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

April 27, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Apr-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 27 April 2004 Mardi 27 avril 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

WORKERS' MEMORIAL DAY

BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATORS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

SOUTH AFRICA

CHERYL GILBERT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CARIBBEAN IMMIGRATION

SENIORS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CITIZENS' DIALOGUE

ON BUDGET STRATEGY /

DIALOGUE AVEC LES CITOYENS

SUR LA STRATÉGIE BUDGÉTAIRE

ORAL QUESTIONS

CITIZENS' DIALOGUE ON

BUDGET STRATEGY

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

LONG-TERM CARE

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

TIRE DISPOSAL

CHILD CARE

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

HOURS OF WORK

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

CARDIAC CARE

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

COURT FACILITY

NUISANCE BEARS

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

SEX OFFENDERS

TAXATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LANDFILL

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

TAXATION

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

MOTORCYCLE INSURANCE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LANDFILL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR RAISON MÉDICALE)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Today I would like to address the now third delay announced by the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government in

transferring ambulance dispatch to the region of Niagara.

It is playoff season, so people in Niagara are accustomed to talking about hat tricks. But no one likes it when it happens to their team, especially when they're

getting shut out.

Sadly, it seems Premier McGuinty's Toronto-dominated cabinet has forgotten that the province exists outside of the city walls. Every time a Toronto-based

politician even clears his throat to speak, Premier McGuinty seems to snap to action. Already they've bailed out the city of Toronto financially, they've bailed out the city's transit system under

threat of a toll increase and they've bailed out the Toronto District School Board, who could not balance their books if their lives depended on it.

What have rural Ontario and small cities seen to date? An awful lot of broken promises and scads of dollars thrown at Toronto the second a story hits the papers.

Issues important to Niagara taxpayers, like the mid-Pen corridor and ambulance dispatch, languish on the desk of some low-level functionary in the Premier's office they call the rural affairs

bureau.

Maybe we're too polite in Niagara; maybe we're too polite in rural Ontario. Maybe we naively expect governments to keep their promises. Maybe they want Niagara's

mayors and regional councillors to start pounding on their desks instead of being polite.

My message to the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Health and the Premier is: Our patience has worn thin. No more delays. Get on with the job.

WORKERS' MEMORIAL DAY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): As all members of the House will know, tomorrow, April 28, has been designated as the official

day of mourning for all those who have either lost their lives in the workplace or have died as a result of workplace occupational health and safety issues. The sad thing is that despite our

increased awareness of workplace safety, we continue to lose more people every year. The fact is that since 1984, over 16,000 workers have been killed on the job in Canada, with almost 1,000 of

those fatalities occurring last year. Clearly we all need to refocus our energies on improving workplace safety. In that regard, I am proud to note that Ontario's Minister of Labour, the Honourable

Chris Bentley, is actively working toward that goal.

In my riding of Thunder Bay-Superior North, the day of mourning has grown in importance every year. This year the public is invited to gather at the Lakehead

Labour Centre at 5:30 pm on Wednesday to remember those who have needlessly lost their lives on the job. People are being asked to bring a rose, which they can place on the monument that honours

those workers. It is a time of great solemnity, but perhaps more importantly, it will serve as a reminder that we can best honour the memory of those who have lost their lives by striving

constantly to improve the conditions of those who have been left behind to carry on their work.

While we set aside this day every year, vigilance and effort is required every day of the year if we are to truly reduce the number of people who are either

injured or lose their lives on the job. It is a challenge we must meet.

BED AND BREAKFAST OPERATORS

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to bring forward to the House an issue that is of concern to my riding and also of

concern to many people in other ridings across the province. The bed and breakfast operators are considering whether they can continue to operate because of provincial drinking water regulations.

Many of these people, who open up part of their homes to guests for only a few days each year, are being classified as small non-residential public facilities for the purposes of the

regulations.

Yesterday, I met with representatives of the Federation of Ontario Bed and Breakfast Accommodation and heard first-hand about the impact that regulation 170/03

will have on people who operate bed and breakfasts. In my own riding, I have been in contact with bed and breakfast operators who do not understand why a private resident who occasionally rents a

room or two would be classified as anything except residential.

I urge the government to take another look at this regulation and to remember the role that bed and breakfasts have as part of Ontario's tourism industry and the

impact that bed and breakfasts have on local economies.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise today to advise the House of great news for my riding of Nipissing and all of northeastern Ontario.

Today the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Rick Bartolucci, announced that Ted Hargreaves has been named the new chair of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

As the member for Timmins-James Bay and all members of this House are well aware, the ONTC is a vital component of our economic development in northeastern

Ontario. This announcement builds on the good news that has been growing with respect to the ONTC. Our government has committed to maintaining the ONTC as a public entity. To that end, we have been

working diligently since the election to assure its sustainability and viability.

There have been numerous announcements around the ONTC of late, including an $80-million contract with GO and a joint venture with Telus. Last week, we unveiled

10 new passenger rail cars that will add to the Polar Bear Express. The excitement around the future of Ontario Northland continues to grow.

Ted Hargreaves brings to the position of chair a wealth of knowledge and community involvement. He has been on nearly every fundraising board in our region over

the last 14 years. He has been involved with the heritage festival, the Capitol Centre and Near North Crime Stoppers. For all his community service -- and I could go on and on -- he's been

acknowledged with awards from the Rotary Club, the Paul Harris Fellowship, the Order of Ontario, the North Bay Kiwanis Club's citizen of the year and the keys to the city.

I am sure the members of this House will agree that the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, the city of North Bay and all of northeastern Ontario could

not be better served. I am thrilled by this announcement and the implications for the future of the ONTC.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Are you standing this one down? You will have to ask for unanimous consent.

SOUTH AFRICA

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Today is a day of celebration for millions of South Africans. They will take to the streets to

commemorate 10 years of freedom and an end to apartheid. Ontario New Democrats congratulate the people of South Africa for their victory against racism and injustice. They have shown us that racism

is a giant but beatable enemy, and their triumph compels us to defeat our own Goliath.

Just two weeks ago, the African National Congress and Nelson Mandela's successor, Thabo Mbeki, won a third landslide victory with two thirds of the popular vote.

In another victory for social justice, almost one third of the parliamentarians elected were women.

South Africans do not have an easy path ahead. They recognize that until endemic poverty and AIDS are overcome, the nation will not truly be free. South Africa

carries the strength of an awakened David, and we are certain it will prevail yet again.

CHERYL GILBERT

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): Cheryl Gilbert passed away last week in hospital from pneumonia following a medical procedure. She was 39

years old. Each and every one of those 39 years she had to fight to overcome a number of challenges. She had serious physical difficulties right from birth, but Cheryl Gilbert was a fighter and a

survivor.

I originally met Cheryl about nine years ago as chair of the city of Scarborough Special Committee on Crime Prevention. She was a victim of violence. She was on

a crusade to help others who had been victims of violence recover from the experience. Cheryl helped out with numerous community organizations and with victims-of-violence groups. She eventually

founded her own program, which she worked very hard on.

Cheryl was a tremendous asset to her Bendale Park community. She was a long-time member of the Bendale Park Community Association. She worked very closely with a

program called the Scarborough safety audit program, assisting and conducting safety audits across our community. Working closely with the Toronto Police Service, Cheryl served as the chair of the

Community Police Liaison Committee for 41 division and contributed greatly to keeping our neighbourhood safe.

Cheryl Gilbert did not live a long life, nor did she live an easy life, but her spirit, her dedication to help others and her selfless work with victims stand

out as a role model to each and every one of us. On behalf of the members of the Ontario Legislature and residents of Scarborough Centre, I extend our condolences to the many friends and family of

Cheryl Gilbert. Cheryl contributed much to our community, and she will be missed by us all.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): During the election, Dalton McGuinty promised Ontarians that he would lower auto insurance rates by 10% to 20%.

Voters took him at his word. They trusted him to deliver on his promises.

Last week, the Premier rattled off a list of insurance companies he claims have reduced premiums from 1.9% to 11.9%, and he confused a lot of Ontario voters

whose insurance continues to go up. We gave examples of constituents with huge rate increases, but the Premier continued to read a list of companies with alleged lower rates while his caucus

applauded.

He said one company, Royal and SunAlliance Insurance Group, dropped their rates by 10%. This angered a Burlington senior citizen named Doug, who came to my

office the next morning. According to his records from SunAlliance, his premium last year was $3,377. This year it's going to $4,952, a 46% increase. He showed me his driving record: no

convictions, complete discharges, a perfect 50-year record except for one accident five years ago for this 70-year-old veteran.

Last Monday, Finance Minister Sorbara said that Liberal legislation was a moderation of rates; by Tuesday, he said it was an average reduction, not across the

board; and by Wednesday, he said, "We never said that. We never promised that. We never proposed that."

Based on Doug's premiums, it would appear that his company has filed a 56% rate increase approved by your government and then rolled it back by 10%, sticking

Doug with 46%. He wants to know why a company that reported a $36-million profit last year is gouging him. This is no way to treat a senior, no way to treat a veteran and no way to treat a

voter.

CARIBBEAN IMMIGRATION

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I rise today to mark the 50th anniversary of a delegation of black activists who sought to address

Canada's immigration restrictions against people of colour.

On April 27, 1954, members of the Negro Citizenship Association, an organization led by the late Donald Moore and the late Harry Gairey Sr, travelled by train to

Ottawa to challenge Canada's Immigration Act, which, since 1923, had denied immigration status to countries in the British Commonwealth which had large non-white populations. Countries whose

citizens were negatively affected by the act included the islands of the British West Indies, British Guyana, Ceylon, India, Pakistan and some African countries.

Canada's Immigration Act defined two classes of British subjects: blacks and whites. The act claimed that blacks could not adjust to Canada's frigid climate or

assimilate well into the society.

Today, in contrast to those times, Canada's strength is often said to lie in its diversity. Each year 120,000 new immigrants of diverse origins, races and creeds

choose Ontario as their new home, and we know that our province and our nation are richer in many ways as a result of that diversity.

