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

March 30, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Mar-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 30 March 2005 Mercredi 30 mars 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

KNIGHTS TABLE

HYDRO ONE

HAMILTON DISTRICT

HEALTH COUNCIL

TRY RECYCLING

OMA AGREEMENT

FIREFIGHTERS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

MUNICIPAL FIRE SERVICES

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

VISITOR

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

GREENBELT

CONSUMER PROTECTION

WASTE DISPOSAL

FABRY DISEASE

LABOUR UNIONS

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

SCHOOL SAFETY

PETITIONS

ONTARIO FARMERS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

COLLEGE FUNDING

ONTARIO FARMERS

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

PIT BULL LEGISLATION

DISABILITY BENEFITS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

TUITION

SENIOR CITIZENS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

CONCERNANT LES RELATIONS

DE TRAVAIL

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): You may have visited the 100 or so septic trucks, tractor-trailers and portable toilets -- I can

hear the horns honking outside right now on Queen's Park Circle -- and if you haven't, I invite you to come down to rural Ontario or go to northern Ontario, where these haulers are spinning their

wheels as the options to dump their loads continue to dwindle. Like the visual display outside today, many of these hard-working haulers feel that they are going in circles with this government

while the pile of potential problems piles up.

There are over two million septic tanks in Ontario. Sewage haulers solve a lot of our problems, but they have run out of options. They don't send this stuff to

the moon. It doesn't just disappear. It has to go somewhere. It's quite simple: Rural Ontario produces waste, just as urban Ontario does. Rural waste must be safely disposed of, as does that in the

city.

Members of OASIS, the group outside today, have a strong reputation for high-quality service. It's high time this government showed some leadership. Don't force

the rural haulers to truck down here to get your attention. They don't need a study; they need some action today. The question is, will this government give OASIS somewhere to drop their loads, or

will it continue to ignore rural and northern Ontario?

I used the washroom today. I thank the sewage industry. I will ask you to greet members of OASIS, as they are around Queen's Park today.

KNIGHTS TABLE

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): I'm pleased to rise today to acknowledge and commend an organization and a group of volunteers who

have worked tirelessly to help those less fortunate in my riding of Brampton West-Mississauga.

In October of last year, I stood here in this House pleading on behalf of the Knights Table, for those in the community to do whatever they could to assist in

finding this kitchen a new home nearby. The Knights Table was being forced out of their downtown Brampton location, where they had served millions of meals for over 10 years. It seemed that every

door was being slammed shut. The Table was being forced out: forced out of supporting and helping children and adults much less privileged than us.

Thankfully, a compromise was reached and they were able to remain at their location until the end of last year. After seemingly endless negotiations, a new

permanent and nearby location was found for the Knights Table. Through the work of Nilda Patey, the executive director of Knights Table, and her army of deeply committed volunteers, they were open

and ready to serve the community on February 1 of this year. On March 22, the Knights Table held a dinner party in honour of these volunteers, where it was time for us to say thank you for your

support during our move, thank you for lending a helping hand and thank you for being you.

If you are ever in the neighbourhood, please stop by. The Knights Table always will be more than a soup kitchen, but a warm, safe and comforting place for

friends to gather.

HYDRO ONE

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to speak to the excesses of the Minister of Energy's good friend over at Hydro One. Hydro

One's executive spending is out of control. First it was the 35% pay raise to Tom Parkinson. Now Parkinson has courtesy flights, thanks to the Ontario taxpayer, to his estate escape on Lake

Muskoka.

The minister responsible has been defiant in supporting this ridiculous expenditure. How coincidental. After all, this is the same minister who took a friendly

helicopter ride with his good buddy the president of Hydro One in July over the same locale. The minister should know that this personal helicopter ride to and from the cottage at the expense of

the taxpayer is simply wrong.

I also sense that there is a growing rift at the cabinet table. While the minister says, "These things are always difficult to explain to people," his boss, the

Premier, was much more resolute when he said he thought there were "better uses of public money." I agree with the Premier on this one. Clearly the Premier and his minister aren't reading from the

same flight plan. Either the minister is asleep at the switch or he is the pilot of this gravy helicopter ride.

It is clear that the ratepayer is the one who is going to pick up the cost of this gross hypocrisy, above and beyond the growing rates that are about to start on

April 1. Be prepared for more reckless control by the Minister of Energy.

HAMILTON DISTRICT

HEALTH COUNCIL

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Tomorrow, March 31, marks the end of an era in quality community-based health care planning. It will be a

sad day on Thursday, when Hamilton District Health Council closes its doors one final time following a long legacy of providing valued community service. Hamilton joins 17 other district health

councils across Ontario terminated by the McGuinty Liberals.

As of April 1, 2005, costly local health integration networks, LHINs, headed by high-priced CEOs, will be responsible for the planning and administering of local

health care programs and services. I want to publicly thank the hard-working and dedicated members and staff of the Hamilton District Health Council -- not just the current 19-member council, but

all past members who as citizens, municipal representatives and health care providers contributed their talent, skill, expertise and unparalleled knowledge of our community.

The Hamilton DHC was our authoritative local voice in health planning. Its members fostered partnerships, worked with stakeholders and stood as our community

leaders in support of a responsive health system. On behalf of all of Hamilton, I extend appreciation to the current council members. Thank you also to the staff of the Hamilton DHC, under the able

leadership for very many years of Ms. Marion Emo.

It will be a rocky transition from the DHCs to the LHINs. Quite frankly, I'm very concerned that doctors, health care providers and ordinary citizens are shaking

their heads over the McGuinty Liberal government's dismal health care planning process. Showing great volunteers the door, tearing down DHCs and leaving a big, gaping hole in service doesn't sound

like a plan for improving health care delivery at the community level.

TRY RECYCLING

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): On February 25, I toured the local business in my riding called Try Recycling. I was pleased to have the

Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Leona Dombrowsky, and the member from London North Centre, Deb Matthews, accompany me on the tour.

