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

April 27, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Apr-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 27 April 2006 Jeudi 27 avril 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EASTERN ONTARIO

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONATION EDUCATION), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉDUCATION SUR LE DON D'ORGANES)

EASTERN ONTARIO

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONATION EDUCATION), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉDUCATION SUR LE DON D'ORGANES)

EASTERN ONTARIO

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONATION EDUCATION), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉDUCATION SUR LE DON D'ORGANES)

WEARING OF RIBBONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

THORNCLIFFE NEIGHBOURHOOD

YOUTH CENTRE

NORTHERN ONTARIO

BENEFIT CONCERT

VIETNAMESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

NORTHERN ONTARIO

ORGAN DONATION

EARTH WEEK

PROJECTS IN CORNWALL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF LONDON ACT, 2006

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ORGAN DONATION

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

ORGAN DONATION

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

ORGAN DONATION

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

VISITORS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

PROPERTY TAXATION

ONTARIO HUMAN

RIGHTS COMMISSION

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

PROPERTY TAXATION

NUCLEAR SAFETY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

ONTARIO HUMAN

RIGHTS COMMISSION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

PETITIONS

OPTOMETRISTS

AUTISM SERVICES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ORGAN DONATION

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

DISABLED PERSONS

PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM

CELLPHONES

OPTOMETRISTS

CRIME PREVENTION

JUSTICE SYSTEM

MACULAR DEGENERATION

ORGAN DONATION

CRIME PREVENTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRANSPARENT DRUG SYSTEM

FOR PATIENTS ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR UN RÉGIME

DE MÉDICAMENTS TRANSPARENT

POUR LES PATIENTS

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Ontario government should establish an eastern Ontario

secretariat as a special-purpose office that supports the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, with main responsibilities to provide analytical and evaluative support in the assessment of

existing and new policies and programs impacting eastern Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Runciman, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Runciman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity. I know that private members' opportunities don't come around too

often; we're fortunate if we have one or two during the life of a government.

When I tabled the resolution, I issued a press release essentially explaining a number of things that I hope to accomplish with respect to this and a number of

the justifications for the resolution itself. Certainly eastern Ontario is facing significant problems, or at least certain sections of eastern Ontario are facing real challenges.

I felt that the secretariat itself, if indeed it is established, should fall under the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. I believe that's the

appropriate ministry to address regional concerns that are primarily economic or have linkages to economic well-being. A secretariat could provide a window into government for the residents of

eastern Ontario and elected officials. It would also in my view ensure that existing and new policies and programs are assessed for their impact on eastern Ontario. It would give that part of our

great province a minister to represent its interests around the cabinet table and in the Legislative Assembly.

Members who have been around here for a while know that I can be as partisan as anyone, but I want to assure you that this is not a partisan initiative. A lot of

these concerns have been around for my time in this assembly -- 25-plus years now -- and governments of all political stripes have served during that period of time: Liberals, NDP and Progressive

Conservatives. In my first term in this place, I recall a bill being tabled by George Samis, who was then the member for Cornwall, calling for the creation of a ministry for eastern Ontario. So I

think all of us have heard these concerns: the inability; the frustrations with respect to access to government; and initiatives, policies and programs being developed at Queen's Park without

appropriate input or feedback from the residents, not just the elected officials, with impacts that are sometimes not favourable to that region. As I said, those concerns cover the waterfront with

respect to the implications of involvement of all three political parties in this assembly.

We've heard various suggestions over the years as to how this could be addressed. What I have attempted to do is come forward with a proposal which I believe is

cost-effective, responsive and reasonable, and hopefully will gain the support of all members of the Legislature. What I'm talking about here of course is the establishment of a secretariat within

government, lodged within the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.

Some members may have questions with respect to the boundaries of eastern Ontario. Effectively, we have utilized the boundaries that are accepted by the Ministry

of Economic Development and Trade in terms of their definition of eastern Ontario. They have been endorsed by the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus and by AMO, the Association of Municipalities of

Ontario. These are essentially the currently recognized boundaries for initiatives undertaken by the provincial government with respect to eastern Ontario, and they are supported by municipal

officials throughout the region and beyond.

I have based the concept on one of the current secretariats within government, the Ontario Seniors' Secretariat, which is lodged within the Ministry of

Citizenship and Immigration. If you take a look at the estimates for 2005-06 for the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, the secretariat program, it cost around $2 million, with 22 employees

within the secretariat itself and three staffers on the minister's staff providing him with input. Does it have to be as large as the seniors' secretariat? I don't believe it would have to be. In

terms of real costs to the government, I think they would be modest at best. If we're looking at secondments from within government -- for example, rural affairs and finance -- we're talking about

policy analysts, we're talking about economists, we're talking about a range of experts in terms of essentially policy analysis and evaluation, with some people who would obviously be acting as

liaisons in terms of direct contact and providing that window into government for eastern Ontario residents.

If you look at it from that perspective, in terms of this initiative not creating some other significant bureaucracy within government or adding any burdensome

additional costs to the taxpayers, I think it accomplishes those goals essentially through secondments and transfers and through attaching those salaries rather than being lodged in the Ministry of

Finance, for example, or rural affairs being lodged within the secretariat. I think it's a reasonable, affordable and practical initiative, which hopefully all members will support.

I want to talk about some of the challenges in eastern Ontario, and I can provide all of this information to anyone who wishes to have it, in terms of job losses

over just the past year in the manufacturing sector. They have been significant within the boundaries I outlined earlier: close to 1,600 job losses in the manufacturing sector. A lot of these, of

course, are impacting small, essentially rural communities.

I've had a few in my riding. There is Prescott's Hathaway shirt manufacturer, which many of us know. During our travels over the years, we have stopped in at the

outlet store in Prescott and acquired great-quality products at reasonable prices. Prescott was the Canadian home of Hathaway shirts, and that is now lost and 53 jobs with it. There had been

considerably more over the years, but because of the problems facing the textile industry in this country, that had diminished to 53 jobs.

Mahle Brockhaus in Gananoque, a recent closure, is moving to Mexico and the United States -- 90 jobs. Nestlé, which is in a neighbouring riding in

Chesterville is again a factory that had been in this part of the province for as long as most of us can remember -- 300 jobs. The Harrowsmith cheese factory, another historic operation -- 89 jobs.

Hershey chocolate in Smiths Falls has not closed its doors and hopefully that's not on the horizon, but it has reduced its operations by 50 jobs in the past year. Unilever in Belleville -- 100

jobs. I was recently advised by my colleague from Barry's Bay of another job loss in his riding: Smurfit in Pembroke -- I think 139 jobs are being lost in the city of Pembroke. Cornwall has been

especially hard hit, certainly with the Domtar closure, which is the most significant, I believe. Gildan Activewear is another one, with 170 jobs. Satisfied Brake -- 180 jobs. Spartech -- 90

jobs.

These are the kinds of impacts we're seeing. For the most part, these are small communities, whether it's Gananoque or Prescott or Chesterville, that are going

to have an extremely difficult time recovering from those job losses and those impacts. I think we have to do what we can to address it, and we're limited because we know there are an awful lot of

pressures outside this country impacting the ability of manufacturers in this province to compete effectively and maintain their operations.

I encourage all members to support this. This is not a partisan initiative and an attempt to be critical of anyone; I'm doing this hopefully in the best

interests of my part of the province.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I'm certainly pleased to be here this morning and to be speaking, along with my colleagues.

I will say right now that I am in support of the member for Leeds-Grenville and the motion he has put forward today. It was just two weeks ago that I had a private member's bill in this House, and

the member did speak to my private member's bill. In speaking after the member from Brant had made a presentation here, the member from Leeds-Grenville said, "I have a lot of respect and some

affection for the member who just spoke on behalf of the government, but I have to strongly disagree with his comments." I too, in speaking this morning, have a lot of respect and some affection

for the member from Leeds-Grenville and certainly am in support of his motion, but I have to say, I wonder where the previous government was and where his party was when we had the desire and the

need to have this kind of support way back when they were in government, when he was a cabinet minister. I really have to ask, where was that government? Because if they had thought of this idea

and had put it into place, maybe eastern Ontario -- his riding, my riding -- wouldn't be in the state that it's in today. Certainly, we do have some tough economic times, but I think that if we'd

had some support back then, we wouldn't be in this state.

I'd also like to say, speaking on behalf of my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, that this government has been nothing but supportive of the small

communities like Chesterville; like Long Sault, where we had Gildan Activewear; like Iroquois, with St. Lawrence Textiles; and certainly with the city of Cornwall in their troubled times. We've had

great leadership locally from the mayor of the city of Cornwall, Phil Poirier; the mayor of South Stormont, Jim Bancroft; the mayor and warden of South Glengarry, Jim McDonell; the mayor of North

Stormont, Dennis Fife; the mayor of North Dundas, Alvin Runnalls; the mayor of South Dundas, Lyle Van Allen. They've always been very supportive of the best they can have in their municipalities.

They have been working very closely -- all those leaders have been here to Queen's Park to meet with the Premier, to meet with the Minister of Natural Resources, to meet with the Minister of

Economic Development and Trade, to meet with the Minister of Energy. Just next month, on May 16, the Minister of the Environment is going to be in my riding. This just shows the interest of my

government in the leaders of my community, who are working so hard.

I think it's important to recognize too that the Leader of the Opposition has been in my riding a number of times; in fact, he was there last Friday. He comes

into Cornwall and he always talks about the city of Cornwall. There's more to my riding than the city of Cornwall. I have a large, large rural riding with small towns, one-industry towns, that have

lost those supports, and we hear nothing from the Leader of the Opposition with regard to those small communities in my riding. I wonder if he considers them worthy of his attention. I know that I

do. I'm there speaking all the time. I certainly think that this motion would address some of the concerns of those small areas.

I look at our government being supportive of the communities in my riding, and I know that I continue to hear appreciation all the time. Just as an example,

Mayor Phil Poirier of the city of Cornwall said on March 24, "All those meetings, all those proposals finally paid off. I knew all along we were going to get something. [The province] owned up to

their promise," to help. In the same edition of the Standard Freeholder he also said, "The province is listening."

Yes, we have listened. I can say that I think this motion is a great one, to establish a secretariat, and it will go a long way in what we're doing, the McGuinty

government is doing, for the economic situation in eastern Ontario and in my riding.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It is my pleasure to stand in support of my colleague from Leeds-Grenville and his resolution

here this morning to support what we think is an important issue in the eastern part of the province, eastern Ontario.