There are only two surviving members of the delegation: Bromley Armstrong and Stanley Grizzle. Mr Armstrong is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights

Commission and founder of the 42-year-old Jamaican Canadian Association. Mr Stanley Grizzle was president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters in Canada and became the first African-Canadian

to be appointed judge in the court of Canadian citizenship. Mr Armstrong and Mr Grizzle both received the Order of Canada in recognition of their very significant contributions to Canadian

society.

At a time of your choosing, Mr Speaker, I would be pleased to join the members of this House in welcoming Mr Bromley Armstrong, who is with us today.

SENIORS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the House today to defend Ontario's senior citizens from the anti-senior policies of the McGuinty

Liberals. First, Dalton cancelled the seniors' property tax credit that would have put $450 million more in the pockets of the seniors of Ontario each and every year. If this weren't enough,

Dalton's assault on seniors has continued with broken promises that have hit the very heart of our seniors' population. He removed the cap on hydro rates after promising to keep the price cap until

2006. Higher hydro rates hurt seniors who are struggling to make ends meet. Dalton McGuinty is considering delisting drugs and increasing fees for the Ontario drug benefit plan, after promising to

improve the system. This may be a trial balloon, but it's still floating.

Then there's the broken promise of cutting auto insurance rates by 10%. We all know this didn't happen because we're hearing examples of car insurance rates

going up 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% and even 70%. Again, this hurts seniors who can't afford the higher rates. So I ask Mr McGuinty and his Liberals, do you want seniors to give up their cars too and

lose their independence?

I regret to inform the House that the assault on seniors doesn't stop there. In their latest move, the McGuinty Liberals are attacking not only seniors but the

very facilities that take care of them. I'm referring to the new Liberal property tax increases for long-term-care facilities, which, if not resolved, will affect the ability of these facilities to

pay for dietary, housekeeping, laundry, and maintenance and repair services.

Enough is enough. The Premier must stop targeting our seniors today, here and now.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent of the three parties.

I move that the following amendments be made to the membership of certain committees, and I'm told that I must read this into the record; I apologize because

it's rather lengthy:

Mr Arthurs replaces Mr Leal on the standing committee on general government; Mr Crozier replaces Mr Orazietti on the standing committee on the Legislative

Assembly; Mr Delaney replaces Mrs Van Bommel on the standing committee on general government; Mr Flynn replaces Mr McMeekin on the standing committee on regulations and private bills; Mr Fonseca

replaces Mr Patten on the standing committee on justice and social policy; Mr Gravelle replaces Mr Qaadri on the standing committee on government agencies; Mr Hudak replaces Mr Wilson on the

standing committee on justice and social policy; Mr Leal replaces Mr Gravelle on the standing committee on justice and social policy; Ms Matthews replaces Ms Wynne on the standing committee on

general government; Mr McMeekin replaces Mr Flynn on the standing committee on justice and social policy; Mrs Mitchell replaces Mr Crozier on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs;

Mr Orazietti replaces Ms Matthews on the standing committee on government agencies; Mr O'Toole replaces Ms Witmer on the standing committee on estimates; Mr Patten replaces Ms Smith on the standing

committee on public accounts; Mr Qaadri replaces Mr Fonseca on the standing committee on public accounts; Mrs Van Bommel replaces Mrs Mitchell on the standing committee on regulations and private

bills; Mr Wilson replaces Mr Chudleigh on the standing committee on estimates; Ms Witmer replaces Mr Agostino on the standing committee on government agencies.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I'm also required to read the motion. Dispense? Dispensed.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CITIZENS' DIALOGUE

ON BUDGET STRATEGY /

DIALOGUE AVEC LES CITOYENS

SUR LA STRATÉGIE BUDGÉTAIRE

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Our government believes in Ontarians. We believe that none of us is as

strong as all of us working together, that none of us is as smart as all of us planning together and that no idea is as powerful as all of our ideas put together.

C'est la raison pour laquelle, après avoir eu le privilège d'être assermenté comme nouveau gouvernement, nous avons entrepris une

consultation sans précédent auprès de la population de l'Ontario.

This is why, after we had the privilege of being sworn in as their new government, we embarked on an unprecedented consultation with the people of Ontario. They

had clearly chosen new and different priorities on October 2. The new and unexpected context in which we would address those priorities became much clearer once we assumed office.

An independent review by the former Provincial Auditor Erik Peters revealed a $5.6-billion deficit. In the fall economic statement we also reported on an

additional $2.2 billion in risks, including deficits in our hospitals and children's aid societies and the financial woes of Ontario Power Generation. The previous government, you will recall, had

told Ontarians that there was no deficit.

We also learned, upon taking office, of the true depth of the services deficit facing the province. Ontarians hadn't been told either of the real state of our

energy sector, our classrooms, our hospitals or the failure to plan for the future. We wanted to give Ontarians the straight goods and consult them on the right direction in this new context. We

wanted to know which deficit -- the fiscal deficit or the services deficit -- concerns them most urgently. We wanted their very best advice on how to tackle these deficits and how quickly they

should be tackled.

We started by consulting our own public service, asking for its ideas. We then consulted experts, stakeholders and community groups. Our main focus, however, was

on the public at large, the people who sent us here, the people we all work for. In person and on-line, in town halls and in citizens' dialogues, through a toll-free number and a new Web site, we

consulted Ontarians. We did something that has never before been done by a government in Canada. We gave citizens an open-ended opportunity to discuss budget strategy, to face the same decisions we

face, with the same information and in the same context, so they could give us their best advice.

Today the results of an important part of this process have been released in a report from the Canadian Policy Research Networks, an independent, not-for-profit

organization. CPRN conducted wholly independent research with groups in six separate communities -- day-long dialogues involving more than 300 Ontarians selected at random from all walks of life. I

want to thank CPRN for their work. More importantly, I want to thank the Ontarians who braved cold winter mornings to help us face some challenging decisions. They have confirmed our belief that

Ontarians will always respond with candour, commitment, caring and intelligence. All you have to do is ask.

We asked, and this is what we heard: Participants told us they want government to be accountable, ethical and transparent for a change. They want government to

manage public funds efficiently and wisely. They're willing to do, and pay, their share, as long as they know government is using public funds wisely. They want fairness. They're willing to accept

changes, but they want the most vulnerable people in our society protected. I'm proud to say as well that Ontarians believe in conservation. They're willing to pay the full cost of services to

promote conservation of our natural resources. And they want a balanced approach, a long-term, holistic approach to their budgets. They told us they want the budget balanced over the course of

time.

The report says that in exchange for not cutting the core programs and services they most value, particularly health care and education, Ontarians would be

prepared to pay more in interest on the debt in the short term.

Ontarians are telling us that their most immediate priority is improvement in their public services. They're telling us to improve their health care and

education while operating efficiently and wisely. They're telling us to take a balanced approach to improve public services while we tackle the deficit. They're telling us they're willing to accept

difficult choices, if those choices are made for the right reasons: to improve the services they care about the most, while protecting those who need help the most. These views have been echoed in

our other consultations, including our town halls.

Leadership means listening, but it also means deciding. Nous avons été à l'écoute et nous allons prendre des décisions. We have

listened, and we will decide. Ontarians' advice will help us make the right decisions. They won't always be easy decisions, and they will seldom be simple ones, but they will be the right decisions

made for the right reasons. These decisions will take the form of a new budget that we will present in this Legislature on May 18.

Make no mistake about this: The magnitude of the fiscal deficit, unexpected though it may have been to Ontarians, is a real challenge, and we have to deal with

it. Obviously, this will have some impact on our plans. To pretend otherwise would be less than honest with ourselves and with Ontarians. But as we've made clear in recent days, and as our budget

will eloquently demonstrate, our commitment to health care and education is unwavering. These remain our top priorities because they are Ontarians' top priorities.

We look forward to tackling the challenges before us. In doing so, we will call upon the best Ontarians have to offer. In return, we will offer our very best

to the people of Ontario: our best judgment, our best work and our best leadership.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I want to preface my remarks by saying one thing, particularly to Judith Maxwell. I can't believe she

would allow herself to be used by this partisan government in this exercise. This government should be absolutely ashamed for bringing someone of her calibre into this.

Let's look at the facts. This dog-and-pony show cost taxpayers --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member from Nepean-Carleton.

Mr Baird: In terms of talent, let's look at the facts. This dog-and-pony shows cost taxpayers half a million dollars, according to the Toronto

Sun. Ms Maxwell's group was paid $200,000 for this process. It was an untendered contract to a Liberal-friendly firm to conduct this dog-and-pony show. Let's call this what it is: the most

expensive focus group in Canadian political history. Normally governments come into power to implement their campaign agenda, but this was nothing more than another election exercise designed by

this government and its spinmeisters.

Let's think back to the day when Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal team launched this process. It was in this place, on this floor, just down the hall in the

cabinet room, when it was exposed that several members of the audience were Liberal Party members. So we know just how independent this process was. There were 250 Ontarians who participated in

this process, and they have two things in common: they're unnamed and they're unaccountable.

Last week I asked the Minister of Finance if he could defend his Premier. Premier, you weren't here, and he hung you out to dry. I asked him if he could name

one single person in the province of Ontario who had come forward and asked for additional user fees. I said, "Name one single person." He got up, stumbled and fell and couldn't name a single one.

I then looked over to the Liberal brain trust standing over there behind the Speaker. Surely they could have named one individual. Six questions later, not a single individual could be named who

had come forward and asked for an increase in user fees or taxes. To make matters worse, the minister stumbled through a scrum out in the hallway and did come up with one name. The only Ontarian

the Minister of Finance could come up with who had asked for additional user fees was Dwight Duncan, the Minister of Energy. This was some 90 minutes after the question was asked.

Let's look at the reality since the Peters report. Revenues are up by more than a billion dollars, thanks to a growing economy that was fuelled by tax cuts in

the fourth quarter of last year. We've seen an $800-million tax grab in the first three months of this year alone. We've seen a billion dollars for health care: A billion dollars came into Ontario

for health care, which the Conservative government fought for; namely, the $700 million we squeezed out of Jean Chrétien's hand on his way out the door and $300 million for SARS. Let's not

forget the $2-billion contingency fund in the certified and verified Liberal fiscal plan.

