, further complicating the matter, which has all

been cleared up. Minister, is it the financial contributing partners' timelines that have changed, is it the ministry that is delaying the process, or how can the partners in this very important

project advance the construction of Oshawa's first fully serviced 401 interchange for the prosperity of all Ontarians?

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I rise today to celebrate two initiatives in the Flemingdon Park neighbourhood in my riding. Both of

these programs demonstrate the importance of community access to public space, including our public schools.

Last Thursday, I visited an evening youth basketball league at Gateway Public School, led by Mr. Ali Baig. The league is in its second season of offering

neighbourhood kids an excellent opportunity to improve their basketball skills, make friends and be physically active in safe, supervised space.

Yesterday I attended an International Women's Day celebration organized by the women-only swim group, led by Karen Boulton of Toronto Parks and Recreation. This

program is ending its first year and has created a new opportunity for many Muslim women of the community to learn to swim or renew their skills.

Many members of this House have spoken about the importance of active living to our youth and to our broader society. That's a sentiment I share; it's one of the

reasons these programs are so important. But I want to talk about the community-building aspect of these programs. It's not just the children who come out to the gym at Gateway every Thursday

evening; it's their parents too. They meet other parents in the gym and become friends, and that builds a community. It's not just a physical activity that the women at the resource centre benefit

from; it's getting to know each other as neighbours.

Congratulations to Mr. Baig and the women of Flemingdon Park who worked with Karen Boulton and the many associated volunteers -- women like Sahar Badawy, who are

making their neighbourhood a safer and better place to live.

Through our community use of schools initiative, this government is doing its part to promote community-based recreation programs like these. In some

neighbourhoods like Flemingdon Park, facilities that have not been available are now available free to the community. We're working to make that a reality across the province.

SEMAINE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): C'est avec plaisir que je viens adresser cette Assemblée pour une occasion très

spéciale.

Hier midi, le lieutenant gouverneur de la province, l'honorable James Bartleman, accompagné de la ministre de la Culture et des Affaires francophones,

l'honorable Madeleine Meilleur, a fait le lancement officiel de la Semaine de la francophonie en Ontario.

Cette année, les franco-Ontariens et franco-Ontariennes vont pouvoir célébrer davantage, puisque nous avons décidé de prolonger la

période des festivités jusqu'au 20 mars prochain. Il ne faut pas oublier de célébrer l'adoption de la Loi 163 sur le bilinguisme de la ville d'Ottawa, une première en

Ontario. Le 20 mars sera la Journée mondiale de la francophonie, et plus de 180 millions de francophones de cette planète seront en fête.

L'Ontario compte plus de 550 000 franco-Ontariens et franco-Ontariennes, et des activités ont été organisées d'un bout à l'autre de

la province. Que ce soit à Windsor, à Hearst, à Timmins, à North Bay, à Pembroke, à Alexandria, à Cornwall, à Embrun, à Hawkesbury, à Orléans,

à Cumberland, à Midland ou au grand Toronto, les francophones sont en fête.

En tant qu'Ontariens et Ontariennes, soyons fiers d'être Canadiens, d'être Ontariens, et surtout d'être franco-Ontariens. Bonne fête,

franco-Ontariens et franco-Ontariennes.

INDUSTRIE FORESTIÈRE

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): On a aussi aujourd'hui parmi nous des résidents du nord-est de l'Ontario, de Hearst, de Smooth Rock

Falls, de Kapuskasing, de Mattice, de Moonbeam et d'Opasatika. Ils sont ici pour une question aujourd'hui, ils sont ici pour une raison : c'est la décision par le ministre des Ressources

naturelles de dire à Tembec et à Domtar que le bois qui ira aux scieries présentement n'appartient pas à ces communautés mais à ces industries-là.

On est ici aujourd'hui pour dire simplement au ministre des Ressources naturelles, qui est aux alentours du coin du ministre du Développement du Nord et des

Mines et du ministre de l'Énergie, que vous avez une responsabilité envers les communautés de les assurer que le bois qui est dans nos forêts appartient directement aux

communautés et n'appartient pas directement à ces compagnies de scierie et de papeterie. On dit au gouvernement que c'est important que vous mettiez de côté des communautés

et que vous vous assuriez que le bois qui est dans nos forêts est relié exactement aux communautés et non directement aux entreprises. Sinon, on va se trouver dans une situation

où on aura des scieries dans une couple de communautés et on va avoir beaucoup de communautés qui vont perdre leur scierie.

On demandera directement au gouvernement aujourd'hui, plus tard dans la période des questions, d'être clair sur la question, de renverser la

décision du ministre des Ressources naturelles et de dire que le bois n'appartient pas aux compagnies forestières, n'appartient pas à Tembec, n'appartient pas à Domtar, mais

qu'il appartient à la communauté de l'Ontario, y incluses des communautés comme Opasatika, et qu'on s'assure que le bois reste avec ces communautés pour qu'eux autres puissent

organiser leur propre relève.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Yesterday, for the first time, associations for corn, soybean and wheat farmers, which happen to

be Ontario's top three crops, held a joint annual convention in London. I'm pleased to say that our Minister of Agriculture was at the convention to show his support for our farmers.

This government believes in Ontario farmers and the products they sell. We support the production and use of alternative transportation fuels such as ethanol,

which we get from the many corn producers in this province. That's why we are delivering on our ethanol commitment and have announced Ontario's intention to implement a renewable fuel strategy by

We know our grain farmers are facing some tough times. They are dealing with low commodity prices. Like Minister Peters has said, this government understands

that farmers are facing a perfect storm. We are doing our part to ensure that farmers have the resources they need to continue with their way of life, but we need more people at the table. We need

our federal counterparts to step up to the plate.

After last week's rally, Minister Peters contacted his federal counterpart to talk about helping grain farmers, who are facing the lowest prices in 25 years.

Ontario farmers need more support. Along with Ontarians from across the province, they give $23 billion more in taxes than they get back. Ontario farmers need the federal government to give them

their fair share. This government is fighting for Ontario farmers at home and in Ottawa. We know farmers need aid, and we are working with them to get it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its

adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the Kitchener-Waterloo Young Men's Christian Association.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting the Kitchener-Waterloo

Young Men's Christian Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY /

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE

M. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke-Nord): M. le Président, je demande la permission de déposer un rapport du comité permanent de la

justice et je propose son adoption.

I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice policy and move its adoption.

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

Bill 110,

An Act to require the disclosure of information to police respecting persons being treated for gunshot wounds / Projet de loi 110, Loi exigeant la

divulgation à la police de renseignements en ce qui concerne les personnes traitées pour blessure par balle.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for second reading.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to bring forward a unanimous consent motion for the House

concerning Bill 92, which is the Municipal Amendment Act, 2004, dealing with the MOU between the province and the municipalities. Given that this bill was introduced on June 8 and has not been

called in, almost a year, for even one hour of second reading debate, I move the following motion:

That, after question period today, the House immediately move to second reading debate on March 9, followed by immediate debate on March 29 and March --

The Speaker: You're asking for unanimous consent to bring forward a bill?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You're asking for unanimous consent to bring forward a bill, and there is a no.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): On a point of order, Speaker: I rise to ask for unanimous consent to read the following resolutions

into the record, as formally presented to the Legislature --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Please be seated. There's a request for unanimous consent, and I heard a no.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow Mr. Barrett to read a

democratic annunciation of 11 recommendations by --

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to put silence to you now. I've said to sit down. You are asking for unanimous consent, and I heard a no.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GENDER-BASED

PRICE DISCRIMINATION

PROHIBITION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

INTERDISANT LA DISCRIMINATION

DES PRIX FONDÉE SUR LE SEXE

Mr. Berardinetti moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 182,

An Act to prohibit price discrimination on the basis of gender / Projet de loi 182, Loi interdisant la discrimination des prix fondée sur

le sexe.

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

Mr. Berardinetti?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): Very briefly, this bill prohibits price discrimination on the basis of gender. Individuals

who face price discrimination on the basis of gender may file a complaint to which

part IV of the Human Rights Code applies, or the person may commence an action in the Superior Court of Justice.

Persons who practise price discrimination on the basis of gender may be prosecuted.

In short, this bill, if it becomes law, will prevent businesses such as dry cleaners, hairdressers, retailers, and others from charging different prices based

on whether the person is a man or a woman.

I move that today and ask that this House support this.

DEFERRED VOTES

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 167, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur

l'éducation.

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

The division bells rang from 1353 to 1358.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 23.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like your assistance in asking for unanimous consent that Bill 92,

the AMO memorandum of understanding act, be called for debate this afternoon.

The Speaker: In my assistance, I will then ask, do we have unanimous consent? I heard a no.

VISITORS

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to introduce the wife of one of our members, Michelle

Berardinetti, who is the wife of the member for Scarborough Southwest.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): That is not a point of order, but of course she is welcome.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Speaker: Is it one of those points of order that is not a point of order?

Mr. O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to stand and recognize members from my community of Durham riding who

are here to support the Lanark Landowners' movement here today. I would like the members to welcome members from the agricultural community in Durham.

The Speaker: Again, it's not a point of order, but they are welcome.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If we're going down this road, I would like to welcome the people

from Kapuskasing, Hearst and Mattice who are here on quite a different issue. But, more importantly, if my wife could be here, she would say hi.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Anybody else?