It seems unfortunate that we always have to bring these issues up at a time of private members' business. Quite frankly, the government should show an interest

in prioritizing the needs of eastern Ontario, because it is clear by the evidence that the member for Leeds-Grenville has shown already today that we're falling behind, and the government seems to

only recognize the part of the province that is in the GTA. It always seems that we've got to raise these issues here in private members' business.

The lack of support for eastern Ontario was evident in the recent budget. It has been evident in the fact that they refused to support the bill of my colleague

Norm Sterling, the member for Lanark-Carleton, when he proposed an eastern Ontario economic development fund. It is coming up again in the House. It has passed first reading and will again come up

for debate. I hope the government will actually bring that to fruition this time. My gas tax bill would support people in eastern Ontario, in rural communities; eastern Ontario is primarily a rural

part of the province. As a matter of fact, when my bill was debated in this House, the member for Ottawa-Orléans scoffed at it and ridiculed it. That's the kind of attitude we have in that

government when it comes to the people of rural Ontario. That is regrettable.

The resolution my colleague has proposed today would at least show some interest on the part of the government, to indicate that it is important enough to ensure

that someone with a seat at the cabinet table is responsible to recognize and articulate the needs and issues of eastern Ontario at that table. The current members of the cabinet who reside in

there don't seem to be doing that. It is important that the people of eastern Ontario have a special voice. I've got to give a lot of credit to my colleagues Norm Sterling, Bob Runciman, Laurie

Scott, and a new member here for Nepean-Carleton, Lisa MacLeod; I'm quite certain she will be a vocal supporter and proponent of support for eastern Ontario. We'll be hearing more from two of them

later on.

I've got to give a lot of credit to the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus, headed by the warden from my riding, Bob Sweet, who has been tireless in making a pitch

to this government to recognize that eastern Ontario has different economic needs, that it has different issues affecting it and that it must get the ear of this government if we are going to be

able to survive what is happening in eastern Ontario. My colleague talked about the job losses. If we're going to be able to go beyond those and continue to offer people in eastern Ontario, in

particular in rural eastern Ontario, a standard of living that is fair -- Mr. Runciman talked about the job losses. Many of these job losses that are outside my riding still affect my riding. When

Domtar shut down with 91 jobs in Cornwall, that affected people in my riding because much of the fibre shipped to Domtar comes out of companies in my riding. Of course, recently there were the

130-some jobs at Smurfit in Pembroke.

In total, a lot of things are happening negatively in eastern Ontario. I think this resolution, if supported by the government, will go a long way to at least

indicate to the people who live there that they have an interest in supporting the needs of the fine people who reside in eastern Ontario.

I commend the member for Leeds-Grenville, who is one of the most articulate and forcefully speaking members of this House when it comes to supporting the people

from eastern Ontario. I commend and thank him for this resolution.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I will be supporting the motion, as will my colleagues in caucus, when the time for the vote comes later

this morning. In supporting this resolution, though, I have to state and admit that this is a problem not unique to eastern Ontario. A secretariat being brought about in eastern Ontario is a good

idea, but we should also have one for rural Ontario and one for northern Ontario. We should have one for all the manufacturing sectors and all the rural locations that are having a very hard time

economically, because that is in fact what this Legislature is supposed to do. I would think that's what the government should try to charge itself to do.

I commend the member from Leeds-Grenville, because as he has quite rightly stated, he is not the least partisan member of this House. He knows quite rightly that

he is out here to make this resolution for the people of his riding and the people in the surrounding ridings, and is doing his very best to try to bring economic activity and some form of

government impetus to do something about what is happening there.

We know that the manufacturing sector in this province is in decline. In spite of the protestations I might hear from time to time from the members in government

opposite that it is not in decline, we know quite well that it is. In fact, I have here the Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey that shows there has been a loss of 140,000 manufacturing jobs,

more than 12% of the total, in the 18 months between July 2004 and January 2006 in Ontario. If you look at the chart, it is quite disturbing. You can see that manufacturing jobs in Ontario were in

the 1.1-million range in September 2003. They actually climbed until July 2004 and then started a precipitous decline. Literally month after month, with a few blips, it has gone down until January

2006, where it's actually gone below one million manufacturing jobs in this province.

The member has quite rightly stated the number of manufacturing jobs that have been lost in eastern Ontario. He listed them off, everything from the Hershey

factory in Smiths Falls to Domtar in Cornwall, and of course they have been lost.

Eastern Ontario is not unique; eastern Ontario is like every other part of the province. But what makes it particularly harmful to eastern Ontario, and to

northern Ontario, where it occurs is that many of these are small municipalities. They are small municipalities that have one or two industries, and to lose one has a huge effect. To lose a factory

job in a city like Toronto, Mississauga or Markham is of course very painful to the people who lose their jobs, but in terms of the wider municipality it is not that great a problem because there

are so many others that jobs can be made available to those who have the misfortune of finding their factory closed. But in a small town, that often does not happen. We saw just the day before

yesterday what is happening in Smooth Rock Falls, losing I think it's a planer mill -- certainly within wood fibre. It's losing that, and that is literally the only major employer in the town. It

would be near impossible for that town to recuperate, unless in fact they can convince someone to keep that operation going.

We also have to be worried about what is happening in Ontario in the long term. Not only are these declines forecast that have taken place since 2005 right

through to 2006 showing a steady decline in the jobless rate in Ontario in the manufacturing sector, but I was disturbed to see in, I believe, the Globe and Mail -- it might have been the Financial

Post -- a day or two ago, in a column in one of the business sections, the anticipation of where manufacturing was going to go in Canada in the next year. What it said was disturbing because,

although it seemed that there would be jobs in manufacturing for export increased in Canada, the only province that was going to show a decline was Ontario. They are forecasting a decline for

Ontario of an additional 1% in 2006-07.

I can understand where the member from Leeds-Grenville is coming from, because a further decline in that particular part of the province will of course have

disastrous effect. But we, as a Legislature, need to look to all of the province, and we need to look for solutions.

We have seen what's happened just in this morning's paper around the softwood lumber issue. It appears that Ontario is not going to do very well in the bilateral

talks. I don't know where the minister was during those talks. I don't know where the government was during those talks. I understand that Ontario was at the table, but we seem to be getting short

shrift on those.

We know that the mining sector is doing fairly well, and we're thankful for that. The cost of most of the minerals, most of the iron and nickel and copper, is

increasing in value, and so is prosperity around mining towns. But they seem to be alone and unique, because the manufacturing sector, which was the bedrock in Ontario for many years, appears to be

suffering from job loss.

There are a number of factors that come into play here, one of which has been cited very often, the high Canadian dollar, but I would suggest that's not the real

cause. The real cause is that we have, many years ago, hitched our wagon to bilateral trade. We have talked about NAFTA. We have talked about one economic bloc for all of the Americas, including

Mexico, the United States and Canada. The trade seems to move back and forth, and we have hitched ourselves to that. Rightly or wrongly, that is the economic reality of today.

I will tell you that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Ontario to participate in a way that we once did. We are no longer trading as much amongst

ourselves. Ontario is no longer producing the goods for Quebec, the Maritimes, the west and British Columbia. We are more and more reliant upon exports to the United States. As they change and as

the Americans are finding themselves in deeper economic issues and deeper economic problems, running a trillion-dollar deficit, spending billions of dollars every day on the war in Iraq, causing a

balance of payments which is not sustainable in the long run, of course Canada is suffering. The United States is flexing its economic and legal muscle in order to ensure that some of our goods are

having a hard time vis-à-vis -- softwood lumber is the best example. It used to be shakes and shingles and other commodities that we traded into that country. They're putting up protective

walls to look after their own industries in spite of the NAFTA agreements.

There is no doubt that small towns in eastern Ontario and all over Ontario are having a hard time. Just this past week, I got a letter. I don't often get letters

like this from small-town Ontario, but here's one. It is from the east, but not that far east, from Loyalist township. They are very upset, and rightly so, because not only are they having a hard

time in terms of jobs and infrastructure, but the government has just announced to them that the Ontario municipal partnership fund allocated to the township is going to be drastically reduced. I

looked at this in terms of today's debate and thought, this is absolutely what is happening and perhaps why we need a secretariat, not only to look for new jobs, not only to preserve jobs, but

actually to look at how these smaller towns can be helped, how these smaller towns don't fall into cracks or into policies that really are not well designed in terms of their needs.

This is what's happening in Loyalist township. In their letter, and I'll quote a few sentences, it says, "The OMPF" -- Ontario municipal partnership fund --

"allocation for 2006, excluding the phase-in adjustment and the additional one-time special assistance adjustment, before phase-in, represents a loss of nearly 40% of what was previously received

as CRF funding ($867,639" -- which they're going to get now -- "vs. $1,382,000)" which they got before.

They go on in the body of the letter to say that the government of Ontario claims that the reason they're being reduced is because of their proximity to

Kingston. They're a small township not too far from a medium- to small-sized city in eastern Ontario. They go on to say, "If this loss of funding had to be raised in 2006, it alone would have

resulted in an increase of $69.28 for a residential taxpayer using an average residential assessed value of $157,100, or an 8.5% increase over 2005 taxes for township purpose. This increase would

be over and above any other tax levy increase to meet increased costs of operating the township."

They go on in some detail to describe what is happening elsewhere in Ontario and how this area of Loyalist township in eastern Ontario is being hard done by. I

don't have any doubt that what they have written in this letter is correct, and I don't have any doubt that the monies are needed for justifiable purposes for their municipality. What the member

from Leeds-Grenville has put forward would be I think an opportunity for a secretariat to look after not only, as I said, the manufacturing sector and the loss of jobs but the entire economic

sector and what we can do to make sure that the smaller towns and rural areas can be looked after.

Having said that, I listened as well to the member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, and there was one very puzzling statement in what he had to say.

Although he's supportive of the bill, and I thank him for that, he had to say he wondered where the Leader of the Opposition was in all of this, in all of the talk around what was happening in

Cornwall and in his riding. I would remind the honourable members that there is a government side and an opposition side, and it is the government's side to do something. It is the government side

that has all the strings, all the control of the bureaucracy, control of how the budget money is spent. It is you who decide this. It is not the opposition. It is our job not to oppose you but to

be critical of what you do, where you fall down and where you fail. I think any kind of statement that the Leader of the Opposition, or any member in the opposition, is somehow responsible for not

doing enough for eastern Ontario is a false one. It is an argument that cannot and should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. It is a government responsibility. That's what this bill is

attempting to do: To push the government to take responsibility for what is necessary for eastern Ontario.

I would suggest that there is also a great deal of difficulty in other places of the province, a great deal of difficulty in northern Ontario. We know that

population has declined significantly. I don't believe it's reached third reading yet, but there is a motion before this House talking about sustaining the number of ridings in northern Ontario.