But even worse -- and this is the way we were warned it would be with the Liberal government -- we saw them engage in an orgy of new spending, $3 billion in

new spending since Dalton McGuinty put his hand on the Bible in this very place. Not only could Dalton McGuinty have balanced the budget this past fiscal year if he wanted to, he could also have

brought in a $2.4-billion surplus with some component management. The reality is that the Liberals are big taxers, the Liberals are big spenders, and this is the way we were warned it would be.

The Premier stands in his place and tells us that he has heard from taxpayers. Let me say to the Premier that he is the one who spent $4 million on

advertisements.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's becoming a shouting match. Could you direct your comments to the Chair in the few moments you have?

Mr Baird: The Premier looked every Ontario family in the eye and said, "I promise I won't raise your taxes," only to break the trust with

working families and raise them in his first bill in this House. He is the one who promised to sign the taxpayer protection pledge and balance budgets in Ontario. That's a promise he has broken,

and the taxpayers of Ontario will not forget that. He's the one who said we weren't spending enough on health care and we weren't spending enough on education. We'll see on May 18 whether hospitals

and schools are satisfied with the excuses of this government.

Taxpayers in Ontario know they have a big-spending, big-taxing Liberal government, and they're going to render their verdict in the upcoming federal election

campaign in the province of Ontario.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I went to the press conference this morning, and I have to admit that I think this government has a

conundrum. On one side, they have made 230 promises that involve the expenditure of money and, on the other, they have promised both not to raise taxes and not to have a deficit. So they have hired

what can only be called a very expensive private consulting group, Canadian Policy Research Networks, to come and give them some advice, or appear to give them some advice, on how to get out of

this very real conundrum.

They have brought together some 250 supposedly ordinary citizens, who are nothing of the sort. If you look down the list, you will see that they are not

ordinary citizens. They tend to come from upper income groups and upper education groups. They were given virtually no information on how they were to make a rational and real decision or how to

provide advice to this party. They were given only the campaign agenda of the Liberal Party and only those documents that relate to where the Liberals want to go. They were given virtually no

alternatives from other groups, not from the opposition Conservatives, certainly not from the New Democratic Party, on ways that this government could act in a more responsible manner in coming to

grips with the deficit you inherited and with the many promises that you have made. They were given absolutely no alternatives on possibilities of tax increases. That was not even on their agenda,

nor could it be discussed.

Sure, they came back and said things that we expect all Ontarians to say. They talked about conservation, which is important. They talked about vulnerable

Ontarians. They talked about improved public services. But they were not able to make the leap on how you pay for them because they were not given the statistics, alternatives or wherewithal to do

that. The reality is that they were given no alternatives at all, nor is this government giving us any alternatives. They are simply saying that they are going to do all things in due course on the

18th.

The recommendations made by this group can best be described as ethereal. They came out of thin air; they are in thin air. That is all they are. This was an

exercise, I would suggest, in futility by this government. It was an exercise to try to hide what you're attempting to do or going to attempt to do on May 18. The really sad reality of all this is

that you spent half a million dollars of taxpayers' money that could have been used in so many good ways: to help the homeless, the poor, to be used in a school or to hire a couple of teachers.

Instead, it is a masquerade, and you really don't know where you're going on May 18. You have used 250 people, I would suggest, in a vain attempt to try to

prove to the population that you were listening. The reality is that you were not listening, because you were not instructing. You were not giving these very real people an opportunity to make

concrete suggestions that your minister might follow on the 18th.

I would suggest that you should be ashamed of yourself for what you have done today and ashamed of yourself for presenting this as a dialogue with ordinary

Ontarians. It was nothing of the sort. I would suggest that come May 18, everyone in this province will see this for what it is: nothing but an ethereal development on your part, into thin air and

out of thin air.

Le premier ministre nous dit aujourd'hui qu'il a fallu faire une consultation qui a dépensé 250 000 $ et qu'à la fin de la

journée, la population a dit, « Oh ! Augmentez nos taxes. Donnez-nous des frais d'utilisation. Ayez un plus gros budget quand ça vient au déficit, et vous n'avez pas

à le balancer. »

Je vous rappelle, monsieur le premier ministre, qu'on a eu une élection, puis l'élection était très simple; l'élection était sur

la base des plateformes qui ont été mises en place par les partis politiques. Si vous ne vous rappelez pas, vous avez gagné cette élection sur vos promesses. Tout ce que veut la

population, c'est que vous gardez vos engagements, les promesses que vous avez faites dans la dernière élection -- par exemple, les 5 000 éducatrices et éducateurs que vous

avez promis aux Ontariens d'engager, et là, vous dites que vous n'allez pas le faire; que vous gardez en place vos engagements envers les 10 000 gardes-malades que vous alliez engager. On

vous demande de garder votre engagement. On vous dit, « Vous avez promis de ne pas augmenter les taxes, de ne pas augmenter les frais d'utilisation, et là vous nous dites, "J'ai fait

une consultation. C'est correct que je peux casser ma promesse." »

Je vous dis, monsieur le premier ministre, que la seule consultation qui veut dire quelque chose, c'est l'élection. Gardez vos engagements. Cette farce ne

marche pas.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): On a point of privilege, Speaker: This morning at 10 o'clock, the Minister of Consumer and Business

Services, Mr Watson of the riding of Ottawa West-Nepean, made an official announcement, I believe, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation --

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We were not provided --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You rise on a point of privilege. You didn't inform me in writing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm asking that you provide me with written notice on this.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This morning at 10 am, the Minister of Consumer and Business Services appeared on the border of

the ridings of Lanark-Carleton and Renfrew-Nipissing --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let me hear the member's point of order. I can't hear what he's saying. I want to see if it's a point of order or not.

Mr Sterling: I can understand their concern, Mr Speaker, because of the actions of this government in disregarding MPPs, although they

continue to spout this philosophy of respecting MPPs.

The thrust of this was an announcement in my riding of an $11-million contract to pave a piece of Highway 417.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would you come to the point of order? I'm not seeing it.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, the concern is that notwithstanding that this would be a significant matter in both the riding of Lanark-Carleton and

the riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, there was no courtesy on the part of the Minister of Transportation --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order.

Mr Bisson: On a similar point of order, Mr Speaker: I was looking for the invitations from the previous --

The Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CITIZENS' DIALOGUE ON

BUDGET STRATEGY

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Premier, as you know, we had a significant event in this province last October 2. It's called an

election. The people of the province voted for change. They voted for your platform. Since then, of course, we've had the usual pre-budget consultations, not only by the Ministry of Finance but

also by the finance committee of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and we've also had town hall meetings.

Can you tell us why it would then be necessary to have government by focus group and spend $200,000 of taxpayers' money talking to 250 selected people to

produce this?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): In addition to the significant event the Leader of the Opposition

referred to, that being the provincial election, there was another significant event, and that was our discovery of a $5.6-billion deficit and another $2 billion in additional risks.

The Leader of the Opposition and I differ on this, obviously. We felt that the responsible thing to do in those circumstances was to take that information to

the people of Ontario and get the very best advice, given that particular new context. I'm pleased with the advice we've received, and we look forward to delivering our budget in keeping with

it.

Mr Eves: This morning on the way into caucus, the Premier was quoted as saying, "CPRN is a completely independent, non-profit organization.

They set up the questions, they prepared the report and Judith Maxwell herself will be speaking to that momentarily," and indeed she did. But Judith Maxwell, responding to a question by Ian

Urquhart of the Toronto Star, said this was right out of the Liberal platform, that "the government provided the facts and the content for the workbook; we merely provided the template." "So the

list of ideas came from the government?" "Yes."

How is that totally independent? How is this a totally independent report when you supplied all the information, you supplied all the stuff to be given to the

250 selected people?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I have every confidence in the people of Ontario when it comes to determining what kind of information they can rely on. We

provided them with information; it was factual in nature and the people of Ontario provided us with their very best advice. We will not apologize for taking the time to consult the people of

Ontario and get their best advice when it comes to their budget and expenditures of their money.

Mr Eves: This morning the Premier said this was independent. He promised open and transparent government. There was a hotline directly to the

Ministry of Finance during the course of this. Will you give us the names of the 250 people? There was a participant from the Premier's office present at all times, and Judith Maxwell is quoted as

saying that the ideas came from the government, they came from the Liberal platform; no ideas from the Conservative or NDP platforms would be put in there. This is the independent person you're

talking about. You force-fed her the information. You only gave her the questions that you wanted answers to. Why did you waste $200,000 of the taxpayers' money going through this very expensive,

non-bidded, non-tendered focus group? Why did do you that? Is this open and transparent government?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We're bringing a new approach to governing in the province of Ontario. This previous government was quite prepared to work

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. We'll take a five-minute recess until you all cool down.

The House recessed from 1418 to 1423.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I was saying that we're bringing a new approach to governing in Ontario. We're proud of the approach that we are bringing. To

contrast our approach with that of the previous government, we spent -- yes, it's true -- $200,000 on gathering information and the very best advice that we could from Ontarians before the

budget.

But we think that is better than spending $1 million subsequent to the last budget to spin Ontarians with a single brochure that went to over 4.3 million

Ontario households. That's the money that this government spent on spinning Ontarians post-budget. We believe that our responsibility is to consult Ontarians and get the very best advice before the

budget, and we will not apologize for that.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): To the Premier: The ironic part of the report is it's called Trust and Balance, when Ontarians can neither

trust you to keep your promise, nor trust you to keep your promise to balance the budget of Ontario.

Let's look at the reality. The first consultation that was launched, in this building, in your office, had several members of the Liberal Party. I have a

simple question for you. Will you tell us, who do you trust more, 250 faceless people consulted by a hand-picked group that you selected, or the people of Ontario, who you promised you wouldn't

raise their taxes and who you promised you would balance the budget? Which is it, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the member opposite is so upset, because he doesn't like what he's hearing from the people of Ontario.

It turns out they're balanced, responsible, reasonable and sensible. They are telling us to balance the budget in a way that does not compromise their public services. They're telling us that they

want us to protect our most vulnerable. We intend to do those things. They're telling us not to pretend that the $5.6-billion deficit plus another $2 billion in additional risks don't exist.