Try Recycling is located on Clarke Road. They have been in business for 14 years. They employ 25 full-time employees, and during the summer they hire additional

staff. This company takes materials such as yard waste, clean wood, clean asphalt and reinforced concrete left over from construction or renovation sites and processes them into material that is

sold to business and industry for use in finished products.

Here are some facts about Try Recycling. They recycled and reused 98% of material brought to their facilities, recovered enough metal to build 5,250 cars,

recycled enough construction material to build a 30-storey building, recycled enough wood to save 150 acres of virgin forest and recycled enough concrete to fill 9,000 cement trucks.

This year, the London Chamber of Commerce nominated Try Recycling for a business achievement award. I am proud to have Try Recycling located in my riding, a

company not only employing people and making a profit, but helping to protect our environment for future generations.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): It was only five short months ago that almost 60% of Ontario's physicians put a vote of non-confidence in

this McGuinty government and in their pathetic offer to physicians. The doctors rejected the deal because they wanted to send a message to the Liberal government, which made the health care crisis

in the first place.

In the last deal, there was no plan to attract or retain new doctors. There was no plan to address wait-lists or to improve services. All there was was a

strategy that tried to bribe doctors to prescribe fewer medications to the frail, the elderly and the disabled.

The November vote of non-confidence in this minister's abilities and the McGuinty government's malformation agenda shamed the government into going back to the

table after the John Tory Conservatives demanded answers. But in the months since the first deal was rebuffed, what costs have been incurred? What costs have the taxpayers paid? There is still no

public costing of this deal.

The government that insulted, the government that maligned, the government that tried to beat up physicians in Ontario still won't tell hard-working taxpayers in

Ontario how much they've spent on this deal. One physician is quoted as saying that physicians were able to get a $500-million sweetener added to the deal after the McGuinty government said they

wouldn't go back to the table. They call this Premier "Premier Blinky," because he keeps drawing a line in the sand and then erasing it and backing down.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): We're shining some light on real heroes, the firefighters in all our communities. We're providing funding for the

first time in 20 years. Ontario firefighters are receiving $30 million as a one-time Ontario fire service training grant, distributed to municipalities throughout Ontario.

The people of Windsor-Essex directly benefit from this funding. Essex county's squads, and Windsor's, will receive $960,000 -- $90,000 each for Amherstburg,

Essex, Lakeshore, LaSalle, Leamington and Tecumseh; $70,000 for Kingsville; and $50,000 for little old Pelee Island. Windsor will receive $300,000.

It's been a long time since our firefighters have received the support they deserve. This is for the men and women who work day and night to protect us when we

are most vulnerable. They are at the front lines of our communities, ensuring our safety and peace of mind.

I would like to thank Minister Kwinter for his unwavering support of our firefighters and his dedication to rural needs. Ontario fire marshal Bernard Moyle has

said that the funding "provides fire services with the flexibility to tailor the funding for local needs so that they may continue to deliver outstanding service to the people of this

province."

I'm pleased that we've made fire service training funding available to our local firefighters. They are on the front lines, protecting our communities from

disaster, and they deserve every ounce of that protection.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): We've talked a lot about the farming crisis in this House and about grain and oilseed farmers.

They've been hit hard across this country because of low commodity prices, and they came here from across the province earlier this month to express their needs.

I'm proud to say that yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and the McGuinty government announced a $79-million investment in the market revenue program to help

these farmers deal with the current crisis. Our government is confident that the agricultural funding announced yesterday will deliver meaningful change and will help to make a lasting impact on

our farms and in our communities.

As a farmer and a long-time resident of rural Ontario, I know first-hand the challenges of keeping a farm profitable, and of the very hard work that goes into

running a farm and the desire to leave something of value for our children. It is a struggle to be a farmer, but the rewards in farming cannot be measured in just dollars and cents.

We are also glad that the federal government announced funding for the agricultural industry yesterday, in particular $480 million for the grain and oilseed

sector. In light of the crisis our farmers are facing and the fact that there is a $23-billion gap in what Ontario gives to the federal government versus what we get back, I call on the federal

government to give Ontario its fair share and invest $120 million in Ontario's grain and oilseed farmers.

Like all Ontarians, farmers are proud Canadians and, like the farmers, we know that a strong Ontario is critical to a stronger Canada. So it is important that

the federal government support a strong Ontario for a stronger Canada.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I would like to take this opportunity to give a little bit of advice to the federal members of

Parliament representing Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Parsons: No heckling.

The advice is very simple: Smarten up. You were elected to advocate for the people of Ontario in Ottawa, not the other way around. You know how strong Ontario is

and how much we contribute to this country, and we want to keep doing so. But your federal government keeps $23 billion more of our citizens' money than it provides in services to them. This is

wrong. It jeopardizes the very things that we as Canadians value, and you know it.

When you boast of your budget surpluses, you must remember that that money came out of the pockets of your constituents -- money they need for such essentials as

health care, education, seniors and farming.

Ontarians elected you to stand up for them. Don't forget your roots: where you came from, who elected you and why you're there. If you won't fight for your

constituents here in Ontario, who will? Canada is strong only if Ontario is strong. Join with us in the fight for fairness in the treatment of your province. Our citizens expect nothing less.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received a report on intended appointments dated March 30,

2005, of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding

private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 56.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to tell you that the McGuinty

government is making history, not only in Ontario's electricity sector but in the evolution of Canada's energy landscape. Through our efforts to replace coal-fired generation with cleaner sources

of energy, to restructure Ontario's electricity sector to meet our long-term supply needs and to work with other provinces to enhance our transmission infrastructure, the McGuinty government will

leave its mark as a government that got the energy issues right.

Today, I'm pleased to announce that we're embarking on a new and exciting chapter. Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are setting the pace as the only jurisdiction in

North America that is committed to replacing coal-fired generation with clean, reliable and sustainable power. We're doing this because we want to protect the best interests of Ontarians by

reducing harmful emissions and cleaning up the air we breathe.