Because the population has declined, the federal government has actually lost one whole riding in northern Ontario. People are moving out of northern Ontario because of job loss, because the paper

mills are being shut down, because of a whole wide variety of things. We know that is happening.

I would suggest that we support this bill. I went to the website -- if I can find the document here -- that Mr. Runciman, the member from Leeds-Grenville, had

prepared. On his website, he did indicate what the problems were and why we needed to do something. I think it's instructive, because he doesn't talk so much about eastern Ontario. The first bullet

point is, "There is a crisis in rural Ontario." We all know that is true. We know there is a crisis in rural Ontario. We have listened to the farmers and we know that the monies they are making are

not sufficient to keep the farms operational, in many cases. He says there are "assaults on the rural way of life." We believe that to be true as well. He goes on to say that there are "MNR

policies on fishing regulations and fish sanctuaries" that adversely affect regional tourism. That is true not only in eastern Ontario but literally everywhere in the province outside of the major

metropolitan areas. He goes on to talk about, "conservation authorities, harmonizing their regulations ... infringing upon rural Ontarians." Again, it is a rural argument. Then he goes on, lastly,

to talk about farmers' markets, church potlucks and the Ministry of Health.

This is a rural issue. It is a northern issue. It should be expanded. We are going to support this, but clearly there is an obligation on this government to do

much more for the people in rural and northern Ontario, and if it is done in eastern Ontario as well, that's fine by us.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I am very pleased to speak to this bill. I will certainly be supporting it for a number of reasons,

one of which is that this is the closest to

an act of remorse that I've seen on the part of the opposition party. They don't want to actually say they're sorry, but they're getting close, and I'm

encouraged by that. This will establish what eastern Ontario used to have. We used to have the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. that essentially did what is proposed in this. It was a good

corporation, but it was the previous government that disbanded that. So thank you for going through the healing process and acknowledging, "We were wrong, and we want to bring it back." I hope you

feel the better for it.

In the meantime, folks, life has gone on in eastern Ontario and other people have stepped up to the bat. I'll say I'm supporting this because every little bit

helps, but eastern Ontario has its own uniqueness, as every part of Ontario does. One of the realities in eastern Ontario is that our population density is lower than, say, the Metro area or

southwestern Ontario. That means for us in eastern Ontario, for our industry that produces products that invariably are going to be sold out of the area, highways are a major issue.

This government downloaded vast kilometres of provincial highways to the local taxpayers. Of all of the highways downloaded in Ontario, 40% of them were in

eastern Ontario. In eastern Ontario you can drive for a considerable time where there's no housing. In fact it's crown land that doesn't produce the tax revenue to fund these highways. So I believe

a great disservice was done to eastern Ontario by that.

I think of the challenges that have faced industry in eastern Ontario. Regulation 170 has caused great problems for our community. It was the previous government

-- in fact I believe it was the mover of this motion -- that signed that, when they created the false crisis over walleye fishing in the Bay of Quinte and we lost people coming to our area as

tourists.

It was this government that created MPAC, which has caused great difficulties for our homeowners and businesses in eastern Ontario. The downloading of

ambulances, the downloading of policing, all made the taxes much more difficult when you need the high level of service that our citizens are entitled to but there are fewer taxpayers to pay for

it. So I'm pleased to see the turnaround, saying that at least we need to do something to try to fix what we messed up.

There's been mention in the debate so far about job losses, and no one in this Legislature wants to see that happen. When I hear announcements, wherever in

Ontario, I feel so badly for the families and for the communities. But on CFRB in December 2005, not that long ago, when asked about job losses, "What exactly can the government do to stop these

job losses?" Mr. Tory responded, "I don't think you can necessarily stop them."

As the Dalton McGuinty government, we certainly can and have worked very hard to increase employment in eastern Ontario. I think of my own community of

Belleville, where I was present when Procter and Gamble unveiled their plans for a new building and a new product line that will generate, I believe, about 80 new jobs, 80 good jobs. That's

happening because the Dalton McGuinty government stepped up to the plate and said, "We will assist with training the new employees for this area." So we're seeing those great jobs come.

The opposition has spent a great deal of time focusing on Cornwall, yet I have list after list of good things that are happening in Cornwall: Ridgewood

Industries, 350 employees, now looking to expand; Prince Foods, 30 additional jobs; Nav Canada, 125 more people; Procter and Gamble, 80 new positions at Brockville; PDL looking to employ 50;

Startech is expanding; Teleperformance -- it goes on and on. This mix has changed perhaps in Cornwall. I can assure the people in Cornwall that both their member, Jim Brownell, and this government

will do everything for Cornwall, and I think we've demonstrated that.

I'm proud of my community. When the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. was wound down by the previous government, we know -- and I'm thrilled that my community

recognized that if their neighbour does well, they do well. Rather than having competition to attract jobs, I now see that Brighton, Quinte West and Belleville have banded together and said, "We

will work collectively to attract industry to this community and to create jobs."

I'm very proud of what our government is doing. I will support this bill, but shame on you for disbanding the previous one.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): I'd like to congratulate the member from Leeds-Grenville on this non-partisan and very inclusive resolution.

He has been a strong advocate in this assembly for many years for our region of eastern Ontario.

There's hardly going to be a day in this Legislature where you're not going to know where I come from and who I represent. I'm proud to be from the riding of

Nepean-Carleton, and I'm proud to call the nation's capital, the city of Ottawa, my home.

My riding and my community of Ottawa are the heart of eastern Ontario, and for many years and throughout various governments, the people where I come from have

issues in my community that are reflected in Nepean-Carleton, where farmers, for example, in Goulbourn township are frustrated with their farmland being designated as wetland. They're afraid that

their land is going to be confiscated without being compensated and they need the provincial government to help them. I believe that the eastern Ontario secretariat would be a real asset to these

farmers. This secretariat has the potential to not only have input into legislation but also to be a voice in government for these farmers with the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I also think of the Carp Road landfill site. Hundreds of families in my Nepean-Carleton riding are concerned about the expansion of this ever-expanding landfill

site, and today the proposal is to more than double the size of what is now known as Carp mountain. On this side, we have been calling on the Minister of Environment in this House to seek other

waste management alternatives rather than approve the expansion of this landfill. I and the member for Lanark-Carlton have been asking the Minister of the Environment in this House to get involved.

We are justifiably concerned. This site has been in operation for 30 years and had been expected to close in 2010, but in those 30 years the village of Stittsville has grown enormously. It's become

a bedroom community, a vibrant community. It's just not feasible to expand the landfill.

We believe that the eastern Ontario secretariat would be beneficial for our residents, who feel their needs with the provincial government must be addressed

through their own ministry. I feel strongly. Although I did not address my remarks to the impact on the economy the secretariat would have, I believe the eastern Ontario secretariat should be under

the umbrella of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Our livelihood, our culture and our unique interests in the national capital, as well as in eastern Ontario, all contribute to our

economy or are inextricably linked to our economic well-being.

In closing, I would like to once again thank and congratulate the member from Leeds-Grenville, who I believe has come up with an innovative, cost-effective and

viable solution to the disenfranchisement we sometimes feel in eastern Ontario. I would encourage all members on the opposite side of this chamber, whether they're from eastern Ontario or not, to

support this resolution to create an eastern Ontario secretariat, so that we can have a window into government through a minister who will hear and represent the interests of the people of eastern

Ontario and Nepean-Carleton.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I am happy to have the opportunity this morning to speak to the

resolution that has been brought to us by the member from Leeds-Grenville. I appreciated, in his remarks this morning, his hope that as members of this Legislature we consider the resolution and

are able to do it in a non-partisan way. Whenever there is a resolution particular to a part of the province that brings with it the spirit of supporting the economy within that region, that is

something all of us should definitely support.

This morning I'm very happy to say that I've been a resident of eastern Ontario all my life. I'm a Tweed girl: born and raised in Tweed, Ontario, raised our

family in Tweed, Ontario, and I certainly appreciate the many wonderful qualities that living in a rural community and living in eastern Ontario provide.

I want to say, with respect to the folks in eastern Ontario and some of the challenges we face, that we are not a densely populated part of the province -- I

would argue, however, that it's the most beautiful part of Ontario -- and there are challenges in developing the local economy. I would also like to remind members of the Legislature that our

government has implemented a number of programs that we believe will support and assist with economic development projects, particularly in eastern Ontario.

For the record today, I would like to remind folks of some of the initiatives of our government. With respect to the Move Ontario initiative, with $400 million

for municipal roads and bridges, more than $60 million of those dollars came to eastern Ontario. With the rural economic development program, we have received 47 projects that account for $37

million being invested in eastern Ontario. With respect to the OSTAR program, 75 projects, in total $83 million, have been invested in eastern Ontario. Most recently, COMRIF, the Canada-Ontario

municipal rural infrastructure program: For the most recent intake, there were 24 projects, for a total of $47 million invested in eastern Ontario. We have also come up to the plate in terms of

assisting municipalities with the burden they bear in providing land ambulance services. We have invested $300 million over the next three years toward 50-50 cost sharing.

The establishment of the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus was referenced by the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I want to say to the members of this

Legislature that I think they are a very effective body that advocates on a range of issues, municipal and otherwise, that would improve their ability to develop their region economically. I've had

the opportunity to meet with these wardens on a number of occasions. They continue to have my commitment and my support. I believe the announcements of our government most recently in the budget

demonstrate that they are being listened to very carefully. We will continue to look to enable them in their particular roles.

I'm delighted to have had the opportunity to speak to the resolution that's before us today. I commend the honourable member for bringing it to this

Legislature. I think any time that we have an opportunity to talk about eastern Ontario, what a unique and wonderful place it is and how we can better support it as a government, is always

worthwhile.

The Deputy Speaker: Just one second. I reminded myself this is private members' business, so the previous speaker was from Hastings --

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

The Deputy Speaker: Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. You see what kind of difficulty I have.

The member for Lanark-Carleton.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I want to rise in support of Mr. Runciman's motion to establish an eastern Ontario secretariat. As

members know, I've introduced in this Legislature a bill to create an eastern Ontario economic development corporation to provide some financial muscle to those communities in eastern Ontario

outside of the city of Ottawa to be able to step up and participate in government programs.

While economic issues are indeed important, for me this bill not only has an implication for those areas outside of the city of Ottawa but also within the city

of Ottawa, because the city of Ottawa is unique in many aspects and different from any other community in the province of Ontario. So I not only want to talk about the needs in Prescott, Havelock

and Lanark village, which are towns that need economic stimulation and economic health and special consideration when dealing with their problems -- because those kinds of communities have some of

the lowest incomes in all of Ontario, and that includes the north as well -- I also want to indicate that the city of Ottawa finds itself in a different situation than many other

municipalities.