They're telling us not to pretend things are the way they were before the election.

We've got a deficit and it's significant. We're going to manage it but we're going to do it in a way that is in keeping with the best advice we got from the

best people in the world, the people of Ontario, who are telling us to be responsible and reasonable in our dealings with their money.

Mr Baird: Let's look at the facts, Premier. You said you wouldn't bring in outside consultants and you said you would tender contracts. Let's

look at this report. It's a $200,000 untendered contract to a firm that operates out of your hometown, Premier. That's the reality: $200,000 to be spoon-fed Liberal pap at election time.

That's what was revealed at the press conference. You should have been at the press conference downstairs, where the Toronto Star was able to find out that

before these consultations were held, every participant was spoon-fed the Liberal election campaign platform.

Let's look at the reality, Premier: $200,000 to find out that the people of Ontario --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Do I have to call on the member for Windsor West not to engage in this shouting match across? The member for Nepean, would you

direct your questions through the Speaker?

Mr Baird: Two hundred thousand dollars of wasted taxpayers' money right down the toilet to find out that health care and education are a

priority for the people of the province of Ontario.

What I want to ask you is, will you release the names of the 250 people who participated in this consultation? Will you do that? Will you be open and

transparent about who exactly these 250 people are, because, Premier, it's too much to ask that we trust you on this issue.

Hon Mr McGuinty: We were pleased that we were able to receive the assistance of CPRN, an independent, non-profit organization, which conducted

this research for us and collected advice from the people of Ontario. Again, we contrast that investment with this partisan political advertising. It cost over $1 million. It came after the last

budget. It went to 4.3 million Ontario households. The sole purpose of this investment, which is simply too nice a word to use for this particular partisan political advertising, was to spin

Ontarians.

We have consulted Ontarians before the budget. This is something that our predecessors find particularly threatening: to talk to Ontarians. We're not running

over them. We're not working around them. We're speaking with them and getting their best advice. We have received that advice and we look forward to acting on it.

Mr Baird: Premier, all we're asking is for you to provide us the names of these 250 people, all of whom seemed to come forward and ask for

higher user fees. These people are faceless, they're unaccountable and, at the end of the day, they expect you to take responsibility for the promises and the commitments that you made in the last

election campaign.

Let's look at the facts. We gave a $200,000 untendered contract to a firm in your hometown to come back and tell us that health care and education are

important. This is the most political document I've seen in recent memory that has been passed off as independent, and it's an absolute outrage. Will you stand in your place and tell us, if you had

so much confidence in the people of the province of Ontario, why were you not straightforward with them about your plan to run a big-spending and big-taxing government? Will you do that,

Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We would not have had to do any of this if this member and the former government had been straightforward about the deficit.

There is no doubt that the budget we are about to present would have looked substantially different had the former government not hidden a $5.6-billion deficit from the people of Ontario. Now what

they refuse to accept is that, unfortunately for them, the people of Ontario are responsible, reasonable and balanced. They want us to bring that kind of an approach to their budget, and that's

exactly what we intend to do.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, today the report of the citizens' dialogue on your budget

begins with the following quote from an Ottawa resident: "As a new government, I think that the Liberals need to work hard to earn the trust of the people of Ontario." Yet, just three days ago, on

Saturday, Ontarians saw you on television trying to deny that you promised to hire 5,000 new teachers. Then Global Television played the video clip where you had indeed promised to hire 5,000 new

teachers. Why should the people of Ontario trust you when, just three days ago, you got caught on television trying to deny a promise you had clearly made?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): On that particular issue, I say to the leader of the NDP that we've been

very clear that we will hire as many teachers as are necessary to ensure that we can reduce class sizes from JK to grade 3 to a maximum of 20. We've been very clear about that.

I gather the NDP is equally disappointed in discovering, and having to admit, that the people of Ontario are responsible, reasonable and balanced. That's the

kind of approach they want us to bring to addressing the budget. We are not going to do what the NDP did when they earned the privilege of serving Ontarians as their government, and that is, ignore

our financial challenge. We're not going to pretend that we don't have a significant deficit before us. We're going to address it in a balanced, responsible and thoughtful way, giving expression to

the top priorities of the people of Ontario: their health care and their education.

Mr Hampton: The question was, why should the people of Ontario trust you when you so clearly got caught in a denial on television? The fact

is, Premier, you don't have trust, and the reason you don't have trust is because you have set a record for the most broken promises in the shortest period of time ever by a Premier of Ontario.

Health care promises: the promise to end the P3 hospitals didn't happen; in fact, we're going to see more P3 hospitals. A promise to improve standards in

long-term care hasn't happened either. A promise to extend IBI autism treatment to kids over six -- that's not going to happen.

Premier, you've been caught in denials and you've been caught in broken promises so many times, why do you think the people of Ontario should trust you

now?

Hon Mr McGuinty: One of the commitments we moved on quickly was our first bill, which dealt with the fiscal challenges before us. One of the

aspects of that bill was to rescind the private school tax credit, and we were proud to do that. But we were disappointed, as were the people of Ontario, to learn that my friend from the NDP voted

against that particular legislation, saying that we should continue to spend public dollars in private schools. He has explaining to do on that particular front.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr Hampton: Premier, the issue is trust in you. Judith Maxwell made it clear this morning that the only options presented at these so-called

focus group sessions were from the Liberal platform. Any other options, any other viewpoint, any other possibilities, were excluded. I don't know about you, Premier, but I call that a cooked

process. I call that a fixed process where you can't get outside the boundaries of the options. Are you asking the people of Ontario to trust you when this has so clearly been a partisan, Liberal

spin process?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Obviously I take fundamental issue with the characterization of CPRN's work. It is an independent, non-profit organization.

It has performed remarkably well in consulting the people of Ontario on our behalf.

I should say as well that, beyond CPRN's work, we conducted our own town halls. We're not afraid to reach out to the people of Ontario, to speak to them about

the issues of the day and to solicit their very best advice. We happen to think the people of Ontario have much to offer. We have spoken with them; we have listened to them; we have heard them.

Now we look forward to acting. That action will be reflected in our budget. Again, the members opposite are disappointed to discover that at heart the people

of Ontario are balanced, thoughtful and responsible. They don't want us to balance their budget in such a way that compromises their public services, and they want us to look out for our most

vulnerable. Our budget will reflect that advice.

Mr Hampton: I don't need a $200,000 focus group to tell me that Ontarians care about health care and education. I could go out in the street

and find that out today. The issue is this: You have lost the trust of the people of Ontario because of your broken promises, because of your denials where you've been caught on television. Do you

really think that running this $200,000 spin process, where the options are carefully restricted, where people aren't allowed to speak outside or think outside the options you gave them, is going

to restore the public trust in you after your denials and your broken promises?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We looked at a number of other options that we might include. One of those was government-run auto insurance, but it elicited

such guffaws and was met with such cynicism on the part of Ontarians, because they've heard about that promise time and time again from the NDP, that they say they would have nothing to do with

that. For that reason, we did not include that as an option. Those options that were in there were included for the obvious reasons. They were responsible and thoughtful. We were very open to other

approaches and options that were put on the table by the people of Ontario.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I've just heard your Premier say

there is a need for all of us to protect the most vulnerable in our society. In fact, you were quoted on December 8 in the Toronto Star in response to the series on long-term care as saying,

"Ontario seniors must be able to look forward to living out their final days in `quality and dignity.'" However, you have now turned your back on these frail seniors.

Why have you broken your promise to provide $6,000 more for each resident, for their health, safety and care? Instead, now you are cruelly and stealthily

clawing back funds. Everyone knows there are 35% more beds in operation today in Ontario. They need to be funded and they're not. If you opened a hospital, you wouldn't take funds from other

hospitals to fund the new hospital. Why are you clawing back money from the long-term-care facilities and not funding the residents appropriately?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On the issue of long-term care, it strikes me as interesting that a member who

was part of a party that left these long-term-care facilities in the state we had them is now prepared to be part of a message that talks about declines in them.

Here is where we're at: Very clearly, we've acted. My parliamentary assistant, Monique Smith, has tirelessly travelled around parts of the province. I did an

unannounced visit at a long-term-care facility in Richmond Hill about a week or two ago. We have instituted new policies, including the unannounced visit. That member had the honour of serving as

Minister of Health in this province. For all of the time she was the Minister of Health, there was notice given before inspections were done. We've eliminated that. There will be no more announced

visits. When we're going in for inspections, there will be no pre-warning that those are coming.

With respect, we are a government that, six months into our term, has begun to make new investments. Over the course of the next several months, we'll have an

opportunity to respond to the challenges in long-term care in a comprehensive way and enhance these care standards.

Mrs Witmer: It is regrettable that this minister does not understand long-term care, the system of funding and the fact that they are clawing

back the property tax rebate, which was in place at 90%. Then they're retroactively going back to 2003 to 73%, and now last week, they said 50%. This could mean a difference of $1,000 to $2,000 per

resident for their care and support.

It has nothing to do with the report and the travel that has been undertaken by Monique Smith. This has everything to do with the fact that we've got seniors

who are not getting the level of care and support they're entitled to. Not only are they not getting the $6,000 more, they're seeing clawbacks. It's hurting people. I say to you, Minister, show

compassion to these elderly people. Stop the clawback immediately. Provide the $30 million that was to flow on April 1, and keep your promise to provide $6,000 more.

Hon Mr Smitherman: In the member's earlier question, she criticized me for not knowing the way the categories worked, but it's obvious and

clear that she doesn't understand that there are, across the breadth of long-term-care facilities, a variety of different funding categories. The care category cannot be compromised for other

categories. As the Minister of Health for three and a half years in this province, of all people, you ought to have known that.