Our government is interested in maximizing every source of renewable energy that is available to us. We are particularly interested in expanding our supply of

hydroelectric power, such as the power that has been generated from Niagara Falls since 1905. Through our request for proposals for renewable power and through the efforts of my colleague the

Minister of Natural Resources, we are removing barriers to achieving Ontario's potential for additional water power in our province. Why? Because it's clean, affordable, sustainable and reliable.

The good news is, there is an abundance of clean, untapped hydroelectric potential not only in our province but all across Canada to help us meet our long-term supply needs. Newfoundland and

Labrador has an abundant supply of hydroelectric potential at the lower Churchill River. In fact, Gull Island and Muskrat Falls on the lower Churchill represent the most economic undeveloped hydro

sites in all of North America.

That's why I'm pleased to announce today a joint proposal with Hydro-Québec to support Newfoundland and Labrador in the development of a major hydroelectric

generation project at the lower Churchill River in Labrador. The proposed project would yield 2,824 megawatts of clean, affordable and sustainable electricity, enough to power almost two million

homes. I'm excited about this partnership and the benefits it could bring to Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. This initiative demonstrates how our government is working with our

neighbours to find mutually beneficial solutions to meet our long-term energy supply needs.

The joint proposal would see Ontario and Quebec work with Newfoundland and Labrador to develop the 2,000-megawatt Gull Island site in Labrador and an additional

824 megawatts at Muskrat Falls. Ontario would receive one third of the total output of the project. If our proposal is accepted, Ontario would benefit from an additional 670 megawatts of reliable

and affordable power from the Gull Island site and an additional 275 megawatts from Muskrat Falls. Combined, that is equivalent to the annual electricity requirements of over 550,000 homes.

Our proposal will ensure billions of dollars in construction activity as well as significant and perpetual direct resource benefits to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We believe that our proposal includes options that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will find attractive, and we look forward to working with them to find a solution that

maximizes benefits to all of our provinces. And because hydroelectric power is among the most affordable sources of power, we are hopeful that this agreement would allow Ontario access to an

affordable power source over a very long period of time, which will help stabilize long-term electricity prices in our province.

Importantly, as part of our partnership with Hydro-Québec, we would also agree to advance the construction of a 1,250-megawatt interconnection between

Ontario and Quebec, which will be in service by 2009. It will provide Ontario with greater access to power from Quebec at a time when Quebec is adding significant capacity. It's important to

announce that this will be our first real inter-tie with Quebec and another link in the east-west grid that Dalton McGuinty and this government are bringing to bear.

In addition, Hydro-Québec has indicated a willingness to provide Ontario with 670 megawatts of power by 2011, which is representative of Ontario's share of

Gull Island's expected power flows. If successful, this proposal would be a major step in enhancing trade and interprovincial relations between Ontario and Quebec as we take a lead role in working

co-operatively with our neighbouring provinces for the benefit of all of Canada.

We look forward to updating you further on this proposal as the process in Newfoundland and Labrador develops. In the meantime, we are also working with

Manitoba, our neighbour to the west, to enhance transmission interconnections and bring even more clean hydroelectric power to our province. In fact, we are actively studying a proposed

hydroelectric project in northern Manitoba and a transmission line that would bring 1,500 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power to our province, enough to fuel over one million homes.

I firmly believe that enhancing transmission inter-ties between Ontario and our neighbours would strengthen interprovincial relationships and trade, enhance

our energy security, stimulate economic development, lessen our reliance on fossil generation and reduce greenhouse gases. Not the least, it would help our First Nations share in the prosperity of

southern Ontario.

As we move forward to replace coal-fired generation -- we buy 80% of our coal from the United States; why shouldn't we buy cleaner, more reliable, sustainable

power from other Canadians? That makes sense. That makes the most sense. Hydroelectric power is a zero-emission source of electricity. So the more hydroelectric power we have, the cleaner our air

will be, now and for generations to come.

That is the legacy this government will leave: We will close our coal plants and replace them with cleaner, greener, reliable electricity at a cheaper cost in

the long term. That's in everyone's interest. We're proud, as a government, to begin this process with Quebec and Newfoundland.

MUNICIPAL FIRE SERVICES

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): Strong, safe communities are one of the McGuinty government's top

priorities. Every day, firefighters across Ontario risk their lives to keep our communities safe. This will always be a job full of risks, and Ontario firefighters know this, yet they put their

lives on the line to keep the rest of us safe. But we can do our part to help reduce those risks.

Last week, in the first such initiative in more than 20 years, I announced direct funding for municipal fire services. While the grant is unconditional, we

expect that fire services will use the funds to improve training and provide new equipment. This new funding will have a direct impact on improving the safety of Ontarians.

Firefighters need to have the training and equipment to do their jobs as safely as possible, whether they're responding to a house fire or a car accident. We

are investing $30 million in the Ontario fire service grant. The grant is being distributed this week to 385 municipal fire departments to help them meet training needs and buy new equipment.

We recognize that in the current fiscal environment and with increasing demands on emergency response services, some municipalities need extra support to keep

providing high-quality fire protection services. Rural and small communities, in particular, face this challenge because they have a lower property and business tax base. Seventy-one per cent of

the Ontario fire service grants is going to municipalities with populations of 50,000 or less. These municipalities have told us they need help, and we are providing it. But we also know that

larger fire departments operate under some of these same pressures. This grant will improve firefighting in all communities.

There are more than 10,000 full-time, 113 part-time and almost 18,000 volunteer firefighters in Ontario. Ninety-five per cent of fire departments in Ontario

are volunteer or have a volunteer component. The office of the fire marshal will work with municipalities and fire chiefs across the province to identify their training needs and priorities.

The Ontario fire service grant can also be used for the purchase of firefighting equipment, to improve firefighter safety or for public education and fire

prevention. Life-saving equipment, like thermal imaging devices, helps firefighters locate and rescue fire victims through dense smoke. With the Ontario fire service grant, fire services will be

able to purchase vital equipment.