As you know, when the finance minister came forward with this $1.4 billion, the city of Ottawa, while representing 8% of the population, got about 3% of the

money with regard to that $1.4 billion. Now, we've seen that the eastern part of the province, not only in the rural areas but also in our urban areas, gets shortchanged from Toronto quite

frequently, and it was just exhibited most recently in the late March madness of handing out a huge amount of fiscal wealth.

But the city of Ottawa and eastern Ontario have a very large francophone population with respect to their overall population. I believe the city of Ottawa has

35% of the population which is francophone-based. I think that, within a secretariat, the recognition of the needs of our francophone community would be at the forefront and would be an important

aspect of Mr. Runciman's resolution.

We also have the largest population living on an interprovincial boundary, so for Ottawa members and eastern Ontario members, particularly along the Ottawa

River, it became very important with regard to the construction laws, as we have learned, and the labour disputes with the province of Quebec. I think the eastern Ontario secretariat would show

leadership and be involved in those kinds of disputes and in those kinds of policy matters with regard to the provincial government more so than the leadership that this government is presently

showing on those kinds of issues.

We have problems in terms of transportation going across the Ottawa River to the Quebec side. We need increased transportation links. While the NCC and the

city of Ottawa and Outauais are in fact involved in those issues, we need a larger provincial presence in those kinds of issues as we go forward. I think the eastern Ontario secretariat would do us

well in engaging us in those kinds of discussions and planning, which we need not only for those lands within our border but those lands outside.

Lastly, I think the most important part of this resolution is that it would provide some communities outside of the city of Ottawa a much-needed boost in

morale for their future, as they're suffering, in some cases, declining employment and manufacturing jobs leaving. We need an economic stimulus, and we do not see leadership within this government

to deal with that particular problem for our eastern Ontario communities.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I'm delighted to be able to speak on this resolution this morning because I will

definitely be supporting this resolution.

Let me tell you, way back in 1989, the former Peterson government put together a cabinet committee which was chaired at the time by Richard Patten, the Ottawa

Centre member, but one of the two previous governments cancelled it. I also want to go back to the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. that was put together for eastern Ontario to help develop an

industrial park, for example, of which I had the benefit of $350,000 in my town of Rockland at the time. But then the previous government, the Harris government, cancelled that program that we had

in place. That was definitely to help out small communities in eastern Ontario to develop and attract industry.

I have to say that even though we don't have an economic development secretariat in place, we have been taking care of eastern Ontario communities. If I look

at Cornwall --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The time has expired.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): It's a pleasure today to rise to support my colleague Bob Runciman's resolution that, in the

opinion of this House, the Ontario government should establish an eastern Ontario secretariat as a special-purpose office that supports the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, with main

responsibilities to provide analytical and evaluative support in the assessment of existing and new policies and programs impacting eastern Ontario.

The disparities that exist in eastern Ontario have been mentioned many times this morning. My riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock -- all but a small section,

the Brock

section -- is covered under eastern Ontario and represented well by the mayor of the city of Kawartha Lakes, Barb Kelly; the warden of Haliburton county, Murray Fearrey; and Neal

Cathcart, the warden of Peterborough county. They have been working hard with the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus. They have done a lot of analysis and are trying to bring that information forward

to the government. I'm glad that the minister mentioned that she has met with them before.

My riding is very similar to the ones that have been brought up and spoken to by my colleagues in terms of the lack of support they need to get jobs into the

area. We've all lost manufacturing jobs. In Lindsay, Trent Rubber was a big employer. We have slowly eroded our industrial base and jobs. And there's forestry up in the northern part, in the

Haliburton sector. They need some extra assistance. They do have some special problems with a large geographic base, a huge amount of roads that need repair, and the high education tax that they're

paying on commercial properties, just to name a few.

In my area, there is a large seniors population, so some type of economic stimulus to attract more young people and jobs to the area would certainly benefit

us. I have in Haliburton county alone the second-lowest average income in the province of Ontario, and I have a seniors population well above the average in Ontario in the riding of

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

They have challenges with bridges, roads, water systems and waste water systems. But there are good initiatives that are going on such as the DNA cluster from

Trent University that would be a spinoff for jobs in my area. There's the speed skating oval, the promotion of that in the Lakefield area, with spinoff to the riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

There's the need for broadband infrastructure so that small businesses can get set up.

I just have a short time to say that I'm very supportive of an Eastern Ontario Secretariat and the private member's bill here today.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Runciman, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Runciman: I want to thank all the members who participated. I appreciate the indications of support for the resolution. I especially want

to thank the Minister of Agriculture in terms of the government response, because it was in the tone that I had hoped would be set with respect to the discussion, and I compliment her for that.

It's unfortunate that there were other political references, especially focusing on the EODC, which is not what we're talking about -- a completely different

mandate, if members had been here earlier. I talked about the fact that the model I used was the seniors' secretariat, which is lodged within the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

I'm talking about a whole range of implications, issues, policies and legislation that can be reviewed by a secretariat and have a minister who can represent

those views around the cabinet table, around caucus meetings and cabinet committees as well, and in the Legislative Assembly.

I can give you a couple of examples that I believe are complimentary to the government in terms of the reaction. In rural Ontario, with respect to the premier

destination initiative by the Minister of Tourism last year, Kingston and the Thousand Islands were left out of that. The minister's office said, "Well, that's not an icon destination." Certainly

there was a lot of criticism in eastern Ontario, and I compliment Minister Bradley, who responded very quickly to that concern and had it designated as a premier destination. Also, recently we had

the Ministry of Natural Resources getting rid of sanctuary designations that had been in place in eastern Ontario for over 50 years: very unique; a real attraction for many tourists. I raised that

in the House. Minister Ramsay responded quickly and has corrected the situation. I compliment both ministers.

That's an example of the kind of thing. As those policies go through government, they would be reviewed by a secretariat and we wouldn't get into those

difficulties. It would also provide the window of access for representatives from eastern Ontario.

Again, I thank all members for their participation.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONATION EDUCATION), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉDUCATION SUR LE DON D'ORGANES)

Mr. Levac moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to education on organ donation / Projet de loi 33, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation

à l'égard de l'éducation sur le don d'organes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Levac, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today. It has been addressed a few times in the last little while.

I'm awfully glad to see that my bill, introduced in November 2005, last year, has sparked some interest here. But I will not take credit for our need to address this issue. I want to make sure that

everyone is quite aware that there has been a lot of work done by all sides. As has been said in this place several times during private members' business that I've presented, I try to bring to the

House during private members' business a non-partisan opportunity for us to discuss bills that will affect all of us in the province. On this particular issue, nobody has a monopoly on how to

improve the circumstances, and I would invite a healthy debate on how we can continue to improve our organ donation opportunities here in Ontario.

Before I start on the meat of my speech, I want to thank my former intern, Brian Wettlaufer, who helped create the start of this bill. He did an awful lot of

background work while he was in my office. And, as we tend to do, but not enough, I thank legislative counsel, Albert Nigro, who wrote the bill, and also legislative research in the library. They

do an absolutely fantastic job for us. As has been said before, a very large thank you to those people who work behind the scenes to help us as legislators forward those pieces of information that

the people of the province of Ontario need to hear.

I know we'll have some visitors with us who have indicated they are going to be here as soon as possible. Mr. George Marcello is the recipient of a liver

transplant, but he is also a very great advocate. He travels the country advocating organ transplant and works with as many organizations as possible to get the word out there that we need to have

more donations.

Donina Lombardi, the daughter of Johnny Lombardi, has taken it upon herself in the tradition of her dear dad to educate the multicultural communities about

organ donation -- another advocate on our behalf from the grassroots. We thank her.

In the gallery today we've got Jennifer Tracey from the Trillium Gift of Life Network and Paul Casey, another recipient. This is a grassroots movement that I'm

hoping to stir, along with the other members who are introducing bills, to bring us to the realization that we need to do more.

I want to pull out of my pocket something that I carry with me all the time. I've done this before and I'll do it again. This is my organ donor card. It's

signed. It's dedicated. But what's more important is that I've had the discussion with my family, who have all signed their donor cards. They understand my desire to make sure that if in this old

body there's a piece of me that can be used after I go -- I'm not sure of the way I'm treating myself, but I know that I want this gift to continue. My family understands that and are going to

honour that. They will be going through, as all donor families do, a very difficult time during the very moment in which these organs are needed. The more we can get these kids educated, before

they become drivers, before they become absolute donors in our case, we need to get that culture changed. That's why I signed my donor card.

But there are also other things that we can do. We will be hearing the disturbing statistics regarding this from many people. Last night, I was fortunate

enough to be in front of some people who put a face on it. We need to talk about that.

We've got other bills before us. We've got three other bills besides mine, and I want to bring credit to those people who have introduced them.

We have Bill 61 from Mr. Kormos, of the NDP from Niagara Centre,

An Act to amend the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act, and that is on what is called "assumed

consent." That's another discussion we're going to have, and I encourage that.

Bill 67,

An Act to amend various Acts to require a declaration with respect to the donation of organs and tissue on death, has been introduced by Mr. Keels

from Oak Ridges, and we'll be debating that one as well. I want to support him, and I told him I would.

Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act, the Health Insurance Act and the Highway Traffic Act -- M. Lalonde from the Liberal party -- is

another bill that brings forward the whole concept of understanding it.

If we can get a hybrid bill out of this, and it's absolutely what everybody wants, I'm all for it, because we need to move forward on this.

Let's talk a little bit about those statistics. We've heard -- and this is the one that bothers me the most -- that every three days someone dies waiting for a

transplant. It's not that they wouldn't survive with it, but they actually die waiting for it. That's not acceptable. There were 469 donors in 2005 and 763 transplants in 2005. There were 1,720

people who were on the waiting list in 2005, and unfortunately that's growing as well. There have been 237 transplants so far this year; 132 donors so far this year, compared to 100 at the same

time last year. That means there's actually an increase, and that's good news, but there are still more than 2,000 people waiting now to receive an organ. All parties have recognized this, and I

compliment all of those who are saying yes to increasing our ability.

I want to move to what my bill tries to do. My bill,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to education on organ donation, will do something different

than these bills do. These bills are responding to the immediacy of what we can start. My bill is designed to change a culture. What we're trying to do is get in front of those bills by having the

culture we need already built in. What's a good place for doing that? The education system.