On the issue --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Smitherman: If you just pipe down, I'll tell you. On the challenges we confront that have been left behind by that government, we're

going to respond in a comprehensive way that enhances transparency and accountability, that improves care standards and changes the culture in these facilities to ensure that Ontarians live out

their final days with all the dignity to which they're entitled -- something that under that government, when they were there, didn't occur.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, as you know, discrimination can

take many forms, and it's no secret that ageism exists in Ontario. One particularly strong example is the practice of mandatory retirement. When it comes to employment today, we wouldn't think of

allowing someone to be discriminated against based on gender, race, faith perspective, disability or sexual orientation. Yet mandatory retirement allows people to be treated differently, solely on

the basis of age and without taking into account a person's qualifications or their ability to perform a job.

While there's no law in Ontario that requires a person to retire at 65, the Ontario Human Rights Code contains a restrictive definition of age in the context

of employment, which only allows people to bring complaints between the ages of 18 and 65. Minister, will you commit to eliminating mandatory retirement in the province of Ontario?

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I'd like to thank the member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot for the question because

he raises a very good point, and that is the reason the McGuinty government has committed to ending the practice of mandatory retirement. We believe that people should not be forced to retire, that

society should not lose the skills, the ability, the knowledge and the drive that people have acquired over a lifetime. This society needs that energy as we move into the future. We need that

energy, that drive, that determination. We are going to end the practice of mandatory retirement. We are going to keep the commitment we made to the people of Ontario.

Mr McMeekin: Minister, I'm impressed. You've only been here a short time and already you've moved to increase the minimum wage and to end that

draconian 60-hour workweek. Now you're committed to ending mandatory retirement. I'm pleased.

As you know, Keith Norton, the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, has been urging us to amend the Human Rights Code to protect workers.

On two occasions, my friend and colleague Michael Colle stood in his place and proposed private member's legislation that died on the order paper. Mr Minister, I appreciate your positive response.

When can we expect the introduction of legislation in this assembly?

Hon Mr Bentley: The member is right to press for this matter because it is a matter on which we intend to move, and we must move. We support

the commissioner's position. We will be having conversations with the people of Ontario over the course of the summer. We want to make sure that we eliminate mandatory retirement, but do so in a

way, however, that protects the rights of those who still wish to retire at a defined age such as 65. We'll be moving fairly and as expeditiously as we can.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is for the Minister of Health. You have recently been approached by the physiotherapists of

Ontario who provide these essential services for seniors and low-income individuals. For many, it's their safety net of access to important physiotherapy services. They have been hearing comments

in your public hall meetings and others that you are potentially planning to delist the OHIP-sponsored medical services that are currently administered through about six million procedures to

seniors and low-income persons in our province.

Would you please assure the House and the physiotherapists in this province, understanding, of course, that you have removed the G-code from physicians to do

these services, which puts even more emphasis on the important physiotherapy services, that you will not be delisting these services and, in fact, will be looking for ways to enhance those

services?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I do think that enhancement to services like this is essential, particularly in

large measure because physiotherapists from 1990 had no new arrangement or agreement with the government of Ontario. This has resulted in discussions which are ongoing. I'm not going to speculate

about any decisions that might or might not be taken. But what I can tell the member is that I've had the opportunity to speak previously and to confirm that I think it's incredibly important,

particularly for seniors who are receiving post-acute home care and the like and long-term care, that we make sure that physiotherapy services are provided because they're so essential to the

independence of our seniors. I appreciate the question from the member and can assure him that I agree that these are important services.

Mr Jackson: The best signal that you could be giving to physiotherapists is that you clearly will not be delisting them. You have not taken

that opportunity; maybe you will in your supplementary. You have not availed yourself as the minister to meet with this organization in spite of the fact that they have requested it on a number of

occasions.

The

schedule 5 physiotherapists in this province fully understand that they need to act within a definitive budget, something which your government espouses,

and that they must have predictability with their fee schedule. They received a confirmation of agreement from the government, from your own civil servants, your bureaucrats in the Ministry of

Health. This agreement was hammered out over a month-and-a-half period, and yet they have not been confirmed by you as the minister. We have an agreement by the bureaucrats. We have an agreement by

the association. It follows the capping principle and a prescribed fee

schedule -- all those things that you're looking for as you manage health care. We want to know, will you honour that

agreement and will you honour the pledge and commitment made by your bureaucrats in good faith to

schedule 5 physiotherapists in Ontario?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The agreement that the member speaks about was there for ratification by his party when they were the government and it

wasn't ratified at that stage.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Smitherman: You can ask me another question later, but I would just say that I think it is important to note that this is one more file

that, when I arrived as the Minister of Health, had quite a lot of work yet to be done. I can confirm that staff in my office have been in very regular contact with members of this association. I'm

not going to be engaged today or any other time in speculation about where we're headed, except to look back to what I said in my earlier response, which was that we value these services and we'll

be taking all of the necessary decisions short coming.

TIRE DISPOSAL

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Like most Ontarians, I have a great interest and concern in the

environmentally sensitive disposal of tires in the province. I know my constituents in Essex county have shared this concern with me. We're told that each year there are between 10 million and 11

million used tires generated in the province. Some of these are recycled, some of these are sent to other jurisdictions and some of the tires are diverted for resale, but many, many more are simply

stockpiled, and they're breeding grounds for mosquitoes and they're fire hazards. Minister, what steps have you taken to develop a long-term and sustainable plan for the disposal of used tires in

Ontario?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): It is an important question that the member from Essex has asked today. As he has

indicated, with the 10 million to 11 million tires that the people of Ontario generate each year, 40% are recycled here in Ontario for value-added products and the balance of them are then exported

to the United States or other jurisdictions.

The recycling efforts in Ontario are consistent with the way this government believes that waste products should be managed in the province. But we know that

the people of Ontario expect more, and actually, Ontario is the only province in Canada that does not have a tire plan. So, to that end, I have asked Waste Diversion Ontario to work with Ontario

Tire Stewardship to bring a plan to this minister so that we can implement a responsible plan, as other jurisdictions across the country have done.

Mr Crozier: I appreciate the hard work that Waste Diversion Ontario, Ontario Tire Stewardship and you personally have done on the file.

However, I'm sure that my constituents and the people of Ontario would appreciate a more specific timeline for the approval and implementation of an effective tire strategy. Could you please tell

this House when you anticipate that the Ontario Tire Stewardship draft plan would be approved and, more specifically, how long will it take to begin the implementation?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm happy to say that because the stakeholders and people who are concerned about the environment are very interested in

this issue and interested in moving it along, there was a preliminary plan that was presented by Ontario Tire Stewardship. However, the Waste Diversion Ontario organization believed that it needed

to have some more work, so those two groups continue to work on the plan.

Because we believe it is so absolutely essential because of the environmental and health issues related to the management of tires, it's a plan that we want to

make sure is sound when it does come forward for approval. I know that staff at the Ministry of the Environment continue to work with Ontario Tire Stewardship. I will be meeting later on this week

with Waste Diversion Ontario. We are anxious to get a plan in place, but I have to say that we're not going to rush a plan. I think we all know in this Legislature what can happen when legislation

or regulations are implemented without a lot of forethought. So we're going to take the time we need and we look forward in the weeks ahead to keeping you informed on this.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Today, the Ontario Coalition for Better

Child Care said that municipal child care centres in Stratford, Kenora, Sudbury, St Mary's, Owen Sound and Hanover are in danger of closing because of inadequate funding.

At the same time, your government is receiving $58 million from the federal government this year for child care, but none of this money has flowed to

municipalities to avoid the crisis.

On April 1, you also received $192 million from the federal government for the early childhood development initiative, and despite your election promise to

spend the majority of that money on high-quality, regulated child care, none of that money has been allocated to child care.

Municipalities are making really difficult decisions to close municipal child care centres when your government has more than enough money to save existing

spaces. Minister, when are you going to act so that thousands of Ontario families don't lose their child care spaces?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'd like to thank the member

opposite for the question and I'd like to thank the coalition for their report. I received the report last night and I look forward to reviewing it. I met with the Coalition for Better Child Care

last week and I promised to work with them in implementing the changes.

With respect to the federal money for early learning and child care that is coming, the $58 million, we have committed to spend it where the federal government

asked us to spend it, and that is in early learning and child care. That will occur.

With respect to the $192 million that is already in place out there, that funds various children's programs that we are now reviewing. We don't want to close

any programs that are valuable right now, right away, impulsively. Part of being a new ministry is reviewing all of the existing programs for children under the age of six, all of the money we

receive from the federal government and all of the money we spend toward those programs to ensure that we give the best programs to the children of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Minister, you made a promise, and the crisis is now. We were told today that the city of Toronto will

have to eliminate more than 1,100 child care spaces if you don't provide the $9.6 million in federal money that I asked you about last week and which you said didn't exist. They need it by June 1.

When I asked you about it before, you denied that you had the money. Listen, the city is already paying 35% of the cost of child care when the rules say, the laws say, that you should be paying 80%

and they should be paying 20%.

Minister, they can't keep this up any longer. You say you are concerned and are reviewing it, but the child care centres need the money now. I ask you again,

are you going to come through immediately with this money, or are 1,100 more children in Toronto going to lose their child care?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I thank the other member opposite for the supplementary question. I understand the mess that the daycare and child care

situation is in in this province. It has been 10 years of erosion.

With respect to the $58 million, the member opposite is incorrect. I don't have that money yet. My ministry doesn't have that money yet. I thank the federal

government for the infusion of money. They do have to pass their budget bill before we receive that money. I have committed to spending that money where the federal government intends for that

money to go, and that is in early learning and child care programs, and I intend to do that.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. By not having the courage to defend Ontario's truck safety standards, you are

putting Ontarians and citizens of this province at risk and you are putting the entire trucking industry at risk.

As we speak, MTO staff are meeting with their federal and provincial counterparts to discuss the implementation, the proclamation of the Motor Vehicle

Transport Act. Under that legislation, Premier, it will be impossible for Ontario to enforce its own higher standards. It will be impossible for the Ontario trucking industry to remain competitive.

I would like to know why you are willing to compromise the safety of Ontarians, why you are willing to compromise and put at risk an entire industry.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Speaker, I know the minister would like to speak to this.

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): We are working very closely with the federal government to make sure the safety standards

are adhered to. This act was passed by the federal government but is not proclaimed yet. We are working with them to make sure that the standards are uniform and that they meet Ontario standards.