The Speaker: Thank you very much. I was about to ask the member for St. Catharines to do his famous point of order.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, I would like us to recognize anybody who has not been recognized in

the gallery today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GREENBELT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Hopefully, we won't get a

repeat of the stonewalling exercise that he attempted to entertain us with yesterday. Minister, earlier this week you indicated that it would not be appropriate for you to meet with developers who

had properties on the proposed greenbelt after, I think it was, August of last year. We subsequently heard that the chief political adviser in the Premier's office, David MacNaughton, had met with

them after that date. We now hear that the Premier and his chief of staff, Mr. Guy, have also met with the developer in question. If it was sauce for the goose, it should be sauce for the gander.

If you thought it was inappropriate to meet with developers during this period, do you think it's appropriate for the Premier of the province to meet with them? Give us an answer, please.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Once again, it gives me an opportunity to

talk about the tremendous accomplishment of this government in getting a million acres of land added to the protected space --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): This is the first question, and I'm hearing questions and answers from both sides, but not from the person

to whom the question is being asked. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: It once again gives me an opportunity to speak about the tremendous accomplishment of this government in adding a million

acres of land to the Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment for permanent protection of the greenbelt around Toronto. This will not only be protected for agricultural purposes, but also for

sensitive environmental purposes. That's what the people of Ontario are really concerned about. And they would like to know as well, where does John Tory stand with respect to the greenbelt? Is he

in favour or is he not in favour of the greenbelt? We think it's a tremendous accomplishment, and we are proud of what we've done for generations to come.

Mr. Runciman: That was truly pathetic. You talk about smearing; you are smearing your own process with respect to the development of the

greenbelt boundaries by refusing to answer what I think are very legitimate questions in this House. Day after day, you stand up and do that and refuse to answer questions.

Minister, last year you said you purposely didn't meet with developers who had an interest in the greenbelt. When faced with the truth, you fudged, fumbled and

finally backtracked and said that you didn't meet with them from August onwards, that it was inappropriate. But we now know that Premier McGuinty, along with his top aides, met with at least one

developer during the time when the maps were being drawn. The results: The developer received a $15-million exemption. The scandal reaches right up the food chain. Of course, McGuinty is not here

to explain himself; he's too busy at another fundraiser, ready to take more money from developers. Minister, your so-called process reeks of scandal. It's damaged goods. Will you support our call

for a legislative inquiry to clear the air?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: The greenbelt process over the last year and three or four months has had more extensive consultation than any other

process we've had in this House during the time that I've been here over the last 10 years. We set up a Greenbelt Task Force to work out the criteria on which the greenbelt should be preserved.

They had about eight to 10 different meetings. They came up with recommendations dealing with principles that should be included in the greenbelt. We then set up a ministry process after the bill

was introduced, whereby the ministry and I attended a number of meetings as well. We had about 10 public meetings again. Then there was the legislative process after the bill was given second

reading. This bill has had more public consultation than any other piece of legislation in at least the last 10 years, and we are very proud of the result and what we've done for not only this

generation but for generations to come.

Mr. Runciman: We're talking about the $10,000 consultations; that's what we're talking about. Minister, the integrity of your greenbelt

process has been sabotaged by your failure to be factual and by your boss and his shockingly poor judgment. First the parcel of land is included in the greenbelt, then the Premier meets with the

developer, and now your revised map shows that same developer's land is magically excluded. That little trick was worth $15 million. This is the same developer who paid $10,000 to talk to the

Premier only months before.

Minister, you said yesterday, "I take full responsibility for the final plan and maps. That's why I'm minister." You personally asked me for my resignation on

December 5, 2002, over a simple numbers disagreement with the Provincial Auditor. Given the clear appearance that your greenbelt boundaries were subject to influence by wealthy developers, and your

statement that you now take full responsibility, do you think it's appropriate for you to remain in cabinet?

Applause.

The Speaker: Order. Another display like that by any individual hitting on the desk -- I will regard this as a warning to everyone who has

been hitting on their desks. Another display like that and I will be naming that member. I think it's disgraceful, that kind of behaviour. I would also ask the government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Where were we in this? The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Let me just say this: I am very proud of the process that was undertaken by this government with respect to the greenbelt.

As I indicated before, once the Greenbelt Task Force report was received and the ministry started working on the mapping and the plan with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of

Agriculture, I made the personal decision that I was not going to meet with developers from that moment on, and I haven't.

There were many other meetings. There were 1,200 submissions made, as I indicated yesterday, by municipalities, by individuals, by stakeholders. I'm very proud

of the process, and I know that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Agriculture would be more than pleased to put their officials at the will of the members of the opposition if

they want to have a full and complete briefing from those two ministries with respect to the science used to determine the greenbelt.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: On March 2, I asked you why you exempted the land of Mr.

De Gasperis in Vaughan after receiving a $10,000 donation to the Liberal Party, but the farmers in North Ajax, including the Kuleshnyk family -- you ignored their concerns that were very much

the same. You referred in your response on March 2 to the official plan for the city of Ajax. That quote came as a real surprise to a number of municipal leaders, including Vaughan mayor Michael Di

Biase, who wrote to you: "Given the facts and the notion that all Ontarians should be treated equally, we have no tolerance for double standards in this province. I request that you amend your

greenbelt plan to reflect Vaughan's official plan and vision for future growth," in accordance with their official plans. That was written after your final greenbelt map came out. So despite your

claims that it's based on the official plan, the Vaughan mayor says it's not.

Minister, why do you have this double standard? Why do developers get one way of treatment and farmers get the boot?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As I've indicated before, we received a number of different submissions. We received one from the town of Ajax, which

wanted certain lands included in the greenbelt. We received letters from the mayor of Vaughan, who wanted us to take a look at certain areas that we'd already put in our draft plans. In both cases,

what happened is exactly the same: The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture, together with my own ministry, looked at their submissions and, in some cases, were able to

accommodate either the total request or some of the request. The mapping was changed in order to give will to the political will of the people involved, which are the duly elected councils of Ajax

and Vaughan. Did they agree on everything that was suggested by these particular councils? Probably not. But they took another look at it and applied the best science that was available, both from

the Ministry of Natural Resources and the LEAR system, as used in agriculture.

Mr. Hudak: The minister's answers keep changing. This notion that you considered municipalities equally is a bunch of garbage. You know full

well you had similar requests from Brock, Pickering, Georgina, Durham, Grimsby, St. Catharines, Lincoln and York region. In fact, the town of Caledon sent you 69 separate errors in the greenbelt

map. We called the town of Caledon, and not a single one changed.

Let's face it: You have been caught out. You've been caught out saying you didn't meet with developers, and you knew you did. You've been caught out giving a

developer a greenbelt exemption for a $15-million --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Government House leader, I'll give you a warning. I'd like to hear the question from the member from Erie-Lincoln.

Mr. Hudak: Minister, you've been caught out. You said you wouldn't meet developers, and you did. You've been caught out giving a $15-million

windfall exemption to one particular developer at least, and you've now been caught out with a double standard that some municipal resolutions are more powerful than others. Let's face it: The only

reason for this exemption is tied to the $10,000 donation to the Ontario Liberal Party. Admit the facts.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As I indicated yesterday, the developer I met with was Mr. De Gasperis, which was about four months before the actual

greenbelt mapping and plans started in August of last year. He was only concerned about one thing, and that was the agricultural preserve. He wanted to know whether or not we were going to meet our

commitment, which was to preserve the agricultural preserve in the Pickering area for agricultural purposes, and that's what we did. We told him we were going to do that. That's what this is really

all about.

I know the Tories are in favour of paving over that agricultural preserve, but we are not. We are living up to our commitments, and in order to ensure that it

will not be built upon in the future, we included it in the greenbelt.

Mr. Hudak: The minister has the opposite of the Midas touch: You took a good idea, preserving greenspace, and you blew it; you turned it into

mud. Your incompetence on this issue is at an all-time high.

You cut the Beverly marsh in half. Your map zoned garbage dumps, cemeteries and junkyards as fruitland area. You have no plan for farmers. You have no plan for

municipalities. One day you're meeting with developers; the next day you said you'd never met with developers. One day you say the minister shouldn't meet with developers, but it's OK for the

Premier to meet with developers.

Let's face it: Despite the fact that we warned you not to take on this extraordinary power to make exemptions, you took that power, and now there are

widespread accusations across the greenbelt and in the media that you abused that power and gave a $15-million windfall exemption to one particular landowner and ignored the pleas of farmers.