We look forward to working with the municipalities and our other partners to ensure that Ontarians and firefighters are kept safe. We will work closely with

the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario. Our partners welcome the Ontario fire service grant, and

many fire chiefs across the province have expressed their support. We will continue to build on our relationship with fire chiefs and our municipal partners to reduce the risks faced by the valiant

men and women in the firefighting profession.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to respond today to the statement by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional

Services.

First of all, I wanted to point out that I was somewhat surprised by this budget announcement on March 22. It was a $30-million announcement, following an

announcement just previously that week that the government had found itself with a ballooning deficit of almost $7 billion -- and that's with an additional $7 billion in revenues. That's somewhat

ironic, in the fact that in the 2003-04 budget, the Eves government announced $40 million for fire departments as well as a helicopter, and this government found itself not able to follow that

direction, and of course they cancelled the helicopter and cancelled the $40 million. That being said -- we know that this government is not fiscally responsible -- it is good to see money going to

small and rural fire departments in particular.

What I was disappointed with was the way the announcement was made. I've made this statement already in this House. Quite frankly, the Liberals, the government

members, made sure that the fire departments in their ridings knew the exact amount of money,

whereas the Progressive Conservative members and the New Democratic Party members didn't get any of

that information. I found it difficult that the minister responsible for law and order would pull a stunt like that.

However, that being said, as the critic for community safety, I certainly support any assistance going to the fire departments. I would, though, have liked to

see the minister correct the double-hatter issue. This is his way of avoiding dealing with that. He thinks that if they try to train the fire departments, the double-hatter issue will go away. In

fact, it hasn't gone away. Most of the small fire departments are still talking about the loss of double-hatters, including a call I had just last night from a fireman who represents two fire

departments.

We'll have a lot more to say on this tomorrow with the grow-op operation. We'll be looking forward to that debate, because that's the first debate that this

minister has had take place in this House.

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm optimistic in some respects. I would say I'm pleased that the minister recognizes the importance for Canada to

have a national grid plan. No one could fault this. But let the viewer be aware that the announcement today is a clear admission that their policy on coal is simply wrong. Their plan to eliminate

coal by 2007 will plunge Ontario into darkness. Even in the plan, he knows that he cannot diminish the coal production before 2007. If he admits nothing else today, he is admitting that that is

another broken promise.

He should also tell the consumer that the money going into these projects hasn't been announced. But there's only one payer, and that's the person at the end

of the wires. The consumers of Ontario, as of April 1, are going to pay more, and into the future they're going to pay even more.

The downside of this is that Ontario, a once strong and once proud province, under this government is now going to be dependent on Manitoba and Newfoundland

and Labrador for their power. We're also going to lose the investment and lose the jobs.

Clearly, they have no plan. In my view, this is an admission today that they have no plan.

Everyone understands that we must have a safe, reliable and affordable source of power. Now we have Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, and the investments

that aren't announced here today are clearly the next shoe to fall on this very difficult policy area in which the minister seems to be floundering. I put this to him today, as a summation of this

announcement on our part: Tell the people of Ontario the truth. Are you going to close the Nanticoke plant prior to 2007 and, if you're not, why won't you just tell the people of Ontario the truth?

What they want is certainty and confidence in a government that can manage a very important economic file.

At the end of the day, the consumer, under this government, has undertaken two increases in the price at their meter at home. The announcement today is that

there are going to be more, and the investment is going to be in Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Manitoba. The workers and the investors of Ontario are going to be left paying the bill.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to respond to yet another exercise in media spin by the Minister of Energy, and I want to

place this in context. The McGuinty government promised that they were going to close all the coal-fired stations by 2007. They also promised that they were going to maintain hydroelectricity rates

at 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour. People across Ontario want to see a plan to do these things.

Did we hear a plan today for the closing of the Lambton coal-fired station? No. Did we hear a plan for the closing of the Nanticoke coal-fired station? No. Did

we hear a plan to keep electricity rates anywhere near the 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour that was promised? No. That went by the wayside a long time ago. Is there any kind of plan here at all? No. Is

there even an agreement? No. Is there even an agreement to sign a future agreement? No. What we got was a proposal, and it was obvious from watching the press conference that it was cooked up on

the back of an envelope. The minister couldn't even explain his own proposal. He had to call officials in to do it.

This so-called proposal will only provide Ontario with 800 megawatts of electricity some time after 2011, but the promise is to close the Lambton and Nanticoke

coal-fired stations by 2007. No plan. This is once again the McGuinty government strategy: When you're in trouble and you don't have a plan, hold another press conference, run out the media spin

and hope that somebody will fall for it. As I say, there's no plan here. There's no agreement on power provision here. There's not even an agreement to be signed at some future date. It's simply a

proposal.

Let me tell you what people wanted to hear. In northern Ontario, where paper mill after paper mill after pulp mill after pulp mill is either being closed or is

slated for closure, they wanted to hear something from the McGuinty government that recognizes that the northern Ontario economy is very electricity intensive, and that paper mills, pulp mills and

sawmills cannot afford 6.3 cents or 7 cents a kilowatt hour, which is what this government is now forcing them to pay.

Let me give you some examples. This is from Abitibi. I know Abitibi presented this to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Energy. They are

very clear. The paper mill in Kenora, looking at a total of 382 jobs, is under review for closure. Why? Because electricity rates are too high. The Abitibi paper mill in Thunder Bay -- a total of

382 jobs -- is under review for closure. Why? Because electricity rates are too high. The pulp mill in Terrace Bay is closed: 150 workers out of work. When you talk to management, what was the

biggest issue? The biggest issue was the cost of power. Go to the Tembec mill in Kapuskasing and talk to them -- 800 jobs. What are they worried about? The price of electricity. Go to the St.

Mary's paper mill in Sault Ste. Marie -- 300 jobs. What are they worried about? The price of electricity. They can't afford what the McGuinty government is doing to them.