That's what we are doing with them right now.

Mr Klees: Premier, your minister doesn't understand the issue. Your minister doesn't understand that in fact that uniform standard he is

referring to is far below the safety standards of Ontario. What I understand from what is happening in that meeting today is that his officials have not been instructed to insist that the standards

that are in place in that federal legislation comply with the high standards of Ontario. Why is this minister not giving the appropriate direction, the political direction, to his staff so they can

stand up for the standards that Ontario has had in place for a number of years and that have given us the kind of safety record that we have? Why are we prepared to compromise, first of all,

safety, and, second, to fold in an entire industry that will become uncompetitive as a result of this? The minister smiles. This is not a laughing matter.

Hon Mr Takhar: Safety is our number one concern. We are going to make sure that our roads stay safe and our drivers are safe. That is what we

are going to insist on. The federal government can have minimum legislation, but our legislation is better than that. We will work to improve their legislation rather than reducing our

standards.

This legislation was passed when you were in power, by the way. But we will continue to work with the federal government and the other provinces to make sure

that the roads are safe and our standards are maintained.

HOURS OF WORK

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of Labour. In my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, many businesses may be

affected by your announcement yesterday about ending the 60-hour workweek in Ontario. Will this proposed legislation create onerous red tape and onerous amounts of paperwork that will take away

from their competitiveness?

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): The member for Sarnia-Lambton raises a very important point. Yesterday I was pleased and

privileged to be able to introduce in this House legislation that rolls back the 60-hour workweek, protects the vulnerable, and will support a worker's right to choose whether to work excess hours.

But we are going to do so in a way that is easy to use and administratively simple. We are going to protect business flexibility so they can maintain their competitiveness nationally and

internationally.

How will we do that? First, we will encourage on-line applications. Secondly, there will be no fee. Thirdly, we'll make sure these applications are dealt with

as expeditiously as possible within 30 days. In this way, we can protect the vulnerable and guarantee that businesses have the flexibility they need to compete. This is what Ontarians need, and

we're looking forward to debating that legislation.

Ms Di Cocco: Minister, you've indicated that the ministry has the right to refuse an approval. Some in the opposition seem to think that your

ministry will now simply rubber-stamp approvals. How do you respond to this accusation?

Hon Mr Bentley: I was surprised and shocked to hear that under the previous government applications for permits were simply "rubber-stamped."

I thought that was shocking. In fact, any application should be considered on its merits. We will make sure that applications are reviewed so we can determine the health and safety record and the

employment standards compliance record of the employer.

But I'll say something else: The overwhelming majority of employers are either doing the right thing or want to do the right thing. What we're going to do is

support the best in business in Ontario. We're going to develop a workplace portal, an on-line system so businesses can obtain easy-to-use information so they can keep themselves in compliance. By

doing that, we'll cut across ministries and reduce bureaucratic red tape for businesses so they can be competitive in today's society.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I think you would agree with me

when I say that access to affordable and increased supplies of electrical energy is essential for the future economic growth of the north. Your government has committed to phasing out all five

coal-fired generating plants by 2007, including the low-emission plants at Thunder Bay and Atikokan. These plants now make up 20% of Ontario's electrical generating capacity. For the northwest in

particular, these are a major source of jobs and also make up the primary supply of electricity in the area. How are you going to replace the electricity currently generated by the Thunder Bay and

Atikokan power plants when you close them?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I know the Minister of Energy will want to answer that.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to respond to that question. First of

all, the member is right: We have committed to closing coal plants and we intend to keep our commitment on this, as we have on everything else. Second, I would indicate to the member that as part

of my announcement last week, I acknowledged the need for things like distributed generation and a number of other alternatives that are available, particularly for the northwest, in terms of

responding to this particular need. Third, with respect to the 94 full-time jobs in Atikokan, this government, in keeping its campaign commitment on coal, will ensure the community is not

negatively impacted by job loss resultant from our desire to clean the air in northern Ontario.

I would remind the member that last summer was the first time in northern Ontario, in Algonquin Park and Sault Ste Marie, that we had smog days. That's

unacceptable. This government is prepared to deal with that situation.

Mr Miller: I would suggest that this is a commitment you might want to think twice about. Really, I was hoping the Minister of Northern

Development and Mines might be the person to answer this question.

Minister, rather than arbitrarily saying that all coal is bad and going ahead and shutting down all the plants by 2007, with significant negative repercussions

to the northern economy, why not take a more logical approach? Why don't you set tougher emissions standards, invest in clean coal technology, and if the plants can meet the tougher environmental

standards, let them continue to produce electricity so vital to the northern economy?

That's what the northwestern chamber of commerce thinks you should do, and I'll quote from the Thunder Bay Chronicle of April 2: "The association advocates

investment in clean coal technologies to reduce emissions and keep the plants operating." Why don't you invest in clean coal technology and keep the Thunder Bay and Atikokan power generating plants

open?

Hon Mr Duncan: First of all, we are committed to improving air quality in northern and southern Ontario. I would submit to the member opposite

that the worst thing you could do to the north is allow air quality to deteriorate and affect tourism in a negative fashion, which is what's going to happen.

I'll tell the member opposite something else: I'll be in Atikokan this Saturday, meeting with that chamber of commerce. I've met with them down here. We're

working co-operatively, something that party never understood, to ensure not only that we improve air quality in the north, but that we also improve job opportunities in the north.

I say to that member that this Minister of Northern Development has done more in six months to improve prosperity in the north than your government did in

eight years. Never had the north been as ignored as it was under your government, and that has changed. We're going to be meeting with a number of industries in the northwest this weekend to ensure

that jobs, growth and prosperity are shared there as they are in the south. That minister deserves credit --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

CARDIAC CARE

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In December 2003, Southlake Regional Health Centre

started providing cardiac surgery and coronary angioplasty services, becoming Ontario's 11th advanced cardiac centre. This hospital provides advanced cardiac care for residents in the central-east

region of the province. Minister, my constituents are interested in knowing what your ministry is doing to support programs such as these.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Yesterday I had the honour of returning to Southlake hospital in Newmarket

after an earlier visit in December. At that time, I had the opportunity to see the first successful cardiac surgery that had been completed by Dr David Fell and his team. Yesterday I had the

honour, on behalf of the government of Ontario, to return to Southlake to announce the expansion of its cardiac care for the residents of York region, Simcoe county and the Muskoka district, with a

commitment from the government of $11.4 million in additional funding to support the cardiac program. It's an important step toward fulfilling our commitment to reduce wait times for cardiac

surgery.

Mr Wong: Since it is vital that patients receive proper care in a timely manner, how will the program help to reduce wait times in cardiac

care for this region?

Hon Mr Smitherman: We've identified the important challenge of reducing wait times as a key priority for improving the quality of medicare in

the province. As a result of the $11.4-million investment we made yesterday at Southlake in Newmarket, we're able to expand by 4,762 the number of procedures our health care system is capable of

providing.

It is the 11th cardiac centre in the province, and it's an important step forward. We've got more to do, but I'm very proud to be able to say that we made a

significant step forward to the benefit of the residents of Simcoe county, York region and the district of Muskoka.

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Your good friend and soulmate John Manley says that Ontario should

build new nuclear plants despite the huge cost overruns and maintenance problems with existing nuclear plants. He says that new nukes will cost less than gas-fired plants or less than a

conservation strategy. But something strange happened when the Ontario Clean Air Alliance wrote to you and asked for the economic modelling which lies beneath Mr Manley's predictions about nuclear.

When they called and asked for the economic modelling, your Minister of Energy said no. You've said that you believe in open and transparent government. Why would your government deny that

information? Why would you not allow that kind of economic modelling to be examined?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the minister.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): In fact, I met with Jack Gibbons yesterday. I indicated that the information

he has requested will be provided. We did ask that they go through freedom of information for a very good reason: to ensure they get all of the information they want. I've also given him my

undertaking that we will make sure the FOI request process is speeded up so they don't have to wait long.

We welcome a debate on all of the issues around this. Mr Manley has provided this government with one piece of advice. We'll be discussing this at some length.

Again, I met yesterday morning with Mr Gibbons and gave him that assurance. My understanding is they filed the FOI request last Thursday. It's our intention to make sure they get that information

as quickly as possible, with the approval of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. By the way, our hope is that that commission will be reappointed.

Mr Hampton: This is indeed passing strange. The Clean Air Alliance asks your government for the economic modelling numbers, and you tell them

they have to go through freedom of information. Are you the Minister of Energy or not? Can you not simply call up and say, "Produce the economic modelling numbers," and produce all of the economic

modelling numbers?

Why does the Clean Air Alliance have to go through this circus of going through freedom-of-information requests? If you're an open and transparent government,

why hasn't this information been tabled here in the Legislature so they can see it and the public of Ontario can see it? Why this circus of freedom of information? Why do they have to go that

route, rather than you simply making the information, and all of the information, available?

Hon Mr Duncan: To respond to the member's question, yes, I am the Minister of Energy.

I don't consider freedom of information a circus at all. It's designed to protect the member; it's designed to protect the public; it's designed to protect

organizations like the Clean Air Alliance to ensure that they get the information they require, so that a minister of the crown, or anyone else for that matter, cannot inhibit the release of that

information. It's the prudent way to go. I acknowledge that it adds several days, in this case, to the process, but we think it's prudent and important to go through this.

I suggest to the member that freedom of information is not only not a circus -- pardon the double negative -- I think it's essential to the proper functioning

of this Legislature, and to the transparency that this government is delivering to the people of Ontario.

COURT FACILITY

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I'll address the question to the Attorney General, although it deals with public infrastructure as well. The

members opposite can figure out who should answer the question. It has to do with the proposed Durham courthouse.

There's been rapid growth in Durham region. It's the first or second largest growing area in the entire country. We have had an accused murderer escape from

the inadequate facilities at the Rossland Road site. There are public safety, security and efficiency issues here, since our courts are operating, I think, at seven different locations in Durham

region.