We have had people step forward before this. This isn't a new idea. The multi-organ transplant program at the London Health Sciences Centre created a

curriculum called One Life...Many Gifts. Right before us, I would just like to hold up -- and I know it's a prop, but I know no one will really get upset with me about it. They've got pamphlets,

they've got the CDs, the VHSs and a full curriculum that's already implemented in both the Catholic board in London and the Thames Valley board in the public system. It's used 100% by all the high

schools. It's already in place and it is not an add-on. One of the things I've learned from my discussions with the inside stakeholders is that they were concerned that we might be trying to

implement a brand new curriculum on top of what they're already doing. So I want to suggest to them very respectfully that that's not going to happen.

I want to give credit to Cate Abbott, Rodger Dusky, Mahms Richard-Mohamed and Dr. William Wall -- particularly Dr. William Wall, who has been a very stalwart

advocate on behalf of what this is all about, and that is to save lives as young as months old. Young children are getting transplants, and without those organ donations, these children would

die.

I saw and heard last night in this place stories about children and adults that brought tears to my eyes -- to hear the wonderful gift that these people

brought forward, and the tapestry that's going to be travelling the province. It is a two-part tapestry: those who are telling a story of donation -- of the wonderful life, the gifts from the

family members -- and the recipients, showing what it means for them to survive.

I met a little girl last night. She had a full transplant, a multi-organ transplant. There was no way she was going to survive. Now she's a vibrant little

9-year-old who is just a gem and an angel. She understands what a transplant is all about. Why can't we get this done in our schools?

There's no way we are meeting with resistance. I've received feedback from everyone I've written to indicating that I'm on the right track. Dr. William Wall

says, "We have a conviction that part of the reason for the higher rate of organ donation in southern Ontario -- 24 per million population, compared to the provincial level, an average of 13 per

million -- is the success of the curriculum project."

that although they have some concerns, which we will address, they are going to move forward with it. The principals' associations, the trustees' associations, the Kidney Foundation -- I could go

on and on and I've only got a minute left.

I want to suggest to you that there are some things we need to do, and that is to ensure that the Minister of Education is aware of our concerns and that we

understand that books like this: the annual report from the Ontario Trillium Foundation, the Trillium Gift of Life Network -- three decades of transplantation, a multi-organ transplant program.

These types of organizations have been working for decades to improve it.

We also have the organ donation position statements from the Kidney Foundation, which has been very supportive in moving this forward. Here are some of the

things they want to do: public education and professional education. They understand that to change this culture, we must move forward with our young people.

I want to suggest to you a quick example: Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Before they came along, it was culturally acceptable to get in a car, loaded to the

gills, and drive away. They said no; they changed the culture. Today we have an opportunity to change the culture once more. Sign your donor cards. Make sure everybody knows that you want to help

give the gift of life.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I want to commend the member for Brant for bringing this bill forward. I want to say at the outset that I and my

colleagues will also be supporting it. It's the right thing to do.

I'm pleased that we have before us an issue that is really common ground. It's not often in this place that we debate an issue where there is common ground.

But on this issue I know there isn't a member here who doesn't support the principle that's being proposed, who doesn't support any initiative at all that we can come forward with in this province

to save lives.

The issue that is being brought forward and encouraged through this legislation is to begin with young people in our school system to help them better

understand, first of all, what organ donation is and how they as young people can help save lives. We know what will happen if young people learn about this in the appropriate way in their

classrooms: They will take it home and teach their parents as well, because there's a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of false information today regarding this issue. What we need to do is have

clarity of thought. We need to ensure that everyone fully understands just what this gift of life involves. What I like about the member from Brant's proposal is that we begin to instill, in the

very early stages of Ontarians' lives, the concept that they have within them the gift of life and that it's their choice to be able to share that with others.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank not only Dr. Wall from the London Health Sciences Centre but his colleagues throughout the various hospitals in

this province. Ontario has shown leadership on the issue of organ transplants. In particular, we don't hesitate to emphasize Dr. Wall's role in helping to develop this strategy of education of

young people.

I would like to read from a letter Dr. Wall sent me, dated March 9. This was in response to the private member's bill I introduced regarding organ donation

that was debated here and that received, thankfully, unanimous support from all three parties. As you know, that bill, if implemented, will require of the government that everyone in the province

of Ontario, 16 years of age and older, when they apply for or renew a driver's licence or a provincial health card, answer a question relating to organ donation. That question will allow for a yes,

a no, or an undecided response so that no one is forced to make a decision to be a donor or not to be a donor. What it does require is that people have an opportunity or are confronted with the

issue. I think that, in itself, is going to considerably increase the number of positive decisions made to become organ donors.

Dr. Wall states in his letter, "We have found that when people are educated and discuss their wishes with their families, then the next of kin typically

upholds their personal decision to donate."

I make reference to that because it is so important that this decision regarding organ donation is not made in a vacuum, because with our system in Ontario,

even if someone makes a decision to be an organ donor, there is still subsequently the discussion with the family, and many times it is the substitute decision-maker who, at the end of the day,

will actually interfere or make a decision contrary to the wishes of the deceased. That is the state of our law today here in Ontario.

It is so important that the next of kin, who ultimately will be that substitute decision-maker, knows full well what the intention of the deceased was, and

that of course will then result in positive decisions being taken at that crucial time.

In the way of education, I want to add to the discussion that I believe it's extremely important that we look at other ways of educating the public about this

issue. With regard to my bill, it was never intended and would not be intended that it simply be a question on the application form for a driver's licence or a provincial health card. It is assumed

that there would be, along with that application form, appropriate information relating to organ donation and what it is, so that there would be a point of education at the very time people would

fill in their renewal applications.

With regard to drivers' licences, those renewal application forms come in the mail and there's plenty of time for people to pursue it. In fact, I have one

sitting on my desk right now that I have to get around to completing. But along with that application form, I envision that there would not just be the opportunity to make a decision about it, but

also that through the Trillium Gift of Life Network the appropriate information would be supplied that would motivate people to that appropriate decision.

I also think it's appropriate for the media to have a role to play. I want to thank Ted Woloshyn, who I know, Speaker, you probably listen to regularly every

morning. Ted signs off every one of his programs every morning with the words "Don't forget to sign your organ donor card" -- very positive. What I'd like him to do at the same time is to say, "And

by the way, if you don't have one, then go to the website www.giftoflife.on.ca and download the application form." We need the media to help us get the message out. There's only so much that one

person can do.

I want to thank someone with whom I have had some discussions over the last little while. His name is John Divinski. John has a radio program entitled Sounding

Board. It is out of Port Elgin, 98 the Beach radio. I mention John because he's doing what I wish more people in the media would do: He's profiling this issue. He's had a couple of programs now, an

hour in length, talking about this. I had the privilege of being on this program just this past week. But here was the magic of that hour: Along with me, he had guests on that program, and one of

these guests was Dianne Dalton. Dianne Dalton is the mother of a young son who was killed in a car accident. On the other end of the line, along with Dianne Dalton, was the young man who received

her son's heart. This man is now alive because of Dianne's son. When you hear that kind of discussion, you can't even comprehend, first of all, what it means to the gentleman who is alive today

because of that heart that was donated, but equally as important, what it means to the mother who knows that her son gave life in his death. What an amazing, amazing experience that is.

So I say that I think the media can do much more to help us get this kind of message out that it's more than just a technical term, it's not just another

health care issue; it's life and death.

But I also want to caution the media. I'm going to read this into the record, because it shows the obligation on the part of the media to get the message out

correctly. This is an e-mail I received from Lilliana Migliazza-Carbone immediately after the tabling of my private member's bill. I want to read it into the record, and I'm hoping that our press

gallery will read this. It goes as follows:

"Dear Mr. Klees,

"I owe you a sincere apology on my thoughts while reading the attached link that was an

article featured in today's Hamilton Spectator. I have never contacted

any MPP or anyone in Parliament in regards to my feelings on issues. I researched your e-mail address in the hopes of telling you that I disagreed with your bill and I was ready to tell you that

you have no right to force people into being organ donors. While on your home page I found a link to the bill that you actually proposed. I'm so glad I read it. I am an organ donor and I do

understand the importance of making people aware of its importance. So I am amazed at my change of attitude between what I read in the newspaper and your proposed bill. I support your bill and you

in making people aware of its benefits...."

Here's the key: We have to get the right information to people so that people can make up their minds about whether they want to be organ donors or not, but

let's ensure that the media understand the issue. So there's a challenge for the Trillium Gift of Life Network: Make sure that the media understands what this is all about and helps us get this

message out.

In closing, I want to again commend the member for Brant for bringing this issue forward. As the education critic for the Progressive Conservative caucus, I

want to assure the member that we will do everything to support the inclusion of this important curriculum into the broader curriculum of our province. It's the right thing to do.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I am pleased to participate in the debate. I want to welcome the guests who are in the gallery today, and I

want to commend the member for Brant for bringing forward his bill today.

As has been said by other speakers so far, I do hope that the addition of information with respect to organ donation in the curriculum will work to make young

people understand the opportunity to give the gift of life. But frankly, I also hope that it works to give people an understanding of their responsibility to give the gift of life, because I think

we should be pushing this envelope much farther than we have been. I say that because we do need more public education, but I don't think public education alone is going to change the culture we

have in the province enough. The reality today is that we have a crisis in organ donation in Ontario. That's no one's fault. Many people are making incredible efforts to change that, but we stand

at a point in time where we have a very, very serious problem. We can as a society address it head on by pushing the envelope, and that's what I'm in favour of, or we can hope that through more

public education and some other changes people might remember to sign their donor card and might remember to give the gift of life.

Let me just reinforce the extent of the problem. Frank Markel, president and CEO of the Trillium Gift of Life Network, was quoted in the Sudbury Star this

week, because there was a press conference with a particular group that is very supportive of organ donations. He was quoted as saying that there are 1,758 people on transplant waiting lists in the

province right now and that one person on a wait list, on average, is dying every three days. And this is key for me.

I say with the greatest of respect and the greatest of consideration to families who are affected by having their loved ones die every day in Ontario that many

people pass away after a full life when they have been given palliative care, if they are in a long-term-care home, as has happened to my grandmother just recently. They pass away, tragically, from

cancer, from heart attacks, from any number of fatal diseases and conditions. They pass away, very tragically, at a young age perhaps because they are victims of boating accidents or car accidents.

In so many of those cases, there's nothing that modern medicine could have done to save those individuals and there's nothing that the medical profession could have done to save those individuals.

But dying on a waiting list, waiting for an organ donation, is something altogether different for me. For me it is such an incredible waste -- an incredible waste -- because there is no need for

anyone in Ontario to die on a wait list, waiting for a liver transplant, waiting for a kidney transplant.