Minister, are you any longer fit to sit in the minister's chair?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I am very proud of what I, as minister, and the ministry did with respect to making the greenbelt a reality for this

province. As I indicated before, we have gone through more consultation than we have on any other piece of legislation in this House over the last 10 years. Certain submissions were made. We took a

look at them. With some we agreed and with some we didn't agree, but in all cases the best science and the best planning for this province was used in order to come up with the right decisions that

were made. As the member well knows, in the end result, we ended up with 8,500 more acres in the greenbelt than we had in our draft plan, and we are proud of that for the people of Ontario.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to take the minister up on his offer of a briefing, and

I'd like to move that the standing committee on general government --

The Speaker: Order. I regard the point of order as asking for unanimous consent; is that it? I heard a no.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Acting Premier. I want to ask you about getting access to Premier McGuinty. At

this moment, Premier McGuinty is pressing his tux and slicking up his hair and unfolding his money belt, getting ready for the $8,000-a-table Liberal fundraiser tonight. Who will attend? Wealthy

developers, bankers, lobbyists and corporate executives who can afford the $8,000 price tag. My question is, what about the people of Ontario who don't have $8,000 to $10,000 to purchase access:

the nurses who are being laid off, the pulp and sawmill workers who are losing their jobs? What are those Ontarians who don't have the $8,000 to $10,000 supposed to do when they want a meeting with

the Premier?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very happy to have this opportunity to remind all the members of this House that

there has not been a harder-working Premier in the province of Ontario than Dalton McGuinty. This is a man who is here early in the morning and who works many long hours in this Legislative

Assembly. This is a man who travels across the province during the intersession, sometimes through the week, to meet with Ontarians, to bring good news to their communities, to sit down and listen

to them and their concerns. I say to the member opposite that this Premier has been more accessible and has met with more individuals and groups than any other Premier. This is the hardest-working

man, and I'm proud to call him my leader.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. There is some distraction with those props. I would like to proceed with the supplementary question

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'll state again that I have observed that a couple of books are being used as props. I want to proceed with question

period and to hear the supplementary from the leader of the third party, and I'd request that you put away those books -- props.

Mr. Hampton: Mr. Speaker, it's a book about politics in Ontario, but I will put it away.

I assume that the Acting Premier indicated by her answer that the Premier is worth the $10,000 price of admission he is asking for. But I want to ask you about

what you said before the election. Dalton McGuinty said, "The Harris-Eves government gave money too much influence and citizens too little." He also said, "We will put the public interest ahead of

special interest." Two years later, you're not listening to ordinary Ontarians, you're not listening to the nurses that you're laying off, you're not listening to farmers who are losing their

livelihoods or the paper mill and sawmill workers who are losing their jobs. No, you're not. You're too busy listening to the folks who can buy access tonight: developers, lobbyists, those who can

afford the $8,000 to $10,000.

The Speaker: Order. There's no respect for this House by some members. The member for Niagara Centre has been displaying a book above my head

here and I would --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I thought I had made myself pretty plain and clear in what I stated about books being used as props. The member from

Niagara Centre continues to do so, and I'm going to name you for this. You must have some respect for this place. I'm finding a deterioration in this place -- it has really gone down -- by certain

members and I will not tolerate that kind of stuff.

I now name the member from Niagara Centre.

Mr. Kormos was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: As I was saying, this reminds all of us of the time of Patti Starr, the time of the former Liberal government when developers

could purchase access. My question is, since you don't want to acknowledge the time of Patti Starr, what are ordinary Ontarians to do today when it's very clear that if you want access to the

Premier, you have to purchase a $10,000-a-head private dinner or $8,000-a-head access to a Liberal Party fundraiser? What about the ordinary Ontarians who don't have $8,000 to $10,000?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: That is absolutely ridiculous. There is not a government in the history of this province that has been more accessible

to the people of the province, with the laws we're passing. I am proud to say that with every piece of legislation that has been brought to this assembly, there has been public consultation, and

members of the public have been able to access that process free of charge. To suggest anything otherwise is simply not accurate.

Mr. Hampton: I want to talk about the people who have money. They don't go to public consultations; they purchase a $10,000 private dinner or

they purchase an $8,000 ticket to a Liberal fundraiser. When they want to consult, they ask for secret backroom meetings with advisers. When they want to talk to a cabinet minister, they go

privately to a Stanley Cup playoff game with the cabinet minister. I want to ask about those. You see, ordinary Ontarians don't have the money to purchase that kind of access. So I ask the Acting

Premier again: What about the people who don't have a private box to go and watch the Stanley Cup playoffs with a cabinet minister? What about the people who can't purchase those $10,000 exclusive,

secret dinners with the Premier? When do they get listened to? When do they get access?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I guess I'd like the members of the assembly to know, too, that the honourable member and his party are having a

fundraiser. And guess what? You have to pay to go. And guess what you have to pay? You have to pay $1,500. So I'm just having difficulty. If the suggestion is that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: It's pretty clear that what we've got now under the McGuinty government is two Ontarios. You've got access Ontario if you have

money, and then you've got the ordinary folks who are increasingly --

The Speaker: Your question is to?

Mr. Hampton: It's to the Acting Premier, Speaker. Then we've got the ordinary folks: the nurses who are losing their jobs, the paper mill and

sawmill workers who are losing their jobs and the farmers who are losing their livelihood. What I want to ask is this: Before the election, you said you believed in full disclosure, real-time

disclosure. We've been asking, for a couple weeks now, for the names of the 14 insiders who paid $10,000 a person to have a private dinner with the Premier and the Minister of Finance. Would you

tell us finally, please, who were the 14 swanky individuals who could afford $10,000 a person to have a private dinner with the Premier and the Minister of Finance while you were talking about the

greenbelt boundaries?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: The minister responsible for democratic renewal.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I thank the

member for his question. Of course, the names of everybody who donated to the Ontario Liberal Party, to the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party will be disclosed. They can

be disclosed in either one of two ways: They can be disclosed under the old laws, where a disclosure takes place by parties once a year, or they can be disclosed under the new system, where

disclosure takes place not every 365 days but every five days. If we could get the New Democratic Party to just agree and provide unanimous consent to pass this bill, we could have that information

in the hands of Ontarians right now.

So, Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent for the order of second and third readings of Bill 176,

An Act to amend the Election Act, the Election

Finances Act and the Legislative Assembly Act --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We have a motion asking for unanimous consent. Do we have consent? No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let's all settle down. We've got a few more --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could we all settle down now, please. I'm sure the leader of the third party would like to ask his supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: It's not members over here who have been interrupting me.

The Attorney General mentions his real-time disclosure. Well, it's not real-time disclosure; it's real watered down. This is what the Windsor Star has to say

about it: "The toothless pap introduced Monday by Attorney General Michael Bryant is nothing more than a PR exercise and a farcical half-measure." The Globe and Mail's Murray Campbell says:

"Imagine myriad numbered companies making $5,600 gifts and you get an idea of the magnitude of donations that could be hidden." Democracy Watch's Duff Conacher says: "Given their record of broken

promises, no one should hold their breath waiting for the Ontario Liberals to take effective action to reduce the influence of money in Ontario politics."

Simple question, Attorney General: Who were the 14 developers who paid $10,000 a person to have private access to the Premier and the Minister of Finance while

the greenbelt boundaries were being established?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I say to the member, as he knows, it works like this: We provide disclosure to Elections Ontario. Right now, under the

current law, Elections Ontario has no authority to release that information; not for another year. But if we can get this bill passed, Elections Ontario can have this out in five days -- not 365

days, but five days. I say to you that if you ask the average Ontarian whether or not transparency finds itself out of five days or 365 days, they will say, "Let's go with the McGuinty government's

real-time disclosure." So I say to the leader of the NDP, it's time for real-time disclosure right now.

Mr. Hampton: Here's the McGuinty government's real-time disclosure: All those 10 individuals have to do is write cheques for $1,500 to the

Minister of Finance's riding association or any other Liberal riding association, and there is no real-time disclosure. That's the McGuinty government's version of real-time disclosure.

But the issue is this: At the very time that the greenbelt boundaries were being established, 14 very wealthy individuals, mostly developers, paid $10,000 a

person to have private access to the Premier at the very time that you were deciding the greenbelt boundaries. Can you tell us, please, Acting Premier -- you're the one who guaranteed real-time

disclosure, and this is real time; this is question period -- who are the 14 individuals who paid all that money just to have the private ear of the Premier about where the greenbelt boundaries

should be established?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I'm very concerned with something the member said in his question. He referred to $1,500 donations to riding associations. As

the member knows, it would be contrary to the laws of Ontario if anybody contributed $1,500 to the riding association. I should hope that there are no $1,500 contributions to the New Democratic

Party's riding associations going on right now. I think what the NDP is getting at is that they want to pretend to seek real-time disclosure but they're not willing to get this bill passed right

now so that we can get real-time disclosure in real time.

So let me see if I can do this just one more time, Speaker. I'm going to seek unanimous consent that we have the order of second and third readings of Bill

176, that the question be immediately put without further debate or amendment, and that we can get this real-time disclosure in real time.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm trying to move to a new question.

New question, the leader of the official opposition.

GREENBELT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): As someone who resigned from cabinet on the principle of ministerial responsibility, I've

never felt comfortable calling for resignations. But less than three years ago, the now Minister of Municipal Affairs felt a minor dispute over numbers justified a ministerial resignation. Now

you're a minister, and the chickens have come home to roost. Was this ethical standard that you demanded of others less than three short years ago as phony as your "I did not meet with developers"

pledge on TVO, or will you do the right thing, admit your greenbelt boundary process was tainted by developer money and abide by ministerial standards that you professed to believe in in 2002?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I can only, once again, repeat that I am

very proud of the process that we took with respect to determining the greenbelt boundaries. I am proud of the process that we took, of the public consultation that took place, of the number of

people who made submissions both to the Greenbelt Task Force and later on to the ministry-led consultation that came before the legislative committee, which had four days of hearings. I'm very,

very proud of that process.