Through SuperBuild and the Ministry of the Attorney General and other ministries of government, there was a long process followed over the course of the last

several years with RFQs, and there was some consortia that qualified, and then RFPs. My understanding is that there were at least three approved bidders through the RFP process, and that they're

ready. What we're waiting for, what Durham region is waiting for -- the police, the judiciary, the lawyers, the litigants -- is, when is the announcement of the new Durham courthouse?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'll refer this

question to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): The member is correct that this is a project with a long history. I must say to

the member, and he would know, that we have issued a discussion paper throughout Ontario, discussing and delving into various options as far as infrastructure renewal. We have inherited an enormous

infrastructure deficit in this province.

What we have done is quite unique. We have set down five fundamental principles that will be followed when it comes to financing and procuring infrastructure

projects in this province: first and foremost, that the public interest is paramount; second, that value for money has to be demonstrated; third, that appropriate public control and ownership must

be preserved; fourth, that accountability must be maintained; fifth, that the process has to be fair, transparent and efficient. We will apply this test to the Durham courthouse as we will to

infrastructure as we move forward. Had the previous government applied this kind of test, we would not have been in the mess that we are.

Mr Flaherty: It has all been done for you. Everything was done. The RFQ was done. The RFP was done. Everything had been done for you. In fact,

the region of Durham, Minister, as you may or may not know, is kicking you out of the courthouse on Rossland Road. You're being evicted. Are you telling the 500,000 people of Durham region that

they are not going to get a new courthouse? That's what I'm hearing from you. Unlike Peel region, unlike York region, unlike Barrie in the county of Simcoe, are you telling the people and the

police and the judiciary of Durham region that they're going to have to wait four to six years when you can make the announcement tomorrow for this private financing initiative?

Hon Mr Caplan: Passing strange from a former Attorney General and finance minister who sat in cabinet and who did not advance this project one

iota. We don't have to accept a lecture from you, sir, when it comes to renewing the infrastructure of the province of Ontario. You sat back, you did nothing and now you want to be a leader in this

province? It is an embarrassment that this member would stand up and give a lecture to anybody in this House, because you did nothing.

We take our responsibilities seriously. That's why we've gone out with a thoughtful paper; that's why we've set down fundamental principles. The member would

be well served to click on the Web site, to go there, to give a submission, because this is the first government that is serious about renewing the infrastructure of this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Can I ask the minister to come to order. Could I have a new question.

NUISANCE BEARS

Mr David Orazietti (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Yesterday, in Sault Ste Marie, you signed a

memorandum of understanding with the Ontario Provincial Police and the Sault Ste Marie city police regarding nuisance bear management. Could you explain how this new working agreement between the

Ministry of Natural Resources and the police will benefit Ontarians?

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member from Sault Ste Marie, who has a continuing interest in nuisance bear

management in northern Ontario. As the member will be aware, the agreement we signed yesterday is basically a protocol between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Association of

Chiefs of Police that really sets out and defines the roles and responsibilities between the ministry and the police, especially in dealing with emergency nuisance bear calls.

In this case, the police are the first responders when there's an emergency, but now the Ministry of Natural Resources will be there with expertise in backing

up the police in doing what is the right course of action for that particular response. As the member knows, the city of Sault Ste Marie has also signed in on this through their police department,

and we look forward to that agreement carrying on throughout the season.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario's seniors have worked long and hard to build the outstanding quality of life the citizens of Ontario enjoy today; and

"Whereas seniors' drug benefits enable older persons to lead healthier lives and avoid more complex care in hospitals and nursing homes; and

"Whereas, in addition to their taxes, many seniors already contribute toward their prescription drugs through deductibles and dispensing fees; and

"Whereas the vast majority of seniors face increasing costs on fixed pensions and cannot afford to see their incomes eroded further;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not eliminate or reduce the provincial drug benefit provided to seniors."

I am pleased to sign this in support of the many seniors in the riding of Durham.

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from a group of tired GO train commuters. It reads

as follows:

"Whereas the city of Mississauga has, within a generation, grown from a linked collection of suburban and farming communities into Canada's sixth-largest city,

and tens of thousands of people daily need to commute into and out of Mississauga in order to do business, educate themselves and their families and enjoy culture and recreation; and

"Whereas gridlock on all roads leading into and out of Mississauga makes peak-period road commuting impractical, and commuter rail service on the Milton GO

line is restricted to morning and afternoon service into and out of Toronto; and

"Whereas residents of western Mississauga need to `commute to commute,' driving along traffic-clogged roads to get to overflowing parking lots at the

Meadowvale, Streetsville and Erindale GO train stations;

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

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Transportation and highways, instruct GO Transit to allocate sufficient resources from its 2004-05

capital budget to proceed immediately with the acquisition of land and construction of a new GO train station, called Lisgar, at Tenth Line and the rail tracks, to alleviate the parking congestion,

and provide better access to GO train service on the Milton line for residents of western Mississauga."

As a resident of Lisgar myself, I'm pleased to sign it.

SEX OFFENDERS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas it is the right of every Canadian citizen to have the knowledge and the means to protect themselves and their children; and

"Whereas each act of a sexual offence against a child affects the quality of life for our nation's children, their families and the general public; and

"Whereas incidences of child exploitation, child pornography, child prostitution and other sexual offences against children in Canada are on the rise; and

"Whereas those who commit sexual offences against children are at high risk to reoffend;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to press the federal government to pass new legislation that will: disallow parole of a sex offender

who has refused treatment; require all released offenders to maintain treatment and be registered with their local police department within 24 hours of moving into a community, and bi-yearly after

that; ensure all schools, daycare centres, community centres and other places where children amass are notified when an offender is released into their community; place the names of all persons

convicted of a sexual offence against a child on a national DNA data bank, available to all law enforcement agencies across the country; enforce stiffer sentences upon conviction, with a minimum of

three years and a maximum of 10 years for a first offence, a mandatory 10 years and a maximum of 20 years for second offences, and a minimum 25 years to a maximum life sentence thereafter."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

TAXATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): We continue to receive petitions from places like Alice's Restaurant, the 18 Wheeler, the Arbour,

the Gallery, Turkey Point Family Restaurant, D and D's and many other snack bars and restaurants. It's titled, "Hands Off Our Food Tax. Stop the 8% Meal Tax."

"Whereas the Ontario government has plans to tax meals under $4, ultimately raising taxes for working families, despite a Liberal campaign promise of, `I won't

cut your taxes, but I won't raise them either'; and

"Whereas the food industry expects a drop in sales if the PST exemption is lifted, leading to job losses, primarily for youth;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should support working Ontario families and youth through maintaining the provincial sales tax exemption on meals under $4."

I will hand these over to Adrianna Swart, a page from my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government was elected after promising in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program

for seniors but are now considering delisting drugs and imposing user fees on seniors; and

"Whereas prescription drugs are not covered under the Canada Health Act unless administered in a hospital setting; and

"Whereas the federal Liberal government refuses to acknowledge this as a necessary health service despite the Romanow report's strong support for a national

drug program;

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

"To immediately and unequivocally commit to end plans for the delisting of drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit plan;

"To immediately commit to ending plans to implement higher user fees for seniors and to improve the Ontario drug benefit plan so they can obtain necessary

medications; and" finally

"To instruct Premier McGuinty to demand more health care funding from Ottawa instead of demanding more funding from seniors directly."

It has my signature of support.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of Sandra and Jimmy Wiley and the Steger family of Fort Erie that

reads as follows. It's a petition to protect seniors from higher drug costs.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the election campaign the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

And in support, here is my signature.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the county of Simcoe proposes to construct a landfill at site 41 in the township of Tiny; and

"Whereas the county of Simcoe has received, over a period of time, the necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment to design and construct a

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations for improvements to the design, most of which

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on water source protection, which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented under Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of site 41 and the nearby water sources."

I'd like to sign my name to that as well.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my constituents and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario disability support program was created to provide support for disabled Ontarians; and

"Whereas Ontario disability support program recipients have not seen an increase in payments for 11 years;

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

"That the province of Ontario increase Ontario disability support program payments by a minimum of 5% and, further, that annual cost-of-living increases occur

to address inflation;

"That the province of Ontario permit spouses to obtain employment without penalty to the Ontario disability support program recipient so that they might live

with dignity;

"That the province of Ontario recognize transportation and telephone services as essential to Ontario disability support program recipients."

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the election campaign the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

TAXATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas every day, 1.5 million Ontarians, including seniors, health care workers and students, purchase a basic meal that costs less than $4; and

"Whereas a new 8% tax on such meals will disadvantage low-income Ontarians; and

"Whereas adding a tax for the first time on a glass of milk, a salad, a bowl of soup or a cup of coffee will affect a total of 1.5 million Ontarians each and

every day in restaurants and cafeterias across the province;

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

"Do not impose a new 8% tax on basic meals under $4."

It's signed by a substantial number of my constituents, and I support it as well.

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas municipalities are solely responsible for funding fire services; and

"Whereas the previous government committed $40 million to help small and rural communities in the purchase of new emergency firefighting equipment;

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

"That the province of Ontario proceed with a program to support municipal fire services for the purchase of life-saving equipment and that the province develop

a rural response strategy in consultation with municipal fire services."

I support this petition and I sign my signature to it.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I have about 3,000 petitions today. The top 10 pages are from Windsor. I'm pleased that the House leader is

present today.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas seniors and other qualified patients require the continued provision of physiotherapy services through

schedule 5 clinics to promote recovery from

medical conditions and continued mobility and good health;

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

"The patients of

schedule 5 physiotherapy clinics request the continued support of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for provision of OHIP-covered

physiotherapy treatment to qualified seniors and others in need of these vital health care procedures."

This petition -- and there are quite a few more coming -- has my signature of support.

MOTORCYCLE INSURANCE

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas tens of thousands of responsible motorcyclists are being hit with huge increases in insurance or are being denied coverage because of the type of

vehicle they ride;

"Whereas the premiums for the mandatory insurance coverage for motorcyclists has increased on average over 40% in the past two years;

"Whereas many responsible riders can no longer afford to insure their motorcycles due to high insurance costs;

"Whereas sales of motorcycles in Ontario have dropped over 7% year-to-date this year, a figure attributed directly to the increase in insurance rates; and

"Whereas many businesses and individuals in the motorcycle industry are suffering due to the loss of sales and decreased employment high insurance rates are

causing;

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

"Please amend the insurance regulations to make motorcycle insurance more affordable and to ensure motorcyclists are treated fairly and equitably by insurance

companies, brokers and agents."