We live in a province that has 12 million people, and in 2005 there were only 169 individual donors who gave the gift of life, those people who were willing

and did have their organs donated after their death. While that statistic, that figure, is up 19% from last year and while, of those 169 individual donors, there were actually 750 transplant

operations that occurred, 1,758 Ontarians are still on a waiting list, and every week three of those are going to die. It's not good enough when we have those kinds of people on a waiting list.

It's not good enough when we know that a potential donor can donate up to eight organs for transplant in addition to donating tissue like eyes and bones and skin. It is not good enough that all we

seem to be doing is trying to promote more public education, as important as that is. We need a dramatic change in this province in how we deal with organ donations.

I said at the start that it's not as if people aren't trying very hard. I want to just reference the Trillium Gift of Life for a moment because I know that the

organization has done a number of things to try to increase donations. I just want to put this on the record and congratulate the organization for the work that is being done.

Firstly, the Trillium Gift of Life is working to increase hospital-based organ and tissue programs. We have 20 organ and tissue donation coordinators in major

trauma centres and neurosurgery hospitals and community hospitals. Those coordinators are responsible to try to increase awareness of the need for tissue and organ retrieval in hospitals. They're

responsible to try to develop a culture which considers organ donation a standard part of life-end care. They're trying to provide training to health care workers. They're helping to develop organ

and tissue donation committees in hospitals and, most important, they're responsible for approaching families who are grieving when their loved ones have died in hospital to ask them to consider

organ donation.

There's a really good article, for those of you who haven't had a chance to read it. It was printed in the National Post on April 22. It's an

article that

highlighted the personal story of Denis Dubé, whose wife suffered a massive cerebral hemorrhage and was on a ventilator with her heart still beating but with no brain functions at all. The

Gift of Life coordinator, in that case Nancy Glover, worked with Mr. Dubé to fulfill the wishes of his wife to donate her organs, and as a result of that donation, three lives of critically

ill people were saved and two people had their eyesight restored. Those of you who haven't read it should read it and see the important work that is being done by these coordinators.

Secondly, the Trillium Gift of Life is participating in what is described as the organ donation breakthrough collaborative. That collaborative encourages organ

procurement organizations to share and adapt best practices and promote rapid integration of these practices. The Trillium Gift of Life Network has established pilot projects as part of this

collaborative with three hospitals in the greater Toronto area: St. Mike's, University Health Network at the Toronto Western Hospital and Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre. The

pilot sites established real-time health record reviews to identify their performance and set realistic targets that will reflect true potentially eligible-for-donor deaths.

The third thing that has been done, and this involved both the Ministry of Health and the Trillium Gift of Life organization, was a change in legislation, the

Trillium Gift of Life Network Act, to ensure that major hospitals have to report every death to the Trillium Gift of Life Network. Now 13 major hospitals are reporting every death, and that began

in January 2006. Those notification and consent provisions in the Trillium Gift of Life act were patterned after legislation in both British Columbia and Manitoba, where it is mandatory for

hospitals to notify that deaths have occurred. That notification, of course, is designed to determine if the potential for organ donation exists and to ensure that an opportunity is granted to the

affected families to be approached to consider that option of donation.

The fourth thing that the network is doing involves educational programs and materials with respect to organ donation. A couple of examples: TGLN donation

coordinators delivered hospital-based education programs in emergency and intensive care units this year, focusing on those hospitals deemed to have the highest donation potential. TGLN held its

first provincial professional forum to discuss organ and tissue donation legislation and new Canadian guidelines for neurological determination of death. Regional meetings were linked by satellite

to enable 50 specialist physicians, along with related health care professionals and TGLN staff, to hear from a panel of medical, legal and ministry experts. The donation resource manual, a primary

guide to guide health care professionals through the organ and tissue donation process, was completed and distributed, and finally the Donor Family Advisory Council also developed the family

aftercare support program. That includes a family bill of rights and materials to assist potential donor families in understanding their options, how to make decisions, as well as listings of the

community resources available to them after they leave the hospital. Donor family recognition programs previously in place in Toronto were expanded to other parts of the province.

So there are a number of things going on. I commend all those efforts, but the fact remains that Ontario has much more to do and needs to do much more with

respect to its organ donation rates. If you look at those donation rates as defined as donations per million population, Ontario's rate is 12.4 persons per million population. That is well below

the national deceased donor rate of 13.1 per million; it's far below the province which performs the best in this regard, and that is Quebec, where their donor rate is 18 per million.

Again, 1,758 patients in Ontario are on transplant waiting lists, the vast majority needing kidneys and livers, and one person on that waitlist dies, on

average, every three days.

What do I think really needs to be done? Well, Speaker, it's going to be no surprise to you and to other members of the House that I am a huge proponent of

Bill 61, the Trillium Gift of Life Network Amendment Act, which has been put forward by my colleague Mr. Kormos, who's the MPP for Niagara Centre. This is the second time that he has put this bill

forward. The first time was in December 2004. At that time the bill was Bill 156. When Mr. Kormos introduced the bill the first time, he said the bill was inspired by George Marcello, who is a

well-known advocate for organ donation, and that the need for such a bill was reinforced by Kristopher Knowles, a young man who is in need of an organ donation, who walked across Canada in the

spring of 2005 to raise public awareness of donations.

I just want to read to you the explanatory note from Mr. Kormos's bill. It states as follows:

"The purpose of the bill is to ensure that upon the death of a person, tissue from the person's body may be removed and made available for transplant into

another person's body and that this may be done without the consent of the person from whom the tissue is removed. Currently, the act requires that consent be obtained before tissue can be removed

from a human body. Under the proposed amendments, consent is no longer required, but a person may object to the removal of the tissue prior to his or her death or a substitute may object on his or

her behalf after the death has occurred. If an objection is made, no tissue shall be removed from the body.

Part II of the act sets out the manner and circumstances in which an objection may be

made by or on behalf of a person.

"The Trillium Gift of Life Network continues in its role as planner, promoter and coordinator of activities relating to the donation, removal and use of tissue

for transplant and for other uses. Obligations are placed on hospitals, nursing homes and other facilities designated under the act to notify the network when a patient dies or if death is

imminent. The network coordinates the provision of information to the patient or his or her family with respect to the removal of tissue and the person's right to object. A person or the person's

substitute may register with the network an objection to the removal and use of tissue from the person's body after his or her death. The network shall establish and maintain a registry of such

objections."

It is true that Bill 61 would dramatically change the current regime regarding organ donations, because right now a donor card needs to be signed or the family

needs to consent to the donation at the time of death, and under Bill 61 the onus is on the individual to object to the donation or the removal of tissue, and this objection needs to be maintained

in a registry that will be maintained by the network. If there is no objection registered, then the tissue or organ may be removed and it can be used.

Why do I support this bill? The reality is that too many people forget to sign their donor cards. They have a good intention but they forget to do it. Too many

people tell their family about their wishes, but their family at the time of death disregards those wishes. And too many people don't tell their family what their wishes are, so there is great

stress and great anxiety at the time of death about what to do. From my perspective, this make no sense to me. Here are my cards. I signed my donor card when I got my licence when I was 16. That

was a long time ago, and I have had a card signed since then. I've had my father sign my consent under the consent that was put out by the Ministry of Health in 2004, and the member for

Kenora-Rainy River just recently signed my gift of donor card on April 7 as a witness, so he's very clear about what my wishes are. But from my perspective, I never thought twice about why I should

donate -- never thought twice. It seems to me, from my perspective, that my organs are no good to me when I am dead, but they could give someone else life. They could give someone else the gift of

sight. Why should I deny someone that opportunity when I'm dead? Frankly, I shouldn't. It seems to me, from my personal perspective, to be very selfish to do so. So I am a firm, firm advocate that

the donation process in the province needs to change, that the culture in the province needs to change so that giving the gift of life becomes a normal end-of-life experience, period.

In closing, while I appreciate the bill that has been put forward by the member from Brant and will support it and I appreciate the other bills that have been

put forward, I really think we need to have a very serious discussion in this province, because there is a crisis in organ donation, and no one -- no one -- in the province should die on a waiting

list waiting for a new liver or a new kidney. I think the best way for us to deal with that would be to move forward with the proposal put forward by Mr. Kormos. I hope we have an opportunity for

all these bills to be discussed in committee, to come forward with a bill that I hope will be his in terms of leadership with respect to what we do next.

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): In December 1967, people worldwide became aware for the first time of organ donation with a very dramatic

move in South Africa when Dr. Christiaan Barnard transplanted the heart of the world's first heart donor, a young woman named Denise Ann Darval, into the body of a middle-aged construction worker

named Louis Washkansky. Mr. Washkansky lived only a very short time, but the world changed at that point because people then understood that organs could be transplanted and that a man whose life

should have ended would therefore be able to live.

We're here to debate Bill 33, and Bill 33 about organ donation comes with two facets. There are two facets in making the public good come about: doing the

right thing and doing things right. As professional managers know, these are two separate things. Doing the right thing is about allowing your organs to be harvested for transplant purposes in the

event of your death. Doing things right is the tactical way of achieving that strategic objective of doing the right thing. Doing things right means finding every available channel into the hearts

and minds of Ontarians of every age, and making a change in that mind or setting that mind while it still lives and while that mind still draws breath.

It may take many types of initiatives to cause a change to take place collectively in the minds of Ontarians, but Bill 33 isn't intended to be the be-all, the

end-all and the catch-all of raising awareness of organ donation, but it is a solid step, a good step, and it deserves to be passed.

Bill 33 specifically is a channel into the minds of young people whose values and principles are not yet hardened by family, faith, tradition, customs,

prejudice, misinformation or fear. Bill 33's principle is really very simple. It says that in an environment such as a school, in which young people come to learn, this gift of life and its value

will be taught. It does not require that students agree to donate their organs, but it does say that a student will be exposed to impartial information and that a student is going to have a chance

to talk about the concept of organ donation without a worry of being influenced by one's parents' preconceptions, one's church's teachings or any other culture or value that may preclude an honest,

objective look at the concept of organ donation.

We've done this before. We did this with recycling. Recycling basically meant putting the garbage out at the curb and forgetting about it because then it was

somebody else's problem, but as a people we learned that recycling makes a difference; we learned what difference all that garbage meant to us. This approach also worked in smoking. We taught in

schools: Smoking isn't good for you, smoking kills you. This approach has also proved effective in promoting a healthy lifestyle. But more to the point, one of the advantages of implementing Bill

33 and looking down the road when Bill 33 is part of the curriculum is that this is also a channel into the minds of family, parents and friends. This is what allows mainstream thought to evolve

forward.