Not everybody who came before the committee and before the various task forces and before the consultation process got what they wanted. But we listened to

people. We used the best science that was available from the Ministry of Natural Resources, dealing basically with the watershed, the basis that the Minister of Natural Resources uses to determine

what should be protected from a sensitive environmental viewpoint.

We are proud of that process, and we are very, very proud of the greenbelt that has been established for many, many generations to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): The minister referenced science that still is missing; it's not public after six days of repeated and heated

questioning here in the Legislature. You have not brought forward a single beaker of science to justify any exemption, particularly the $15-million windfall for the developer.

And sadly, farmers who could not get any appeal, farmers who were not shown any science, farmers who weren't even notified that their land was in the

greenbelt, have given up. Six of those farmers would like to pass on to you $10,000 cheques so at least they'll have an opportunity to make their point to the minister and to Premier McGuinty. It

shouldn't be that way, but that's what farmers have concluded.

Minister, you've blown it: You've taken a good idea -- to preserve green space -- and you've blown it big time. There are growing and widespread suspicions

that developers can buy their way out of the greenbelt. Minister, you have no choice. Will you do the right thing? Will you step aside? Will you resign until this matter is cleared up?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I refer the question with respect to the science that was used to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): For the last month, we have handed the science over to the opposition party.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member from Nepean-Carleton.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, we did. You have the Natural Heritage Reference Manual that was developed over 15 years with all of the stakeholders.

This was developed under your government in 1999, and that is the science we developed. The same science we used for the Oak Ridges moraine we also used when it came to the greenbelt.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Last warning, member from Nepean-Carleton: Stop interrupting the minister answering.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: This references all the guidelines of how the greenbelt was determined, how the boundary refinement techniques were done. We

again will offer you a full hearing --

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to ask the leader of the third party, is that the book that I made reference to in regard to a prop?

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Yes, Speaker, I'm reading a book. Do you object to my reading a book?

The Speaker: I will say this again: I don't object to a member reading, but to holding up the book after I ruled that it is a prop in itself.

I would rather you not display it in any other way. You know that. You are one of the members I respect in this House, and I know that you are quite aware of the rules of this House. The

respectability of this House has really deteriorated lately. I hope that you would somehow respect the order that I have given. If you're going to read, I'd rather you lower it and not display

it.

Mr. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think all of us in this House want to respect the rulings of the Chair, but we all want to

be treated in an equal manner. The minister was holding up a document. If we do it on this side of the House, you rule us out of order, so we ask for equal treatment, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: The member from Nepean-Carleton, I'm going to name you. I warned you on two occasions about rapping on the desk, and I name you

now.

Mr. Baird was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: I just want to comment on the leader of the official opposition. I try to be fair, and I hope it is in regard to respect for this

House. I was focusing on one aspect of the thing. The member who was reading from that was responding to his question. I did not rule that in any way as a prop.

New question.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Acting Premier. In the gallery with us today, and outside the Legislature today,

there are some 80 people from the region of Kapuskasing, Hearst and Opasatika. They're upset with your government's decision to allow Tembec to shut down the sawmill in Opasatika -- it's their

business decision. We don't take objection to that -- it's their decision -- but we're upset with your Minister of Natural Resources' decision to say that the wood belongs to Tembec and that they

can take it off to a supermill down the road if they want. We're here today to ask you one simple question: Will you overturn the decision of your minister and have the minister do what's right and

ensure that the wood that's in the forest stays tied to that community, so that this community can organize itself and find somebody else who is prepared to run a sawmill in Opasatika, and other

communities so we can preserve the jobs in those communities?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'll refer that to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): To answer the question of the honourable member from the other side, as the member knows,

the way the licence was structured under the NDP government, the licence was granted to Spruce Falls, which had two plants at the time. Tembec purchased that company and has since decided to run

one operation and not two. There was no requirement to make any changes at all. They are the original licence holder, they retain that licence today, and they've decided to move that wood into one

operation and not two. There are no changes referred to me.

Mr. Bisson: Minister, you know as well as I do that there's a minister's directive on the licence, and you have the authority as Minister of

Natural Resources to do the right thing. Your decision to allow Tembec to cut and run with the timber basically puts Opasatika high and dry. It's the beginning of the end for a number of small

communities across northeastern and northwestern Ontario. We're saying: Do the right thing. The former Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Ouellette, said no to Tembec when it came to Kirkland Lake,

our government said no when it came to other communities, and we're saying to you, you're in the big chair now. You drive the limo. Say no to the big companies. Stand with the communities so that

they can organize their lives and assure themselves of a future in northern Ontario when it comes to the lumber industry.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: What I'm going to say to the member is the harsh reality of what's happening in the forest industry: that the very small

mills are not going to survive. What's going to happen is that the companies are going to walk away from all of them unless they have the opportunity to consolidate their operations and make

investments in technology so that we can have a sustainable forest industry, in the meantime supplementing that with value-added operations in our communities so that we can grow our jobs in

forestry. But we have to have competitive plants to compete with the world market, because we have a lot of competitors right across this country, as we do across this world.

CHILD ADVOCATE

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services, and it's re the child advocate.

Minister, yesterday you made an announcement of your intention to appoint a new independent office of youth and child advocacy. It is my understanding we already have an office of youth and child

advocacy for children in the justice system, children we're responsible for in other ways, around disabilities or some other needs. I was wondering what those changes are that you are planning. Can

you give us some sort of time frame when you're planning to make those changes?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I thank the honourable member for

her question and for her commitment to children in this province and in her riding. We are delivering on a key commitment to make the child advocate truly independent. My ministry is currently

working on legislation that I hope to introduce this spring. If passed, our proposed changes would mean the advocate would be chosen by an all-party committee, would report directly to the

Legislature, would submit an annual report to the Legislature and would have the flexibility to issue special reports at their discretion. We believe that the advocate must be independent for that

person to effectively carry out their responsibilities, without political influence.

Mrs. Cansfield: Minister, it sounds, actually, like you're going to protect the child advocate as much as you're going to protect the

children. That's terrific to hear because, as I recall, the treatment by the previous government around child advocacy wasn't as great as it could have been. We need to know how the changes differ,

when they will occur and how you're going to deal with the relationship between the job of advocacy and this House.

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: I thank the honourable member for her supplementary. The reason we needed to change is that in the past, political

influence stopped the advocate from truly advocating for children and youth in this province. Judy Finlay, who has worked tirelessly, not only advocating for children and youth but also helping

them along with advocating for themselves, was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying, "I feel my job is at risk ... the viability of the office as an independent voice for children in this

province is at risk." She said this during the former government's stay in office.

We took this very seriously as opposition, and my colleague the now Minister of the Environment, being the critic at the time, fought very hard, along with

Judy Finlay. This got on our platform and I'm very pleased that we announced yesterday that we're going to keep this commitment.

The advocate must truly be free of political influence, must be independent and must have the same powers as the Auditor General and the Ombudsman. With this

new independence, the advocate would be better able to advocate for our youngest citizens. We hope that with respect to any future government, this important role will never be muzzled again. Our

children deserve no less.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last week we heard from thousands of farmers looking for

help, answers and results. Today we're hearing from another large group of farmers looking for the same things. Yesterday you said you considered today's group a fringe group, but when my

colleagues and I went out this morning visiting with the farmers, I saw many of the same faces I saw last week. Minister, these are real people, rural people, looking for answers to their concerns.

Farmers couldn't get an answer last week, and today farmers couldn't even get you to listen. You left town last week without an answer to our questions, and you weren't out on the lawn today. So

again, I ask you: Where is your support? When is the support coming for our farmers in our rural communities?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): That support has been there for our farmers since this government took office on October

23, 2003. Unlike the previous government, who slashed and burned over $125 million out of the base operating budget of this ministry, we are not doing that. We are working with agricultural

organizations. We listen to what the farmers have to say. Just yesterday, we heard the concerns raised over permits to take water. The Minister of the Environment announced that exemptions will be

put in place for farmers with the permits to take water.

Perhaps the member can stand up in his supplementary and tell us very clearly where he stands and where his party stands in the recognition of the Lanark

Landowners, because my understanding is that his leader, John Tory, has told Ron Bonnett that they don't support the Lanark Landowners' Association. So perhaps the question can be answered for all

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr. Hardeman: This isn't about which organization I support; this is about supporting our agricultural community. The Ministry of Agriculture

and Food just took a 20% cut to the overall budget. You cut support programs for the farmers by $50 million. Minister, it's quite obvious that your government has no plan for our farmers. They

would much rather have a fancy place to stay at the casino than have a stable and reliable food source from our Ontario farmers.