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present yet another petition on behalf of seniors, this time from the Fort Erie area -- Murray and

Vi Caplan, to name two.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the election campaign the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

In support, I affix my signature.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Again, on the site 41 issue:

"Whereas the county of Simcoe proposes to construct a landfill at site 41 in the township of Tiny; and

"Whereas the county of Simcoe has received, over a period of time, the necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment to design and construct a

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations for improvements to the design, most of which

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on water source protection, which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented under Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of site 41 and the nearby water sources."

Like my colleague Jim Wilson, I'm pleased to sign my name to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 13, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 27,

An Act to establish a greenbelt study area and to amend the Oak

Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 / Projet de loi 27, Loi établissant une zone d'étude de la ceinture de verdure et modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur la conservation de la moraine d'Oak

Ridges.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Further debate?

Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

Pursuant to standing order 28(h), I have a letter from the chief government whip to defer the vote until Wednesday, April 28.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR RAISON MÉDICALE)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 21, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of

family medical leave and other matters / Projet de loi 56, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne le congé familial pour raison médicale et d'autres

questions.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member for Trinity-Spadina.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I believe we have unanimous consent to stand down our lead.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Marchese: I'm happy to speak to Bill 56, family medical leave. I've got to admit that I haven't canvassed all New Democrats, but I suspect

they will be supporting this bill. I certainly will be supporting the bill. I have some concerns, and I will speak to those.

I welcome the viewers of this political channel. We are on live. It's 3:37 this afternoon, and it's always exciting to be here. I hope you're excited to watch

us, or at least some of us, as you're sitting, slurping some beer at home.

The bill has this as its objective: Currently in Ontario, workers are allowed to take 10 days' family leave for the purposes of caring for an ill relative, and

the Ontario Liberal government plans to allow employees to take six weeks of emergency leave to take care of ill or dying family members without risking their jobs. The point about this bill, and I

suspect the reason most provinces are interested in adopting the companion legislation that was required in order to be eligible for these benefits, has to do with the following: As some senior

Liberal folks spoke to this said, it will curb some of the estimated $1 billion in direct costs, and an additional $1 billion to $2 billion a year in indirect costs, that Ontario businesses

pay due to absenteeism because employees do not have the flexibility to take unpaid emergency leave.

From the standpoint of employers, this is obviously a good thing. If people need to take care of their dying relatives and leave because they're not eligible,

this is a problem for employers, naturally, because they've got to go. So this is a cost to employers, and because this cost would be taken care of by this measure, by Bill 56, I suspect employers

think this is a good bill to pass.

Another hidden benefit of unpaid leave is the estimated $5 billion a year that caregivers save the Canadian health care system by stepping in with basic care

instead of relying on nursing homes or home care to help their ill relatives. I suspect this is another reason that the government of Ontario, as well as many other provinces, have introduced

companion legislation, because it is a saving for the province, indeed all provinces, and why wouldn't you do that?

We're not against savings, be they for employers or for governments, because at the end of the day this is a positive thing, and it's a positive thing for

those who are eligible to be able to take care of ill or dying relatives.

I would remind those of you watching that to be eligible for benefits during the six weeks of leave, workers must have put in 600 hours in the previous 52

weeks. If you do not have the required hours, the 600 hours of work experience in your previous 52 weeks, you're not eligible. I would remind people watching that the problem connected with this is

that in Ontario only 30% of unemployed men and 20% of unemployed women are eligible for employment insurance at any given time. Workers need to have worked 600 hours in the last 52 weeks to

qualify; therefore, many workers do not qualify. That's important, because I suspect there are a whole lot of other people out there watching who think they would now be eligible. If you are a

part-time worker and do not have the 600 hours of work experience, you're not eligible. So the category of people who are part-time are not eligible.

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): They can get the leave, but they don't get paid for it.

Mr Marchese: The Minister of Labour says they can go, but they won't get paid. Thank you for that contribution.

If the Minister of Labour believes the statement he made is unfair, that might be one of the things he would want to send to the subcommittee for hearings to

make it possible for such a change to happen so those who are part-time workers could be made eligible if the Minister of Labour felt it was important to those individuals who earn so little

working part-time, because it's probably the only work they can get. If he felt it was important and he agreed with me, he would want to send that to the subcommittee when we hear deputations on

this bill.

So, Minister, it's not helpful to say, "They can leave; they just won't get any money," because workers who work on a part-time basis have little money to

save. Whatever little they earn is probably being used for their own personal care, for the safety of the home they hopefully are living in -- rents in Toronto are pretty high, and if you're

working at one part-time job, you're not living in good accommodation, I can tell you. Most part-time workers work hard, and sometimes they work at two or three jobs to make ends meet.

When we look to what other provinces have done, it might encourage the Minister of Labour to perhaps take the baton from Quebec and say, "If they can do

something different in Quebec, perhaps the Minister of Labour in this Liberal government here in Ontario might want to do the same."

In Quebec they have done something different. In Quebec they have increased compassionate family leave to 12 weeks instead of eight. Quebec legislation

provides that an employee who has three months of uninterrupted service may be absent from work without pay for a period of not more than 12 weeks, over a period of not more than 12 months. If

Quebec can do that on its own, Ontario can; Ontario could. Ontario could lead as well.

If the Minister of Labour thinks about what Quebec has done, they might want to send the bill, as we obviously anticipate they will, to hearings so that

deputants can speak to not only what's good about this bill but also what can be improved. When we look to other jurisdictions in terms of improvements, Quebec is one, and deputants might want to

speak to that.

Obviously, Quebec must have felt that this is important to family members, that increasing the amount of benefit from eight weeks to 12 weeks is a good thing

for families. It's compassionate leave. It means there's a desire in that society for people to have a greater amount of time to spend with their loved ones who are seriously ill or dying. I praise

Quebec for that. It's a simple measure. I would hope the Minister of Labour would think this is something that he too might want to reflect on, perhaps propose and, hopefully, implement it

himself.

In other jurisdictions, like Yukon, the definition of "family" includes siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, sons- or daughters-in-law or any relative

permanently residing in the employee's residence. Ontario restricts eligible family members to children, spouse and parents. If Yukon can lead by expanding who is included in the definition of

"family," I would think, and I would hope, the Minister of Labour here in Ontario would want to follow suit.

The definition of family is greater than children, spouse and parents. In many families, and in many societies within our own Ontario population, grandparents

are a big part of family life. In fact, some families couldn't get by without having grandparents taking care of grandchildren in particular. I suspect they see that as something they would want to

do, something they do willingly. It's an incredible burden, but an incredible benefit to families. In most cases grandparents do it willingly and in some cases they have no choice. If grandparents

are not taking care of grandchildren in some or many cases, most working families could not cope with paying their homes or paying the rent.

If you're living in downtown Toronto in the riding of St Paul's, you're probably paying a whole heap of money on rent. The member from St Paul's, I suspect,

knows this. Rents have skyrocketed in the last four, five or six years under the Conservative regime, to the point where most people can't afford the rents. If they didn't have grandparents taking

care of one, two or three grandchildren and a family had to pay $1,000, $1,100 or $1,200 for each child, it would just make it impossible for people to live in this country. Grandparents are an

important part of the definition of family, an important part of that issue of social solidarity. Grandparents benefit not just their children, but society and governments. We think governments

understand that, including Liberals. So if Yukon can do it, the Minister of Labour from Ontario can as well.

I often think about this issue of employment insurance. This is not the place to attack the federal Liberal government, but I have to tell you that, yes, they

made this possible, and yes, it's a good thing, but their definition of who qualifies, their 600 hours of eligibility in the previous 52 weeks, is not a great thing. I remind you, Speaker, as the

Liberal that you were, that you still are, the federal Liberal government made incredible restrictions in this employment insurance benefit plan that people have.

I remind those watching that millions of Ontario and Canadian workers pay into the employment insurance plan. The federal government takes home at the end of

the day billions of dollars from people who, in some cases, do not qualify because they don't have the eligible hours to get employment -- or, in the old way we used to say it, unemployment --

insurance. It's Liberals at the federal level who gave fewer benefits and restricted the hours under which people were eligible: more money being paid into employment insurance, less money going

out to those who are unemployed, making it harder for many, many workers to be eligible for employment insurance.

It's scandalous that a Liberal Party did that. What's scandalous even further is that the way the federal Liberals dealt with their deficit at the national

level was by cutting unemployment insurance benefits. Some 40% of the national deficit was made up because of the cuts they made to unemployment insurance, if you can believe that. They're raking

in billions of dollars and giving less money out to the workers. This is under a Liberal regime federally. Boy, would I like to take some time to talk a little more about that.

But these are Liberals with a heart. These are Liberals who have compassion for the worker. These are Liberals who wouldn't mistreat workers. These are the

very same Liberals who reduced their deficit on the backs of the unemployed, by sucking money out of their pockets for employment insurance and socking it to them when they become unemployed --

scandalous.

How do Canadian workers take that? How do Ontario workers accept that? Why is it they keep on voting for Liberals at the federal level? I'll never understand

it. Why, I meet people in my riding who talk about pensions all the time. They say, "I can't live with the pensions we get from the federal government." Insurance rates are going up: house

insurance, car insurance. Property taxes are going up, gas rates are going up and hydro rates are going up, courtesy of the current Liberal government. They're saying, "We can't cope any more. We

just don't have the money to be able to pay all these bills we're getting." Then they make reference to the pensions at the national level.

I say, good Lord, why do you keep on voting for Liberal members at the federal level? They come to your door. Why don't you complain to them instead of

complaining to me that you're not making enough money to pay your bills? Why are you so afraid to tell the federal Liberals who come to your door that you're sick and tired of having your pension

frozen, year in and year out? You can't pay your bills, but you keep on voting for them. The best way to teach them a lesson, to send them a message, is not to vote for Liberals.

That's