Was there any announcement here today to respond to those communities where literally thousands of jobs are at risk? No. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Let us get to the coal: 7,500 megawatts will have to be replaced. Was there any mention here of 7,500 megawatts? No. This might deliver 800 megawatts sometime

after 2011 if all the stars line up and if the government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the government of Quebec agree.

This wasn't the announcement of a plan today. This wasn't the announcement of a strategy today. This is a government that has no plan but is desperate to cover

up the fact that they have no plan with more media spin.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I draw the attention of the members to the east gallery: a former member, Murad Velshi from Don Mills in the

34th Parliament. Let's welcome him.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I also have a very delightful announcement here. I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming

this group of legislative pages serving the first session of the 38th Parliament: Julie Banks from Oshawa, Zoé Campbell from Ottawa South, Nicole Cliteur from Algoma-Manitoulin, Ryan Cowieson

from Scarborough East, Scott Dickson from Simcoe-Grey, Peter Entecott from York North, Michael Flemming from Kitchener-Waterloo, Peter Green from Parkdale-High Park, Jessica Jepp from St. Paul's,

Alex Kellermann from Mississauga South, Amanda Kelly from Halton, Ryan Ko from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, Jean-Olivier Lambert from Timmins-James Bay, Stephaine Lawrence from Whitby-Ajax, Jean Murray

from Kitchener-Waterloo, Alexandre Nanoff from Eglinton-Lawrence, Alexandra Schwabe from Sudbury, Sameer Sethi from Brampton West-Mississauga, Jessica Simoneau from Niagara Centre and Nevetha

Yogarajah from York South-Weston. Let's welcome them in the usual manner.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the Premier was unable to answer this simple

question yesterday, I thought I would try to pose it to you. As the minister responsible, could you give us your best estimate as to what the deficit is going to be for this current year just now

concluded?

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I'm glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition is repeating his questions. I can simply tell him

that he'll get to know, as he spends more time around this Parliament, that every quarter the government of Ontario publishes its Ontario Finances report. If my friend will simply refer to the

financial report that we published in February, he will see that right there on page 1 we show that the province is currently planning for a deficit of $6 billion. He will also know that, whether

it's a government or a business, neither a government nor a business actually puts up-to-date, daily re-estimates of finances. So I simply invite him to remain in this Parliament and to be here for

the presentation of the budget, where we'll give a final report on our financial circumstances for 2004-05, as well as present a budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

Mr. Tory: Well, we've gone from the Comedy Channel yesterday to the Mystery Channel today. The Minister of Finance does not need to tell me

too much about how often business puts out its numbers, but I can tell you right now, it is shocking to me that two days before the end of the fiscal year, you are unwilling to tell the people your

best estimate -- as of now, not as of some report you put out several months ago -- as to what the deficit is going to be.

I know full well, because I've been around here long enough, that you are having very regular briefings with your officials about the state of the deficit. Any

reasonable person should expect that you have had at least one of those briefings in 2005, in this year, and you should be prepared to tell the people of Ontario, when it's their money, what the

deficit is going to be for this year. Will you tell us what the deficit is going to be for this year, your best estimate as of now?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I simply tell the new Leader of the Opposition, of the Progressive Conservative Party, that he shouldn't sacrifice his

credibility so early in his term in this Parliament. Have I been meeting with officials from the Ministry of Finance, dealing with last year and this year? Every day, sir, for hours and hours, in

preparation for our upcoming budget.

But I simply want to tell him -- I'm asking him to go back to his days as CEO of Rogers Communications. I don't know of one occasion when he regularly reported

to his shareholders on a day-to-day basis what the profit for any particular year was, or in his case the losses on a daily basis. I simply tell him that the procedure in this Parliament is to

report quarterly on financial performance --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tory: If I had gone to a meeting, when I was asked a simple question like that, and given the kind of answer you've given today, I would

have lost my job.

The fact of the matter is, we are not dealing here with a company; we are dealing here with the finances of the province of Ontario. We are dealing here with

money that is not your money. It's the people's money, and they have the right to know, any given day they want to know, when we ask on their behalf, "What is your best estimate?" Are you willing,

or do you just not know what your best estimate is of the deficit of the province of Ontario for the year ending right now, today? No excuses. What's the answer?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition speaks about losing his job. I want to remind my friend that his predecessors, that government,

in October 2003, days before the people voted, put out a financial report which predicted a zero deficit. Within several weeks, the former Provincial Auditor said that the deficit, far from being

zero, was some $5.6 billion. That's the mess we inherited. So we are methodically, diligently and with discipline overcoming all of the mess that your party left when it was in government.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I was wrong. It wasn't the Mystery Channel; it was the Scream Channel.

My second question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. On behalf of the hundreds of farmers in my constituency and indeed on behalf of farmers across

Ontario, can you tell this House specifically how farmers can access the funds that you announced yesterday?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I take this opportunity to welcome the member to the House. I look forward to working

with him.

It's very simple, and perhaps, hopefully, you've now learned what a heifer is. It's my understanding you've had some difficulties in dealing with agricultural

issues on the other side. It's very simple, and I would encourage you to talk to your agriculture critic.

We have in place in this province the market revenue insurance program. The MRI program has been in place for a number of years. Based on the data that has

been received for the 2004 crop year and the $88 million that we have flowed already, the $79 million that's going to flow is going to flow through the market revenue insurance program, and those

cheques should be in the mail within the next two to three weeks.

Mr. Tory: The minister, of course, didn't answer the question. We called the number that you referenced at your news conference yesterday. We

called it this morning. Your announcement said yesterday that you would flow the money to the farmers from the 2003 and 2004 crop seasons. When we phoned, we were told by your ministry officials

that the money you announced is to pay for problems that occurred with the crops last year and was not going to help anyone with the problems they might have this year. Worse still, they didn't

even know how to deal with someone who might be a new client for the ministry in this area.

What the farmers need -- the farmers in my riding and in the ridings of many other members of this House -- is a commitment from you that the crop they're

being asked to plant this year is going to receive some support. That commitment, of course, just doesn't exist. This isn't a good start, but I will ask the minister this: Will you outline a

support program for farmers for this year before they put the seeds in the ground in the planting season?