Minister, where are the results? Where is the promised money for our tobacco farmers? How are farmers going to get their seed in the ground? Do farmers have to

pay $10,000 to talk to the Premier? They can't afford it. They need your help, Minister, in getting the support they need. I ask you again, is this just another Liberal broken promise: No money for

the tobacco farmers, no money for support programs, pay $10,000 and the Premier will listen? Or are you going to talk to the Premier for them, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Peters: Unlike previous Premiers, our Premier does talk to farmers. Our Premier met with those farmers on February 22. As well, we

have been there supporting farmers. We've moved forward on $94 million in transition through the market revenue program. We've provided over $138 million in support to the beef industry. Because we

believe in family farms and we want farms to continue, we've exempted land transfer tax on family-to-family farm sales -- a very important thing. We've moved forward, as well -- unlike your

government, which was prepared to tax maple syrup operations as industrial operations. We recognize that a maple syrup operation is an agricultural operation. We're going to continue to work with

the agricultural organizations because this is the second-largest industry and this is an industry we want to survive and thrive into the future.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. In the gallery today are Paulette and

Eric Buenaflor. They're here to advocate on behalf of their son Mark, who has autism. Mark was diagnosed with autism October 9, 2003, and later that day he was put on a waiting list for IBI therapy

at Toronto Preschool Autism Service. He was finally assessed by TPAS on December 2, 2004, and he was deemed eligible for IBI on December 17. He needs 25 hours of IBI per week, but Mark still hasn't

started his treatment. He turns six on April 27. If he doesn't start treatment soon, he's going to be another victim of your government's discrimination against autistic children, age six.

Minister, what are you going to do to ensure that Mark starts his IBI before he turns six?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I thank the honourable member for

her question and for her passion and caring on this issue, and I welcome the parents to the gallery. We inherited this file. We are doing our very best to hire therapists quickly. We hired over 102

new therapists as of February 4. We have decreased the waiting lists. We do understand that even one child on a waiting list is one child too many. We are working as hard as we can. We have had an

influx of $10 million for the under-six program itself and $30 million for the school-based program.

Ms. Martel: Minister, I asked specifically what you are doing to ensure that Mark gets IBI before he turns six, which is on April 27.

Interjection.

Ms. Martel: You see, these parents wouldn't have to be here today, I say to the Minister of Economic Development, if your government had done

what you promised to do during the election. Let me remind you what your Premier had to say during the election: "I also believe that the lack of government-funded IBI treatment for autistic

children over six is unfair and discriminatory. The Ontario Liberals support extending autism treatment beyond the age of six."

The McGuinty Liberals are discriminating against autistic children over the age of six just as aggressively as the Conservatives did before them. Mark has been

on a waiting list for 17 months today. He is qualified for IBI, and if he doesn't get it before April 27, he'll never get it, not one day at all. When are you and your government going to stop

discriminating against children like Mark and every other child over the age of six who needs medically necessary IBI?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: I thank the member for her question. I'm tremendously proud of our autism strategy. We have doubled our spending from

$40 million to $80 million a year. We have put an extra $10 million for the under-six program and are working as fast as we can to hire new therapists. We have put a school-based program into place

and are offering transition coordinators and resource people to help children with autism right through the spectrum of getting diagnosed to finishing high school.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Member for Nickel Belt, please come to order.

IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a question for the Minister of Finance on the immigrant investor program. As you know, the immigrant

investor program for Canada is divided into two streams. One stream is for Quebec, and the other stream is for the rest of Canada. I want to tell you quickly how these streams have been skewed over

the years. Quebec, in this respect, in 2002 was getting $350 million; the rest of Canada was $70 million. In 2003 the federal program was getting $32 million and the Quebec program was getting $470

million. When we are looking at 1999 to 2004, and we're looking at all these figures, what do we see? We see that Ontario was getting about $100 million,

whereas Quebec was getting $1.9 billion. I

know --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Is that the question? Minister of Finance.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): My friend from Parkdale points out yet another of the anomalies between what the people of Ontario

contribute to the federation and what we get back. There has been a great deal of discussion about the anomalies in the area of immigration. We are certainly not complaining about the value that

the province of Quebec gets from the federal government in terms of support for immigration. Our argument is, and will continue to be, that the vast majority of immigrants who come to Canada --

whether they are in the investor class or, like most of the immigrants, just hard-working people who want to start a new life -- come to this great province. What we've been saying for quite some

time is that it's high time we had an immigration agreement with the federal government that recognizes the fact that most immigrants are coming to Ontario, and that Ontario needs the preponderance

of support.

Interjections.

Mr. Ruprecht: I don't know why the opposition is shouting us down when this is a deal that we're going to sign. The very sad fact is that

immigrants deposit $400,000 in Quebec, and out of this $400,000, many of these immigrants then suddenly decide to get a condo there and move to Ontario. Just think about that. Just to get the

agreement straight, if immigrants would deposit this kind of money in Ontario in programs designed specifically to further our economy, think what benefit that would mean to us. Let me simply ask

the minister this question -- I know we're lucky to have him as Minister of Finance, by the way. Minister, I want to ask you right now: What are you going to do in terms of this deal? Are you going

to push this with the federal government, or are we going to continue with this kind of skewed situation?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I should point out that my colleague from Parkdale is one of the members of this house, among all three parties, who has

dedicated his life to helping immigrants settle in this province and this city. He's one of the great champions. I hope to replicate that kind of championship style.

We need to have a new agreement. We're already making some advances on this so-called immigrant investor program, so that we're attracting more of that group

of immigrants to the province. But the real work has to be done with the national government, and the real work has to be in the form of an agreement with the federal Minister of Immigration, Mr.

Volpe, a good friend and a good colleague. It has to be with the government, so that sooner rather than later we have an immigration agreement with the federal government that reflects immigrants'

contribution to this great province and the country.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of Agriculture: As you now know, there are many groups standing shoulder to

shoulder, standing united out there today, as well as last Wednesday. Minister, where were you today? Your absence speaks volumes to your tactic to divide and conquer. This is unprofessional. This

is disrespectful, coming from a minister of the crown. Answer this question, please --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Minister of Health, come to order.

Mr. Barrett: My question, Minister: Why is it that you and your government insist on playing favourites and pitting one farm group against

another farm group, one rural organization against another organization, one crop against another crop? Why would you insist on divide and conquer?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Talk about pitting farm group against farm group. I'd like to know what Her Majesty's

loyal opposition is doing when you read in Hansard yesterday of the disrespectful steps that this group took in posting a picture of a dead deer, of the Minister of the Environment. The member from

Nepean-Carleton made it very clear yesterday: "On behalf of the official opposition, I want to put on the record that we dissociate ourselves from those things." So who's trying to divide and

conquer right now?

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture does not support what's happening today. We have not heard from other groups of their support for today. John Tory told

the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that they want to work with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We're going to continue to work with general farm organizations. My

question is, who is trying to divide and conquer? Quite honestly, I believe it's the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party is trying to divide farmers in this province by standing up and

endorsing rallies like those that are taking place today. That's very shameful.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions is over.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent to allow my friend Michael Prue to

go and sign the deal with the federal government to get us into an immigration agreement.

The Speaker: Do we have that unanimous consent? I heard a no.

PETITIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government's 2004 budget" broke "the taxpayer protection law by not conducting a referendum on tax increases; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty signed an election pledge on September 11, 2003, not to raise taxes without the explicit consent of voters through a referendum;

and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised in TV ads not to raise taxes by `one penny' on `working families'; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty pledged in writing to obey the taxpayer protection law, which requires a referendum before increasing taxes; and

"Whereas any and all increases in OHIP premiums must go into OHIP, not into a consolidated general revenue fund;

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

"To ensure that all of the McGuinty government's tax increases are put before the people of Ontario in a referendum."

I've signed my name to that.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have some petitions from a group of five high school student bodies from Ottawa in support of a

smoke-free Ontario. Their petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke is the number one preventable killer in Ontario today, and there is overwhelming evidence that retail

displays of tobacco products" called power walls "in plain view of children and adults increase the use of tobacco; we have collected 324 postcards signed by persons from our school and community

supporting a smoke-free Ontario in 2005 and banning the use of power walls to promote tobacco use.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to make all public places and workplaces smoke-free

and to ban the use of power walls. The city of Ottawa has been smoke-free since August 2001. All of Ontario deserves clean air."

I sign my name to this petition.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas many volunteer fire departments in Ontario are strengthened by the service of two-hatters, firefighters who work as professional, full-time

firefighters and also serve as volunteer firefighters in their free time and in their home communities; and

"Whereas two-hatter firefighters are now being forced against their will by the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association to resign their positions as

volunteer firefighters, ambulance paramedics or police auxiliary members, under the threat of being charged by their union and losing their full-time jobs; and

"Whereas Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and jurisdictions throughout the United States have legislation to

protect the right of firefighters to serve as volunteers, while Ontario's inexplicable lack of adequate labour legislation leaves them open to the threat of intimidation and dismissal for providing

a noble community service;

"Whereas Bill 52, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, which has been introduced in the Legislature, will uphold the right of firefighters to

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

"That the provincial government express public support for Bill 52 and pass it into law, or introduce similar legislation that protects the right of

firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free time."

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank fire chief Dave Carruthers from the Clearview fire department for circulating this petition and sending it to me, and I certainly

agree with it.

LOI CONTRE LE TABAGISME

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): J'ai une pétition qui provient des étudiants de l'école secondaire

Gisèle-Lalonde d'Orléans à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Attendu que le tabagisme et l'exposition à la fumée secondaire représente aujourd'hui la principale cause évitable de

décès en Ontario, et que les preuves accablantes révèlent que la publicité au point de vente de produits de tabac, surtout l'étalage mural à grande

visibilité bien en vue des enfants et des adultes, favorise la consommation de tabac;

« Nous avons recueilli à notre école et au sein de notre collectivité 624 cartes postales demandant que l'Ontario soit

déclaré sans fumée en 2005, et que l'utilisation des étalages muraux à grande visibilité soit interdite pour la promotion du tabac.