This is the sort of initiative that would allow the concept of organ donation to then become part of mainstream thinking -- just like fastening your seatbelt.

As I grew up when cars in general didn't have seat belts, you didn't think about it, but we learned it in school. We learned about a healthy lifestyle in school. We learned not to smoke in school.

We learned about the benefits of recycling in school, and it became part of the way we thought. It became part of our fabric and so it should be with organ donation.

I agree with one statement that the member for Nickel Belt made. She said, "The culture in the province needs to change." This is a bill that promotes a means

of changing that culture. It promotes doing the right thing but it allows a means of doing things right, and that's why I'm going to support it.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today in support of my colleague from Brant's introduction of Bill 33, an

education amendment act. It amends the Education Act by permitting the minister to establish the organ donation education policy framework in order to require the boards to include the education on

the importance of organ donation in the curriculum of students in the senior division so that every student, subject of course to certain exceptions, receiving their Ontario secondary school

diploma will have learned about the importance of organ donation.

This is the third bill, since I've been here anyway, that has been introduced on organ donation. It highlights --

Interjection.

Ms. Scott: The fourth? I'm sorry; he corrected me. It's the fourth bill introduced by all parties and it highlights the need for more

awareness around organ donation. The member from Nickel Belt has mentioned the number of people who are on wait lists.

It's important to educate young people. You know, we've evolved. I've nursed for 20 years, and when I nursed at Toronto General Hospital, one of the areas

where I worked was surgical intensive care. They were doing lung and liver transplants there. It is important to educate the families. When you can start earlier, it's probably better, because at a

time of crisis when your loved one is being considered for organ donation, you're in a very traumatic situation. People didn't have the background to deal with it at that time. When the member

introduced his bill here today, I think that's what he was getting to the heart of: The more people know who about organ donation, the better.

My colleague from Oak Ridges, Frank Klees, introduced his Bill 67 earlier in this session to make people, on their driver's licence or upon renewing their

provincial health card, make a decision, to give them an option about organ donation. That's part of what we're trying to say here today and part of what this bill is about. We have a lot of people

dying on wait lists for organ donations and we're not doing enough on the other side to educate people on how they can help. There were stories told today about family members who had phoned in to

talk shows to say that their loved one had passed on but that their organ helped to save someone else's life. I think that's really at the heart of this bill.

Things have evolved in science and medicine. Success rates are incredible, with kidney at 82% to 92%, heart at 83%, liver transplants at 77%, single lung at

58%, double lung at 72% and heart-lung combinations at 72%. That's critical to hear and will change people's minds. I support this bill.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): First, I want to thank and commend the member from Brant for bringing such an important issue. I know that

in the past some related bills have been introduced in this House by the member from Oak Ridges, Frank Klees; the member from Niagara Centre, Mr. Kormos; and the member from

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Jean-Marc Lalonde. Each one brought a different perspective but today we're discussing and debating a different and unique perspective.

The member for Brant, as a former educator in this province, knows the value of education. He knows how important it is to educate our youth, our students, and

how important it is to include such education in the curriculum of this province. We cannot do anything without education. He mentioned many different important elements, but the most important one

was that by including it in the education system, we are able to make some kind of change to the cultural pattern around this issue.

I've been listening to many different members of this House when they were talking about this important subject, which hopefully all the members will support

in the end. Hopefully we'll see some kind of solution to it, because we allow too many people across the province of Ontario to die, not having found an organ to be donated to them. It will give

them some kind of gift of life again, to be living among their family, with their wife or husband, their children, their neighbours and their communities.

I was accidentally visiting the hospital of Western university last week and I met a person I've known for a long time. He was in a wheelchair. He was smiling

with his wife. I asked him, "Why are you here?" He told me, "I had a heart transplant. I wanted to thank the person who gave me his heart before he died. He gave me the gift of life, to be able to

sit in this place, to be able to smile, to be able to be with my wife and my kids and my community." So it's very important. When we don't have the chance to use our organs again, why wouldn't we

give them to a person who needs them badly? This initiative by my colleague from Brant means a lot to many different people.

I was talking to John Wilson at my local radio this morning, AM 980. He was listening to us. He was listening to this debate. He was listening to all members

in the House and he was happy to see a lot of members engaged in the debate. He was happy to see all the people in this place thinking about and valuing the importance of creating a culture of

organ donation: to donate an organ that we don't use, that we won't be able to use in the future, to a person who can use it to be able to live in happiness among his family and his community.

I again want to commend the member from Brant for his passion about this issue, the other members who spoke in support and other members who brought similar

bills to this House. I hope to see many people across Ontario sign to donate their organs when they cannot use them again, to give a chance to many people who are waiting patiently, before they

die, to get some benefit from organs that others don't need. I hope in the future we'll see many people sign a card, like my colleague from Brant, which permits the hospital to use their organs

after they die.

I think it's our duty as elected officials to play a role, create awareness and in whatever way possible encourage and help many people to donate the gift of

life to many who are waiting patiently to see if someone will donate an organ to them and give them a chance to continue their life with happiness.

That's why I'm speaking in support of this bill, and I hope that in the end all members of the House will support it so we can see some kind of benefit to all

of us.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This is a very difficult issue to deal with emotionally. I'm not an expert on it but I would like

to share some very personal thoughts.

We never discussed the concept of organ donorship with our children. Why should we? We're not going to outlive them. This is not something we needed to be

involved in. And we were wrong. When our son died suddenly two years ago, we were never asked about whether we'd like to donate, and quite frankly we couldn't have made a decision at that time. We

still struggle to get our heads around the fact that he's gone. At that particular instant we would have been absolutely incapable of responding, had a request come or had he filled out a card and

the doctors had asked us to do it. We would have made an emotional rather than a logical decision. Our son died from what was preventable. We struggle with that concept, and then we read or we

become aware of other people who die from what is preventable. The lack of a donor organ is preventable for individuals.

There has to be something good come out of something bad. I believe that's our challenge as humans: to make that happen. But in the case of organ donors, it

has to be a result of some planning ahead; and there was no discussion within our family about it. So I applaud the member's bill that will result, if passed, in discussion taking place in school.

In hindsight, we would like to have seen some of our son's organs donated. But I also believe strongly that it would have had to have been his decision. He didn't have the opportunity to make that

decision because it was never brought to his attention, and we took it for granted. Everyone believes that it's not going to happen to them. It's kind of like making wills: There's sometime a fear

that "If I fill out that card, then I'll die." I know of people for whom, if they fill out a will, it will be a bad omen. It isn't.

I strongly believe our son Sandy would have had to make that call. We were negligent in not raising the issue; and we as a society have taken things for

granted on that. So I recognize all too well now that the decision can't be made at the time of the loss. It has to be a decision, and it has to be an informed decision, because at the time of

death the individual's body seems almost sacred and the thought at that instant of taking something out is just something that you cannot deal with. You cannot get your mind into it. But then, for

the rest of the time, I think -- and I think about it almost daily -- of how great it would have been if other people could be enjoying life and enjoying families because of donations that were

made. And our son would have wanted it; I'm absolutely convinced. He was a great kid who loved to help people, and for him this would have been the ultimate help.

I believe this private member's bill will literally save lives, and for those who hesitate, I can tell you, as someone who's walked in the shoes of having lost

a child, it would have made us feel great too to see others benefit from it. I have no doubt in my mind that the Legislature is going to support this bill today. What a wonderful opportunity we

have collectively to literally save lives and to make life better, not just for those who are recipients but for the loved ones of the donor to know that they've helped to prevent a death and they

have helped to produce a quality of life for others that is absolutely priceless.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Levac, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Levac: First I want to do a quick correction. I identified Peter Casey as Paul Casey. So, Peter, visiting us here in the gallery, accept

my apologies. Again, my reinforced thanks to those who have come from the Trillium Gift of Life Network, individuals who are working hard to educate us. Thank you for being here. I wanted to add my

thank you to Adam McDonald, my legislative assistant, who has been doing a yeoman's job in making sure that we're prepared for today and up to this and the aftermath afterwards. So thank you,

Adam.

I want to thank the members from Oak Ridges, Nickel Belt, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, London-Fanshawe, Prince Edward-Hastings and Mississauga West for their

very kind comments and also for their contributions to the debate, which will go on and which will be continued and which will be, in my opinion, making us a better province and a better

people.

One of the things that I wanted to touch on very quickly is that something has happened. I think the member from Nickel Belt mentioned it, and that is that

there was an enactment, an enabling piece of the Trillium network act that the minister did, and it actually tripled donations in A hospitals. In other words, one of the other pieces of legislation

that already exists has already moved it forward. I want to thank her for mentioning that as well. And I accept the challenge that we have to enter into the debate to get this right. So when we

come up with a hybrid bill and as we piece this together, we will change a culture and, once and for all, I believe, put us in the forefront. We're in the forefront in terms of the science behind

organ donation, by the way. So to those wonderful people who use those gifts of their hearts, their hands, their minds, to better us as a people, to make us even more effective as human beings, I

want to thank you for that.

There's an awful lot of things -- I want to take up the challenge that the member for Oak Ridges talked about, and that is engaging the media, making sure that

we get it right. But also, why not challenge them to do a weekly feature and tell the story that we hear -- the sad, the good -- let's do that once a week. What about a national program to bring

attention to this? I think we've got a long way to go, but I hope that we can all remember to sign our donor cards and talk to our families and move this forward. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private members' public business has expired.

EASTERN ONTARIO

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item number 31, standing in the name of Mr. Runciman. Mr. Runciman has

moved private member's notice of motion number 11. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have a recorded vote on this.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONATION EDUCATION), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉDUCATION SUR LE DON D'ORGANES)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will now deal with ballot item number 32, standing in the name of Mr. Levac. Mr. Levac has moved

second reading of Bill 33. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have a recorded vote on this as well.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

EASTERN ONTARIO

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Runciman has moved private member's resolution number 11. All those in favour, please stand and be

recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Craitor, Kim

Dombrowsky, Leona

Elliott, Christine

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Martel, Shelley

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 38; the nays are zero.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The doors will now be open for 30 seconds before the next vote.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONATION EDUCATION), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉDUCATION SUR LE DON D'ORGANES)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Levac has moved second reading of Bill 33. All those in favour, please stand and be recognized by

the Clerk.