Hon. Mr. Peters: I would welcome the member to come over to the ministry office for a detailed briefing as to the programs that we do offer to

farmers in this province. If there is a specific individual, a farmer, who is having difficulty accessing any services that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food provides, please do the responsible

thing: Have that individual farmer sign a waiver form, as we do in all of our offices, and contact my MPP liaison.

The dollars that we are flowing are very clear. This is in support of the dramatic decrease in commodity prices that occurred in the 2004 year. We have flowed

$88 million. We've announced an additional $79 million. That's $167 million that is flowing in support of farmers to deal with the crisis that they're facing coming out of the 2004 crop year. Those

dollars will assist them to be in a position to plant their 2005 crops. We have undertaken a comprehensive review of our business risk management programs that's going to lead to where we go

forward with safety nets for this problem.

Mr. Tory: The minister full knows that a lot of that money in respect to last year, if he gets it out in the three weeks he's promised, will

go to pay down bank loans that people had to take out to stay in business last year.

Perhaps even more disturbing than your being contradicted by your own officials is the word that the province of Ontario was excluded from top-level

discussions that took place between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

As you've said many times in this House, agriculture is the second-largest industry in this province. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture said yesterday that

they were disturbed about the fact that your government was not talking to the other governments in Canada; there wasn't the kind of coordination we'd expect on something like this. Minister, why

Hon. Mr. Peters: I'm really disappointed that the honourable Leader of the Opposition is so pessimistic about our farmers in this province.

We're working to ensure that farming is viable, that our farmers produce safe, high-quality food. I would challenge the member to perhaps pick up the phone and call the minister, because I spoke

with the federal agriculture minister on Monday evening, prior to the announcement yesterday.

As well, I was on a conference call yesterday with all the provincial ministers, talking about where we go moving forward, because the federal government,

quite honestly, acted unilaterally in this decision without proper consultation with the province. So we had a conference call of the provincial agriculture ministers yesterday. We'll be meeting on

April 9 in Ottawa. We met on March 2 and 3. I was outside. I stood beside you at the rally outside. Following that rally, I jumped on a plane and went to Ottawa to present Ontario's case to the

federal minister.

So we've been working very hard, and all we've heard is silence and nothing positive and constructive from the opposition in helping our farmers.

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. You promised that your deal with Ontario doctors would

help Ontario patients. You said that it would help patients who don't have a doctor find a doctor. You said that it would help those people who were on waiting lists move up on the waiting list. In

short, you promised primary care reform. But today what we find is that the doctors, yes, voted for a deal, but it's not a deal that provides primary care reform; it's a deal where most of those

primary care reform measures have been put on the shelf. In short, the doctors voted for a deal where you blinked. You opened up the vault, you wrestled the salary figures to the ceiling, but you

didn't deliver primary care reform. Minister, when did furious George become Blinky?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Notwithstanding the honourable member's fascination with cartoon characters, I

want to make a couple of comments --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Yes, you make it easy for everyone except the one million people in the province of Ontario who today do not have a

doctor as a result of the record of those two parties while in government. All the questions that that honourable member might want to ask -- all Ontarians must be reminded that, on that fateful

day when you were the government in the province of Ontario and sat on your hands while the cabinet decided to close medical schools, you have been the greatest contributor to the problems of

health care in the province of Ontario. The deal that we have signed and the evidence of the extent to which primary care reform is alive in the province of Ontario is to be found in the fact that

213 communities across the province have applied for family health teams, our model of primary health care reform.

Mr. Hampton: Not only is furious George blinking, but he has obviously forgotten his history. No medical schools closed in the province of

Ontario.

Here's what we find in your deal. You have delayed a series of measures that would have helped ordinary Ontario families who can't find doctors or who are on

lengthy waiting lists. You're delaying programs and strategies for seniors' care, palliative care, after-hours care at nursing homes, diabetes care and strategies that would have brought more

physicians and more specialists to hard-pressed northern Ontario communities. That's what you've done. You've wrestled the physicians' salaries to the ceiling, but all of those things that you

promised in terms of primary care reform, you've put on the shelf.

Minister, you promised primary care reform. Why did you blink when you promised primary care reform?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: There's ample evidence in the province of Ontario, found in at least 213 communities which on February 15 submitted

applications to be part of our government's model of primary care reform, and that is family health teams. That's well-known to the honourable member and to honourable members in all parties,

because communities all across the province of Ontario have asked to be part of an interdisciplinary method of practice that brings together our doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners and dietitians

to provide the kind of comprehensive care that is at the heart of our model of primary care. I recommend to the honourable member that he stay tuned because in the days ahead he will see, from this

government, movement in the form of hope for community after community in the province of Ontario that was left behind by your government's short-sighted decision to chop our medical schools

down.

Mr. Hampton: I invite the Minister of Health to tell us what medical school closed.

This is your record as Minister of Health. Here's the situation: palliative care for seniors, shelved; providing better care for seniors in their homes,

shelved; helping people manage their diabetes, shelved; improved funding for specialists in northern Ontario, shelved. All of those things were shelved in this agreement.

But it's more than that. During the election, you decried what you called "wasted health care dollars on tax cuts." What do we find in this agreement? A very

lucrative tax cut for physicians, which will allow for all kinds of income splitting and tax avoidance; in fact, tens of millions of dollars of tax avoidance. Can you tell us this, Minister: How

does a --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Member from St. Catharines, will you come to order, please.

We'll let the leader of the third party complete his question.

Mr. Hampton: Obviously, Liberal cabinet ministers don't take this issue of better decorum to heart.

My question for the Minister of Health is, after decrying tax cuts during the election, can you tell us how these tax cuts are going to provide patients who

don't have a doctor with primary care reform?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The agreement that we've reached with the Ontario Medical Association, supported by 74% of Ontario's doctors, paves the

way for enhanced care for the people of the province of Ontario, and all of the work on the part of the honourable member to change that will not, nor can the honourable member escape the very

present reality. The present reality is a piece of history, and the history is that when that party was in government, they cut down our capacity to produce a sufficient number of doctors.