« Les soussignés demandent que l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario appuie la loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée afin

d'interdire l'usage du tabac dans les endroits publics et les lieux de travail, et de bannir l'utilisation des étalages muraux à grande visibilité.

« La ville d'Ottawa s'est déclarée ville sans fumée depuis le mois d'août 2001. Tous les résidents de l'Ontario ont droit

à l'air pur. »

J'y ajoute ma signature avec plaisir.

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Mr. Speaker, this is the last day for the pages, is it not? I just wonder.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Yes. Could I ask you to do that at the end of petitions.

Mr. Colle: We all want to thank them for their great work. That's all I'm saying.

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This petition is entitled "Protect our Farmers." We garnered just today about 500 signatures

outside.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers and rural Ontarians have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park due to the lack of response from the

Dalton McGuinty government; and

"Whereas the Rural Revolution believes that rural Ontario is in crisis, and will be demonstrating their resolve and determination at Queen's Park on March

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to deal with the serious issue of farm income, as brought forward by the Rural

Revolution's resolutions to respect property and prosperity, as follows:

"Federal and provincial governments have created a bureaucratic environment that legalizes the theft of millions of dollars for rural business and farm income.

All money found to be removed from rural landowners, farmers and businesses shall be returned."

I affix my signature.

CHILDREN'S TREATMENT CENTRE

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I present this petition on behalf of the member for Kingston and the Islands.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Child Development Centre, Kingston serves a population of 700 children with disabilities;

"Whereas the McGuinty government stated in its 2004 budget, `Children's treatment centres help parents obtain and coordinate a range of services for children

with disabilities;'

"Whereas the $24-million capital investment over four years outlined in this budget represents capital expenses and not the operating budget, and along with a

small 3% increase, these monies did not assist with the shortfall at the Child Development Centre in Kingston;

"Whereas this shortfall has resulted in cuts to staff positions, particularly psychology, and cutbacks in services and programming at the Child Development

Centre, Kingston. This is a much-needed and much-used facility;

lack of specialized knowledge about the various conditions mean that children with physical disabilities cannot access services elsewhere in the community;

"Whereas psychology is a necessary service for children with physical disabilities and their families. Children with physical disabilities are more likely than

the general population to have learning difficulties and their special needs require adapted assessments by psychologists with specialized expertise;

"Whereas children with physical disabilities require support at all stages of their development as they increase their understanding of their disability to

achieve optimal potential as active, contributing members of society;

"Whereas services for this group are not available elsewhere in the community. These services must be maintained;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ontario government to reconsider its funding formula for this unique

setting. We propose that the McGuinty government immediately approve a proposal to provide sufficient annualized funding for the children's treatment centre in Kingston, using some of the federal

$9-billion contribution to support this vulnerable group of young people who represent our future."

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I have a petition here that relates to the protection of individual rights. It was presented today to the

Legislature by members of the Rural Revolution and refers to a number of resolutions presented by them. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers and rural Ontarians have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park due to a lack of response from the

Dalton McGuinty government; and

"Whereas the Rural Revolution believes that rural Ontario is in crisis due to lost property rights and crushing regulatory burden on rural Ontarians and will

be demonstrating their resolve and determination at Queen's Park on March 9;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to address the issue of respecting property rights as in the Rural Revolution's

resolutions to respect property and prosperity as follows:

"Resolution 1: The right to own, use, enjoy, and the opportunity to earn a living from private property is the basis of freedom and democracy.

"Resolution 2: Private property shall not be rezoned, redesignated or reclassified in any manner that limits the natural and private use of property without

fair and timely compensation.

"Resolution 7: The proposed greenbelt legislation shall be amended to respect property rights as mentioned in resolutions 1 and 2.

"Resolution 11: All entry on to private lands by government officials shall only be conducted with the informed consent of the property owner or under the

authority of a search warrant."

I affix my signature.

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario, and especially to the minister of infrastructure services. It

reads as follows:

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

trains to pass a major rail crossing; and

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

Avenue-Old Weston Road bridge; and

"Whereas this bridge (underpass) will be (1) too narrow for the planned TTC right-of-way, since it will leave only one lane for traffic; (2) it is not safe for

pedestrians (it's about 50 metres long). It's dark and slopes on both east and west sides, creating high banks for 300 metres; and (3) it creates a divide, a no man's land, between Old Weston Road

and Keele Street. (This was acceptable when the area consisted entirely of slaughterhouses, but now the area has 900 new homes.);

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

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

easy traffic flow."

Since I agree with this 100%, I sign it.

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it's being presented on behalf of a lot of people

around the front lawn of Queen's Park today.

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers and rural Ontarians have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park due to a lack of response from the

Dalton McGuinty government; and

"Whereas the Rural Revolution believes that rural Ontario is in crisis and they will be demonstrating their resolve and determination at Queen's Park on March

9," which of course is today;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to deal with the serious issue of farm income, as brought forward by the Rural

Revolution resolutions to respect property and prosperity as follows:

"Federal and provincial governments have created a bureaucratic environment that legalizes the theft of millions of dollars for rural businesses and farm

income. All money found to be removed from rural landowners, farmers and businesses shall be returned."

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition signed by a number of people from the area of Huronia. It reads as follows:

"Save Huronia Regional Centre, Home to People with Developmental Disabilities!

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" -- that's us.

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government were elected based on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre" -- can you imagine that? -- "home to people with

developmental disabilities, many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and economies of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services ...

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence'...."

I sign that petition.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I present this petition to the Legislative of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government delisted OHIP coverage for physiotherapy services for seniors, the disabled and people with low income; and

"Whereas physiotherapy is an essential service that allows people to maintain independent living, reducing health care costs in the long term;

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, demand that the provincial government reinstate OHIP coverage for physiotherapy services for seniors, the disabled

and people with low income."

I'm happy to sign this.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I know folks want to thank the pages. This is their last day in the House. Many of the members who aren't

here would have liked to hear this also, but they will be reading Hansard, I'm sure.

Thank you very much for the tremendous service you've done for us here. We wish you all the best.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for the House to sit for another two

weeks and allow these pages to stay with us.

The Speaker: I'll see if we have unanimous consent. I'm hearing a no. I think it came from the pages, too.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent to allow

the pages to stay, provided Mr. Bisson stays here for the next two weeks to chaperone.

Interjections: Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: No. It has been a long session.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FILM CLASSIFICATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE CLASSEMENT DES FILMS

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 16, 2005, on the motion for second reading of Bill 158,

An Act to replace the Theatres Act and to amend other Acts in

respect of film / Projet de loi 158, Loi remplaçant la

Loi sur les cinémas et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne les films.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The member for Timmins-James Bay had some more time on this.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Before I was so rudely interrupted by the adjournment of the House, I was having an opportunity with

this particular bill, if you remember, to talk about the whole issue of censorship and about how I understand that, as a society, there are certain issues we want to make sure we have some controls

for when it comes to distributing films of different types in movie theatres and on video shelves across the province. What I was saying was that I agree, to an extent, that we have to have a

rating system so that parents or individuals themselves are able to make sound decisions about what they're going to view and what they're going to rent when it comes to movies or books or whatever

-- movies, I should say, in this particular case.

However, I have some reservations around the issue of censorship, because I've never been a big fan of censorship. I was a bit aghast today to see that we have

censorship going on here in the House around what books we can read, but that's a debate for another day. I will just say that in a democratic society such as ours and others, one of the basic

things we agree with is that individuals have the right to choose, and that's the key word here, what they want to read or view.

I'm not into some of the books and movies that some people purport to enjoy. That's not my thing. I like to watch good documentaries. I love The West Wing; I

just bought the third season. I bought 24; I'm somewhat disappointed after the first season, but that's another story. The point is that I believe it's up to individuals to choose what they want to

be entertained by when it comes to watching movies.

Obviously, there are certain things where we should, I guess to a certain extent, go beyond rating, but even then it's pretty tough, because there are certain

types of movies we would not want going in to general distribution in Ontario. I'm sure that's where the government is going when they talk about some forms of censorship in this bill. But I want

to put it on the record that if at one point a court has to make a decision as to what the legislators had in mind when they were passing this bill, I want it to be clear that, as New Democrats, we

are not in favour of censorship in almost all forms. We believe censorship is a bad approach that governments sometimes take in a democratic society like ours. Censorship begins at home. You decide

yourself as a parent what you think your children should be viewing or reading or watching. You decide as an individual what you want to look at.

One of the things I think we have a responsibility for, however, as a society, is to properly label or rate those movies or whatever forms of entertainment, so

that we can make a more informed choice as a society and as individuals within that society. Insofar as the government was going that way, I guess I wouldn't have a lot of difficulty with the bill,

but as I read the bill -- I'm looking forward to its time in committee because I think we need to clarify this point -- there are sections of this bill that speak to censorship, which I want to

believe are very limited, because I believe there are very limited and few occasions where censorship should be allowed.