Ayes

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Craitor, Kim

Dombrowsky, Leona

Elliott, Christine

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Martel, Shelley

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 39; the nays are zero.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I request that this bill be sent to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be sent to the standing committee on regulations and private bills? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business now having been completed, I do leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I seek consent of the House to wear the yellow and black ribbon in

honour of a day of mourning to recognize those killed and injured on the job.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Peters has asked for unanimous consent to wear the yellow and black ribbon. Agreed? Agreed.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to draw attention to the lack of action by the McGuinty government to address the

massive water infrastructure deficit we have in this province. Over the last couple of months, we've experienced two major water main breaks that are causing undue hardship and destruction to the

community and businesses in the Toronto area. One is at the intersection of Jane Street and Highway 7, which happened in February and is still under repair.

More recently, there has been a break near the intersection of Bathurst Street and Sheppard Avenue West, which will probably take months to repair. Municipal

officials have blamed this recent water main break on aging infrastructure. The general manager of Toronto Water, Lou Di Gironimo, said the broken main is about 50 years old. We know that some

municipal water systems are using pipes that have been around in some cases for 100 years.

The McGuinty government has done nothing to address this problem. The previous Progressive Conservative government laid the groundwork to address the water

infrastructure deficit through the passage of Bill 175, the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act. The government has not moved to implement regulations. It's been nine months since the release

of the Ontario water strategy expert panel, and at that time, the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal said, "This is an important priority for our government," and in the more recent budget,

"The government also recognizes the need to ensure the long-term economic sustainability of the province's municipal water and wastewater systems.... The government is carefully reviewing the

expert panel's recommendations and will be responding in the coming months."

Stop delaying. Take action now.

THORNCLIFFE NEIGHBOURHOOD

YOUTH CENTRE

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I rise in the House today to recognize and celebrate the opening of the Thorncliffe Neighbourhood

Youth Centre in Don Valley West.

Applause.

Ms. Wynne: Hear, hear.

This project developed out of a needs assessment conducted in 2003, which found to no one's surprise that there was a lack of programs and support services for

youth in the Thorncliffe area. The community willingly took on the challenge to fill this void, and after years of hard work and leadership from such people as Jehad Aliweiwi, who's the E.D. of the

Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office, Nesan Bandali, Nisha Nagartnam and Azam Naroon-Hassim, the centre was opened this past Monday, April 24.

The centre has been created to serve as a hub of this community. Located beside the Ontario Early Years Centre, the community is now able to provide a seamless

support network for children through their teenage years. The youth centre will be coordinated by youth for youth and will provide recreation and extracurricular activities, employment

opportunities, as well as leadership and mentorship initiatives. This centre was made possible through the financial support from various organizations, including the Ontario Trillium Foundation,

East York Town Centre, the United Way, and from our government through the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration.

Thorncliffe is a diverse and vibrant community. Residents from over 200 countries, speaking over 70 languages, live in the neighbourhood. It really is a

microcosm of the world and a brilliant experiment in pluralism. I'm joining with enthusiasm the committed crowd at Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office and the community once again to celebrate the

launch of the Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Youth Centre, and making this endeavour a model for Don Valley West and for the city of Toronto.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): We come here every day waiting for the government to wake up and respond to the needs of Ontarians and to

northerners. It is approaching three years and still we have no plan to deal with the challenges facing our province, and in particular the needs of the north. The only plan we have seen is that

you have increased hydro rates at a dramatic rate.

It is more expensive to live in northern communities. Everything costs more, and the government continues to find ways to add to the financial burden faced by

northern Ontario families and businesses.

There is no plan to seriously address the infrastructure deficit in the north. Last summer, Liberals announced their ReNew Ontario program, but it is no more

than hollow words. There will be no actual spending until 2007.

Northern communities have aging systems that need replacement. People across northern Ontario have been on boil-water advisories, sometimes for years.

Infrastructure is vital to building a successful economy in northern Ontario, and this government has not been providing the leadership they should. Your government has sat idly by while the

problems in the forestry industry have gotten worse. You've sat idly by while mills have closed and jobs have been lost. You have sat idly by watching, doing nothing, while people have been forced

to leave their communities because there are not enough jobs.

BENEFIT CONCERT

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today to inform everyone about the Canadian Concert and Recital Artists' annual benefit concert,

which they have been holding in the Beach since 1990.

Interjection.

Mr. Prue: In the Beach, yes.

They bring together classically trained artists from around Canada. This year they are holding their fundraiser on May 6, which is a Saturday night, at 7:30

p.m. at St. John's Norway Church at the corner of Kingston Road and Woodbine. The importance of this annual event is that they raise funds, and for the 16th straight year the funds will go to

Médecins Sans Frontières, or as people might better know it, Doctors Without Borders. This is a group that won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1999.

Doctors Without Borders uses this money as part of their international organization. They are an impartial group in the name of medical ethics and humanitarian

assistance. They speak out on the plight of those who are in danger and they alleviate the suffering of many peoples around the world. They protect life, and promote health and human rights.

The people in the Beach join with the Canadian Concert and Recital Artists. We ask you all to come and attend. The monies will go to an absolutely great cause

and will promote Canadian talent of the highest calibre.

VIETNAMESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to share with the Legislature today two deserving people from my riding of Ottawa Centre, two

outstanding community leaders: the former mayor of the city of Ottawa and member of Parliament, Marion Dewar, and the Vietnamese boat people organizer, Dr. Can Le.

As most of us would know, more than 25 years ago, as desperate Vietnamese citizens were clinging to tiny craft in the South China Sea, believing their chances

for life were better with the fierce elements of nature than with their Communist government at the time, these two individuals stepped forward to lead Canadian communities in saving people from

certain continued confinement.

At the same time, they showed all of us that the nobler elements of our humanity could triumph. They launched Project 4000 in Ottawa, placing many destitute

boat people into private citizens' homes. Soon numerous centres across North America followed suit, and today there are thriving Vietnamese Canadian communities all across the country.

The Howard Adelman Award could not have a more deserving recipient -- in fact, two. In true form, these two gracious and generous people, even in their moment

of tribute, immediately donated their $1,000 award money to a new project to build an international-quality Vietnamese boat people museum in Ottawa, which Dr. Can Le is spearheading. This

particular award, named after Professor Adelman from Toronto, was started actually by the Thời Báo community fund, which is the largest Vietnamese newspaper throughout Canada, and is

distributed throughout Canada.

I'm happy to share this particular commendation with my colleagues in the Legislature today.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): We are coming up on three years now. This government has broken their pledge to northerners to improve the

quality of life in the north. They have sat idly by while job losses have mounted and mills have closed, threatening the very lifeblood of northern communities. Hydro rate increases are just

another on the continuing list of increased costs being passed along to residents, many of whom can ill afford it. Despite their promises to fix water quality, reserves and communities across

northern Ontario have to contend regularly with boil-water advisories.

The report just released by the Ontario Health Quality Council says that patients in need should get appropriate care in the most appropriate settings. This is

still not happening. The report notes that Ontarians who live in isolated rural and northern communities face expensive travel for care. Often they, and families who accompany them, lose income by

missing work as well. It also shows that people living in the northeast have the second-highest percentage of in-hospital mortality within 30 days of a stroke.

This is not a government that has been helping northern communities. This is a government that engages in window dressing when it should be looking at concrete

action. In the 2005 budget they said they were working on ways to strengthen the forestry sector, but we all know what has happened to the forestry industry in northern Ontario over the last year:

shutdowns, job losses and devastation to entire communities.

Ignoring problems until it's too late -- that's your government's sorry legacy to northern Ontario.

ORGAN DONATION

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): This is organ donation week; thus the green ribbon that we approved earlier in the week. We take this time to remember

that we can all help save a stranger by donating our organs. It is, sadly, something that not enough of us do.

Earlier this morning, we debated and passed, thankfully, second reading of Bill 33, my private member's bill, which would allow a change in curriculum so that

all Ontario high school students would receive education about organ donation.

We all know how important organ donation is. Again, sadly, every three days someone dies waiting for a transplant. The waiting list is longer than the number

of transplants performed. The fact is, not enough people donate organs. Signing up to become an organ donor just takes a second, yet this simple act can be the difference between life and death of

another person. Anyone can become a donor by signing their card and carrying it with them. Sign the card and talk to your family about your wishes. It's an important thing to do. I believe we

should make every effort to educate people about the importance of organ donation and, more importantly, ensure that more people actually donate their organs.

Members of all three parties have bills to help support more organ donation in this province, and I applaud everyone in this House. This is a pressing issue

that requires action from all of us. Let's all work together to give the gift of life.

EARTH WEEK

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I rise today to speak about some Earth Week activities that I had the opportunity to participate in this

week. I had the chance to go to Brant Township Central School in Walkerton to help students plant a tree in their schoolyard. Later in the day, I met the Minister of the Environment to present a

cheque to the Saugeen River conservation authority which will help them fund their scientific studies on drinking water. We also met with the board of directors from the Walkerton Clean Water

Centre to discuss their current initiatives and future plans.

Keeping our water clean is important to rural Ontario. The proposed Clean Water Act will help conservation authorities and municipalities work together with

the province to achieve this goal. By supporting the protection of our drinking water, we are helping to protect the health of Ontarian families. The Walkerton water tragedy is a constant reminder

of what can happen when water is not protected. I'm very proud to be part of a government that understands this.

I also want to add my congratulations to Brant Township Central School, which, as part of their Earth Week activities, planted 400 seedlings as well in a park

and also cleaned up a number of areas where litter had accumulated throughout the winter. So congratulations. It's certainly young people who are coming forward and improving our environment.

PROJECTS IN CORNWALL

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): A recent headline from the website of the Jewel, a radio station in my riding of

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, read, "The Winds of Change are Blowing in Cornwall." An

article from the Standard Freeholder newspaper similarly read, "Summer of Change Ahead."

These changes referred to are a slew of projects soon to be under way in downtown Cornwall. The people of this city will soon see construction equipment in the

heart of the city, one of the signs of a thriving community. This construction is in addition to the new condominiums going up along Water Street in the city; it is in addition to the repairs to

the roads that we will soon be seeing, thanks to the Move Ontario funding this government is providing; it is in addition to the new hospital projects being built over the next three years, with

one currently under way. There is also the courthouse project, the water and waste water projects -- the list goes on.

The city of Cornwall has a bright future, and that future is taking shape right now. It is an exciting time for Cornwallites and for all the citizens of my

vast rural riding. I invite all members to come and witness the rebirth of this, one of Ontario's oldest communities. I particularly invite the Leader of the Opposition to come and stand in that

place and see first-hand the first fruits of this government's plan for Cornwall and eastern Ontario.

There is a very bright future in the city of Cornwall and in the riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. I'm be proud to be there leading the charge.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF LONDON ACT, 2006

Mr. Ramal moved first reading of the foll