On the issue at hand, we have invested the money of Ontarians in an appropriate place. We did it ensuring that we have a competitive environment for our

doctors so that we not only keep the doctors that we have, so that we can create an environment where people want to practise medicine in the province of Ontario -- for example, by our increase in

family residency spots recently -- but so that Ontario is back in the business of having doctors in communities where, as a result of those governments when in office, they had been eliminated. We

will be attracting doctors back to the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: To the Minister of Health: I simply want to remind the minister that it was a Liberal government in Ottawa under Paul Martin that

cut the medicare budgets, and it was a Liberal government in Ottawa that mandated that all provinces reduce the number of physician spaces in medical schools.

But I want to ask you another health question. In September, we learned that you were misspending federal health care dollars earmarked for victims of

hepatitis C who contracted the disease through tainted blood. We revealed that your government, despite receiving $66 million in federal funding, was not using that money for enhanced services for

victims of hepatitis C.

Caught red-handed, you quickly formed a committee to look into the matter. But that was eight months ago. Now we find that the committee has never met. There

are no terms of reference, no committee members. A whole lot of very sick hepatitis C victims are suffering while you're doing nothing. How do you justify this almost eight months of delay while

hepatitis C victims grow sicker and sicker?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: First off, on a matter of history, I recommend that the honourable member take a look at Hansard for May 10, 2000.

Hon Mr Harris: ... I'm just disappointed that you oppose some of the longer-term solutions such as free tuition. I think that's disgraceful, when

you're the government that slashed places for doctors in our medical schools."

In response, Ms. Frances Lankin: Premier, I'm glad you raised that issue. I guess we should admit that it's true: We agreed with the Mulroney

government's directive ... and maybe in hindsight that wasn't the right thing to do."

That is the history of medical school spots in the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: On the matter of hepatitis C, the honourable member's assertions are entirely incurrect, and I will not address all of

those. In October, we committed to establish a secretariat within the ministry to focus our affairs on hepatitis C. That has been done, and I'll be pleased to give the honourable member more

information in the supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: Minister of Health, what you neglect --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Community and Social Services, I've asked you twice already.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Can we get some order so I can hear the leader of the third party put forward his supplementary?

Mr. Hampton: Cabinet is upset by these health care questions. I just want to point out to the minister that, yes, it was the Mulroney

government that set the direction. It was, immediately after that, the Liberal government in Ottawa of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin that implemented it.

But I want to come back to those 3,000 tainted-blood hepatitis C victims in Ontario. They have endured severe physical hardship because of the terrible

diseases that they've contracted through no fault of their own. Some 400 of these victims have died since the federal government deal was signed. To this day, the survivors have also endured severe

financial hardships. Now they have to endure you spinning a press release saying that you're going to start a committee to investigate this, and the committee hasn't even met in over six months.

They don't even have terms of reference. How do you explain that to these victims who have suffered so badly under your watch?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Since the honourable member insists on disbelieving the words of Frances Lankin, let me reread them for the record one

more time -- and she had been a health minister, I believe: "Premier, I'm glad you raised that issue. I guess we should admit that it's true. We agreed with the Mulroney government's directive, and

maybe in hindsight that wasn't the right thing to do."

Some facts on hepatitis C: The federal government's resources were provided to the province of Ontario, and Ontario, like every government -- including those

governments led by the New Democratic Party -- has spent every cent of that federal money enhancing the quality of services for people with hepatitis C in our community.

On the issue at hand, on October 1, we committed to establish a secretariat within the ministry, which we have done, and to establish a committee that would

give us further advice. John Plater is the chair --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: We disclosed to you, Minister, all of these hepatitis C victims who were suffering, and your response was to say you were going

to set up a committee. But here we are: the victims still suffer; some have died in the interim. Has your committee met? No. Has your committee even terms of reference? No. Has your committee done

anything to address the suffering of hepatitis C victims, who are supposed to be receiving this federal money, in terms of enhanced services? Have they received anything? No. This is like your

mishandling of the health care file so often. You promise 3,000 new nurses; instead, you lay off almost 1,000 nurses.

What's your answer to those hepatitis C victims who believed that you were actually going to set up a committee to look into their suffering, to look into the

injustice and unfairness that happened to them? How do you justify the fact that the committee hasn't even met, it doesn't have any members and it has no terms of reference six months after you

promised them?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Fact number one: Every cent of the federal money that has been sent to Ontario for the purpose of assisting people with

hepatitis C has been spent on hepatitis C. Secondly, that party while in government worked on a strategic plan for hepatitis C, and they failed to include people who had been infected and were at

risk of being infected. I found that inappropriate, so we sought applications from people interested from around the province: those who are intravenous drug users and represent them, those who are

at risk of becoming infected with hepatitis C, those who have been infected.

By February 15, we had applications come forward. They have been narrowed down. I signed the letters last night. The committee is coming to life under the very

able leadership of John Plater. That committee, like the one we have on the AIDS advisory, is one that I will meet with, that I will work with and that we will take advice and direction from,

because we believe fundamentally that a strategic plan for addressing hepatitis C must involve those people who have been infected and are at risk of further infection.

GREENBELT

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I wonder if the minister would release the

entire list of developers and lobbyists that he or his political staff met with concerning the greenbelt since it was announced December 18, 2003.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Let me once again say that this government

is extremely proud of our greenbelt. We added a million acres to green space protection in the greater Toronto area. Now, I know that party over there is not in favour of the greenbelt. They would

like to see it paved over. They would like to see strip malls. It would be interesting to see where the leader, Mr. Tory, stands on that as well. It would be very interesting to see, because I

believe he gives one story inside Toronto and another story outside of Toronto as far as where he stands on the greenbelt.