For example, in this House, I believe that people should be allowed to read books and should be allowed to read the books they believe in, as we do outside in

this society, and I'm sure you share that view with me. I just say to the government across the way, certainly that's the kind of tradition that we're used to in democracy, that's what democracy

stands for, and we need to be very careful as we go down that path.

Revamping the rating system makes some sense. The work the Ontario Film Review Board does is important, but censorship? That's a place I'm just not prepared to

go.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to speak a little bit about Bill 158. The member opposite makes some good points and

suggestions. The concerns he raises are legitimate in terms of what censorship could or could not do. I'd like him to know that, as a former educator -- I'm actually still on leave -- and as a

principal, we set up several programs to educate parents about what was going on in some of the records, the albums, the CDs, the movies, the videos. We tried to set that up as an educational tool,

to ensure that parents were actually getting the scoop, because as we know and as you alluded to, the parents were not aware of some of the things that were going on in some of these things.

In my constituency role, I've had several parents bring me CDs and different types of materials that were available to them. They could go and rent these

materials. Even though they were voluntarily rated, they were still being sold over the counter by very young attendants, who may or may not have been told by their managers, "It doesn't matter how

old the kid is; if they come to buy that item, you sell it to them."

That's not quite what we're talking about here in terms of the bill, but these are the types of issues that I know he's talking about when he asks, "Do we want

to go down the road of censorship?" I think we want to make sure that people are educated about what exactly is happening, what these types of materials are. Do I want to sit back and say, "These

are the only things you can do," or "Those things you can't do"? I don't want to be the one to do that.

I make it very clear that I think we should do more educating. It's an opportunity for us to engage in that conversation about how parents should be made aware

of the types of things they're listening to, they're watching and they're exposed to. That's for the sake of our children. As adults, we know what doesn't work, and that is trying to get into the

bedrooms of the nation.

I'd like to thank the member for his concerns.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm very pleased to make some comments on the speech by my colleague the member for Timmins-James Bay. I

have to say that I agree with a great deal of what he had to say in his comments, not only this afternoon but when he first spoke in debate on Bill 158. I had the fortune of being here as well when

our critic gave his leadoff speech on this particular bill.

It's interesting to reflect on the timing of this bill coming forward. The government is up against the wall in regard to having to come forward with some kind

of legislation, because the existing legislation was struck down by the courts. In fact, my understanding is, the clock started to tick on April 30, 2004. So we can see that the government's really

in a big hurry to get this happening and to get it passed, and I can understand why: because they waited until the last minute.

Not only did they wait until the last minute, but it looks like they scrambled to put together a bill that, from what I understand from reading it, getting the

analysis of our staff and understanding what our critic is saying on this particular bill, recreates the very bill that got struck down by the courts. So it behooves the question: What the heck are

they doing over there? Holy smokes, they're in a rush to get this through. But the very bottom line is that what they've put forward in Bill 158 still does not address the sections of the previous

act that were unconstitutional.

It's extremely frustrating for those of us on this side of the House who would rather support housekeeping-type bills like this and get them through the

Legislature. Instead, the government decided not to bother doing the right thing and doing their homework, and now this has to go through committee and all kinds of processes. Why? Because the

government and the minister didn't bother to use all the resources available to them to put together a bill that's succinct and addresses the problem that got struck down in the first place. I look

forward to debating it more tonight.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

There are two minutes for a reply.

Mr. Bisson: If there are four minutes for questions and comments and two minutes for response, I'll take it all.

Just in reverse order, the member for Hamilton East makes a very good point, and that is, one of the reasons I believe this bill has to be referred back to

committee is that if you look at the decision by the court, some of the very things the court ruled as unconstitutional in the old bill, the existing bill, are still found in this bill. So we

scratch our heads and go, "Hang on a second; we're going through this whole process. Why? So that we can go back to court yet again, be challenged yet again, lose yet again and have to bring

another piece of legislation?" We need to make sure we get this right. We understand the courts have made a decision. Let's get it right.

This bill has to go to committee. I wouldn't say it has to have a lot of time. I'm not going to stand here and say, "Let's travel this bill to every community

across Ontario." No. I think it has to have some time in committee in order to amend those sections of the bill that are still offensive to the decision of the court.

To the chief government whip: Yes, I hear what you're saying, and I think education is really the best way to go. Sometimes that's frustrating, because people

sometimes don't pay attention to ratings when it comes to movies or books or whatever, and sometimes parents don't listen to the advice given by schools and others when it comes to the type of

material that's in the hands of our young people. So how you deal with that becomes a very tough issue within a democratic society like ours. I'm with the member: I don't want to be in a position

case you're watching, I did it again. I only say, I agree with him. This is not something we, as legislators, want to do. Free speech is something that's basic to democracy, and we need to respect

that.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It's a pleasure to get up and speak, not so much to this bill, but to the principle of the bill: censorship,

classification and having people able to put forward the type of material they wish to put forward, as they see fit.

One of the things I found interesting, apart from this bill -- obviously, it's a government bill and it seems to be the type of action that the government has

been taking on a regular basis. But it was somewhat of a problem today when we had a whole group of farmers in front of the Legislature trying to get their message out. It wasn't in film format,

but it very well could have been. It could have been taped and played for, I suppose, "How to get the ear of your government." The two choices, of course, would be the Liberal way, $10,000 to talk

to the Premier, or make a film and then see if it would fit this classification and whether you could show it on TV.

What's more, I just wanted to point out that the people who were demonstrating out front today had a number of things that they wanted the government to hear.

Since they haven't got the film made, they wanted to come here to Queen's Park and speak to the government. The Premier and the Minister of Agriculture decided that they were not well-enough

organized, they did not have the sanction of the government as a standing group that represents the agriculture community. I went out to see. Every one of them I spoke to who was talking about the

problems in rural Ontario and the agriculture problems was a farmer. They were the same farmers who were there a week ago. But this government has decided that they weren't going to listen to

them.

They wanted to be heard anyway, so they asked one of the opposition members -- and, of course, this is the job of the Queen's loyal opposition -- to bring

forward a message that they don't believe is being heard by the government. That should be for the opposition to bring that forward. But because of the classification and the approach that we have

in this House, when our member Mr. Barrett from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant got up to ask for unanimous consent to bring their message to us as legislators and to the government of Ontario, the

government House leader put on the record that no, he was not going to give unanimous consent for that.

So in order to follow the rules, I wanted to make sure that I tied this to the bill that we are presently debating. Having done that, I think it's a form of

classification and restriction on what you can and can't present, in whatever way you like.

For the record and for all those present and those who will in the future read the Hansard, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to read what the

good folks on the front lawn wanted to present to this Legislature through my good friend Mr. Barrett. This isn't a situation where the member opposite can rise on a point of order, because I

haven't done anything yet, so if you would be so kind as to give me that opportunity. But I think it is an issue that becomes very important for the people I represent and those people who were

here and are convinced at this point that the government has turned its back on them. I think they have a right to be heard, so I'm going to read this into the record, for your benefit, Mr.

Speaker. It is suggested here that it be tabled in the Legislature and, of course, I wanted to do that verbally because I don't want to secretly bring it in.

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The theatre outside earlier this afternoon notwithstanding, the member

from Oxford is no longer discussing Bill 158.

The Speaker: So far, he has not said anything that is irrelevant to the bill. I'll hear him first to find out if it's relevant.

Mr. Hardeman: I do want to relate this all back to the fact that we are talking about censorship and classification of our communication

system. That's what we saw earlier, and that's what we will continue to see if the member across keeps getting up and suggesting that we're not talking about the right topic.

The first item is the Right of Ownership Act. This is what the people outside were wanting. Again, this deals with what government should be doing, as opposed

to how we regulate the film industry, for all communication modes: "The right to own, use, enjoy, and the opportunity to earn a living from private property is the basis of freedom and

democracy."

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This is reading a motion on a totally different topic. Right of land

ownership has absolutely nothing to do with censorship or film classification.

The Speaker: Just help the House a bit on this, it seems to me that the act is to replace the Theatres Act and to amend other acts in respect

of film, and I hope that the member will address his comments in that regard.

Mr. Hardeman: I can assure you that it may take me a little while, but I think it's very important that one uses all the tools available to

explain what I think is wrong with what the Minister of Consumer and Business Services is putting forward here, as to how it restricts people's right to communicate and how the government has done

that today without even having had this bill passed. I think the lack of need for this bill is very important in this debate, and that's why I think this becomes very important.

"However, this right does not supersede or allow an individual to cause harm or injury to another. Ownership rights shall not be abridged or usurped without

due process of law and shall include full, fair and timely compensation. The federal government shall be requested to amend Canada's Constitution by inclusion" --

Mr. Delaney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Nowhere in Bill 158 is ownership of land discussed. May we please respectfully ask the member

for Oxford to discuss Bill 158?

Mr. Hardeman: Speaker, on that same point of order: I would point out that if the member across the aisle would like to read the bill to me,

then maybe I could tell that it isn't there or that it is there. I don't know. You're making a point here, but I do believe that we have the right to debate as we see fit to debate. But I notice

that we're going to have difficulty. The gentleman --

The Speaker: I would like to remind the member again to stick to the point and to the bill, as stated in the orders of the day. Please stick

to the bill.

Mr. Hardeman: I sure would not want to infringe upon the ruling of the Chair. I think it's very important to show respect for the Chair, so I

will leave that. It's obvious that the government side does not want to hear from the people who were here today to try and speak to them. The minister wouldn't come out, the Premier wouldn't talk

to them, and now the members in this House are not prepared to hear what they had to say.

But I'm sure that the member opposite would not object -- and obviously I think it's very important, because it is an important day for agriculture -- to

reference to what the Minister of Agriculture has to say about freedoms and the right to speak and who's responsible for the problems we have, maybe not just in the film industry but generally

across the board, and particularly in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Again, I think that's very important, as our livelihood depends on the food part of that.

Now, the Minister of Agriculture and Food was speaking in London yesterday. Typically, as has been the case with the Minister of Agriculture and Food in the

past -- Mr. Speaker, I know you're wondering when I'm going to get back to the bill, but I am. I just ask for your indulgence for about 15 minutes, and then I intend to come right back to it.

The Speaker: I would remind the member that he has 11 minutes and 23 seconds. If it takes 15 minutes, it will be outside the scope of the

time.

Mr. Hardeman: I think it's very important that, as we relate to agriculture and the importance of it in our society, one of the problems the

agricultural community has is the inability to convince or to deal with the general public to understand agriculture. Of course, this is where it comes to film classification, because the best way

to communicate in our society, as I found out in two previous elections, is to make a film. People tend to absorb better when they see it, as opposed to when they just hear it. Just sending out a

message or sending out a letter will not get the message out. If you want to get the people of our province to understand agriculture, then to make a film and distribute that will do a very good

job.

Of course, in classification, it becomes a big problem as to how you would classify the actual goings-on on a farm and whether that would be -- incidentally, a

lot of people in this province and some of the members who represent the more urban parts of the province may not realize it, but if you put some of the things that are on a farm in a film, they

would not necessarily be very --

Mr. Delaney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Referring again to standing order 23(b)(i), the rural-urban division in Ontario and points of

agriculture are covered nowhere in Bill 158. Bill 158's text, for the member from Oxford, is underneath his desk if he wishes to haul it out and read it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): The member from Mississauga West, I've only just sat down, so I've only heard a couple of

sentences.

I would remind the member that this is about the censorship bill and would ask you to continue with your speech.

Mr. Hardeman: I'm somewhat taken aback that the member from Mississauga West is so insistent upon the fact that he does not want to hear my

debate, and upon that, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: We have a motion for adjournment of the debate. Shall the motion carry? I heard some nos.

All those in favour? All those opposed? I think the nays have it. It's not carried.

Go ahead.

Mr. Hardeman: I just want to point out that it's obvious that they do want to hear the debate, so I'll carry on in the same vein. Obviously,

if they didn't want to hear the debate, they would have voted in favour of adjourning the debate. So I thank them for that vote of confidence.

The minister was in London speaking to our grain and oilseed producers, talking about the crisis they're in. I read the newspaper report on it, and I found it

kind of interesting that after all we've said and all the things the minister has said here in the House about what he was doing for agriculture and what he was doing to look after our farmers in

Ontario, when he went to London, and when the farmers asked him --

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It's clear that the honourable member has not

read the bill. He's not interested in debating the bill. This is a bill about film classification. I think out of respect for other members who have come to this House prepared to debate this

specific piece of legislation -- the previous Speaker in the Chair ruled three or four times that the member was not following the rules. I'm a new member here. I ask the honourable member, who has

some experience, to please, in the spirit of co-operation, follow the rules of procedure, and if not, I would ask the Speaker to rule him out and go on to someone who wants to legitimately speak

about Bill 158. I think that's the fair thing to do.

The Acting Speaker: The member's point is well taken.

I would ask you to confine yourself to Bill 158 and the subject at hand.

Mr. Hardeman: I think the minister opposite makes a very, very good point, not so much about what I'm saying, but about the bill and

censorship and classification. Is the member opposite, a minister of the crown, standing up and thinking that because he doesn't like what I say, he can suggest to the Speaker of this place that he

should just take my right to speak away and let someone else speak, because he doesn't believe I'm sticking to the topic that he would like to hear about? The trouble is that the bill the minister

has proposed really doesn't lend itself to a quality debate, because it does so little, and it does so much to take away the people's rights in this province. I think I would much sooner speak more

about the general trend of what this government is doing and point out to the public and to the people of Ontario that not only this bill but a lot of the other bills the government is putting

forward are not where we as a province would like to go.

The member opposite was talking about censoring and so forth, and what the bill does, and the classification of films. But I think it becomes very important

that we all recognize that there's a process in this place. We all have to do and say what is important to the people we represent, not only on what you have put forward but on what we think is

wrong with what you put forward, in general terms. That's really what I was doing today. I suppose you could side with the government side and suggest that unless people are saying what you want

them to say, you should take away their right to say it. I don't believe that's how this system should work and I don't think that I'd be quite prepared to have it approached that way. I don't

believe this Speaker would do that.

I do want to say that I think it's important that we speak to the issue that is most important to the people we represent. When I get this opportunity to

speak, I am going to do just that.

As far as the other issues, I think what we're really seeing here is that we're talking about censoring --

Interjection.

Mr. Hardeman: No, not censoring; I think the minister takes exception to that word too. So we're talking about classification of films and how

they should be classified.

Interjection.

Mr. Hardeman: Now the member says I should talk about a totally different subject.

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Talk about your values. What would you censor?

Mr. Hardeman: I thought the minister said this wasn't about censoring.

Mr. McMeekin: Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Hardeman: It's not what I'm saying, it's what the minister said. My problem here is not with what's in the bill; it's with the

government's intent on all these things to take over people's lives. Yes, I want censoring. I want the right type of films before my children. Incidentally, my children have got to the point where

they pretty well decide themselves what they're going to see, but I can understand that a lot needs to be done in order to make sure that things aren't on the TV that I don't want my children to

see.

But we all know that in the practice of this government, as we debate these bills, the minister is not going to change anything in it depending on what I have

to say. So, to be honest, I find it much more important to talk about what I think the people of Ontario need to know about what the government is doing and why they're doing it and, in my opinion,

what they're doing wrong. That's why I go back to the industry that was here today -- agriculture -- and how the government is treating the farmers of our province. It's not just my opinion.

Obviously, it's in the paper today.

It's quite clear that the members opposite don't want to hear what I have to say. I'm very sorry to hear that. Again, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Sorry, I didn't hear, but I understand you moved adjournment of the debate. Is that correct?

Mr. Hardeman: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: I would have to rule that out of order. You've already moved it once; you cannot move it again.

Mr. Hardeman: I misspoke. I move adjournment of the House.

The Acting Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House. Shall the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

I believe the nays have it. I do not believe, Mr. Barrett, that you're in your seat. I cannot count you.

I'm going to ask again. Everybody is in their seats.

Hon. Mr. Watson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member wasn't in his seat. Another member came in. Clearly there were not five people.

We have to go on. Mr. Hardeman has another 30 seconds or so. I think we have to follow the rules. If someone isn't in their seat, it doesn't count. So I would ask --

The Acting Speaker: I have told the member that the other member was walking in. I'm trying to be fair to everyone here in the House. I'm

going to ask again if there are five members who are going to stand to this. All right, then, do we have five members?

Call in the members. There will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1555 to 1625.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Hardeman, the member from Oxford, has moved adjournment of the House.

Would all those in favour please stand and remain standing to be counted.

All those opposed will please stand and remain standing while you are counted.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 5; the nays are 37.

The Acting Speaker: The motion is lost.

Questions and comments?

Ms. Horwath: It's certainly my pleasure to have the opportunity to make comments on the prior debate. I have to say that this bill is a long

time coming. I say that because, quite frankly, I think it was the result of a Supreme Court decision back about a year ago, if not more, that indicated that the government needed to act on a

decision in regard to the Glad Day books case. As a result, they needed to update the legislation, the Theatres Act, and in fact had about a year to do so. The time is ticking away, the clock is

running down, and here we are at the 11th hour with the government finally bringing this bill forward.

The thing that's problematic about it, quite frankly, is that they have not bothered to take the effort to put the appropriate measures in place to address the

very issue that was raised by the judge in regard to this case. It's really disappointing. I have to tell you, quite frankly, that it begs the question, to a new member like myself, as to why the

government bothers bringing these things forward if they know very well that in fact they don't address the very problem that they were supposed to address in the drafting of this bill. It's

extremely frustrating, and I can't for the life of me figure out with why, when they claim to have such an aggressive agenda and so many things they want to accomplish and so much they want to get

done, they bring forward a bill like Bill 158.

Quite frankly, if it were addressing the issues that it was supposed to address, I'm sure that my caucus would be very happy to support it; the problem is, it

doesn't. So now it's got to go through the process of committee because, quite frankly, it needs to be cleaned up. It needs some amendments. Notwithstanding all of the resources that are available

to the minister, the bottom line is that they put forward a bill that needs to have some serious improvements to it. I actually look forward to the opportunity to bring those improvements forward

in my debate, which I'll be bringing to you in the next few minutes. Thank you for this opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Watson: I thank the honourable member for Hamilton East because, while I disagree with many of her premises, she talked about the

bill. The member fr