We are very proud of what has been accomplished. I can tell you, we used the best scientific information possible from the Ministry of Natural Resources and

the Ministry of Agriculture to come up with the greenbelt. We've created a greenbelt that indeed generations can be proud of for many, many years to come.

Mr. Hudak: The minister talked about everything but the question that I asked him --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Over a couple of weeks, I've been hearing comment coming from this side in regard to questions and

how they came about. I would rather that members, especially from the government side, refrain from doing that.

The member from Erie-Lincoln.

Mr. Hudak: I had a simple question, Minister: Would you kindly release the list of developers and lobbyists that you and your political staff

have met with? I know you don't want to answer the question because you do have a credibility issue. You told TVO that you had not met with any developers, and it was revealed that that did not

meet fully with the facts.

On March 8, you also said that you made a decision personally not to meet "with any particular landowners within the greenbelt. I didn't do that. I met with

their duly elected councils, with planners." Well, your parliamentary assistant has a different story. On February 10, at committee, he said that the minister "has been very accessible to a number

of different individuals," and has given everybody impacted "ample opportunity to make their case to our staff and to the minister directly."

On the same day, the member from Stoney Creek said that the minister "met with people personally in my riding and he's invited municipal leaders and

stakeholders to his office to talk about this."

Minister, that doesn't seem to fit with what you said before. Kindly clear this up. Release the list of those you met with.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I can tell you that in developing this greenbelt, which we can be proud of for many generations to come, we have done more

consultation through the Greenbelt Task Force, through the consultation that the ministry itself was involved in, through the legislative process etc., than just about any other bill that has ever

been brought through this House.

What is interesting is that I have a letter here that talks about a certain fundraiser that's going to take place next week, as a matter of fact. It states

that a limited number of people, by invitation only, in order to allow the opportunity to speak to "John" personally, have been invited. When you look at the committee list --

Interjection: How much?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: For $1,000 each -- it includes developers and all sorts of interesting people. Which John are they talking about? They're

talking about John Tory, the Leader of the Opposition.

Let me once again say that we are extremely proud of what we've achieved with respect to the greenbelt. It has been endorsed by municipal leaders across this

province. It has been endorsed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It has been endorsed by --

The Speaker: Thank you.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a question to the Attorney General. Across Ontario, loan sharks are flouting the law while you and

your government do nothing. Yesterday in Ottawa, a judge ruled that two payday loan companies were trying to "exploit the vulnerable" by charging criminal rates of interest. The judge says that the

victims of these companies don't have to pay, but that's only 34 of the thousands of Ontarians who have been victimized by these scams and these operators. Will you ensure that the thousands of

Ontarians who have been charged criminal interest rates get the money back that they lost to these thieves and scofflaws?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I don't want to

speak to the particular case that the member raises, because it is still a live case and it still is under appeal. But I am happy to speak to the member about what our government is doing and how

the process works.

My involvement arises where the police investigate and determine that it is a matter that should move forward. It is one of those provisions that require the

attorney of the day to personally consent to a prosecution. I can tell you, I will take those matters, as they come up, very, very seriously. This particular matter would not fall into this

category until and unless the police brought it forward, if at all.

I will also tell you that some time ago, I wrote to Minister Cotler to deal with the lacunae in the Criminal Code; in particular, to review

section 347 of the

code, which deals with criminal interest rates, to ensure that it covers abusive payday loan practices.

Lastly, I can assure the member that we will use all of the tools within our disposal on the civil side to ensure that those who have lost money as a result of

alleged crimes or crimes under civil forfeiture get that money back.

There's more to come in my supplementary.

Mr. Kormos: More of the same old hot air. We're not talking about the rare criminal charge; we're talking about regulating this scofflaw,

scoundrel industry. Your government hasn't regulated. Your government has not established a regime wherein victims are protected from this predatory behaviour by these companies. To quote one

editorial, "It's difficult to fathom how a provincial government that's prepared to tell us what snacks kids can eat in our schools can stand by while consumers are victimized in apparent

contravention of the law."

A judge has ruled that payday lenders are victims of a crime. Will you ensure that the thousands of Ontarians who have been ripped off and charged usurious,

criminal interest rates get the money they lost to these companies returned to them? It's as simple as that.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The member asked me a question about the particular case, and I want to tell him what the government is doing on this, so I

will refer the supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services.

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I would remind the honourable member that this Legislature passed Bill 70. If it

wasn't for the foot-dragging and the filibustering of the honourable member from Niagara Centre, who on June 15 wasted House time and on June 22 adjourned debate, resulting in further delay, we

would have the legislation proclaimed at this point. The fact of the matter is that it will be proclaimed on July 30. It will allow full disclosure so consumers are fully aware.

I would suggest that the honourable member stand up at the appropriate time and apologize to consumers. His outrage is not to be taken seriously, because he

wasted valuable time when this piece of legislation was introduced last April.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Today at lunchtime, you met with

delegates of the septage hauling industry. Like me, you represent rural communities where private septic systems are common and everyone knows that the tank must be pumped out on a regular

basis.

The operators I spoke with indicated the industry's desire to help our government fulfill its commitment to ban the practice of spreading untreated septage on

land, but they also expressed concern about the lack of septage disposal alternatives if the ban is implemented in the very near future. Can you please update the people of Ontario on what our

government is doing to fulfill its commitment to ban the practice of spreading untreated septage on land?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): First of all, I want to thank the septage haulers who came to downtown Toronto today. One

of their missions was to bring attention to a very important industry, one that I think is very undervalued in this province. They were able to come here today, meet with me, have a reception and

focus attention on an issue of our environment that is very important.

I also want to commend the honourable member. A few months after I was named Minister of the Environment, he invited me to his riding to meet with members of

this industry so that I could better understand what their issues were.

I'm happy to say that our government is very committed to working with the industry to build the capacity to ban the spreading of untreated septage in the

province of Ontario. We have a lot of work to do. The previous government did not put one red cent into building capacity. Our government is working with municipalities and with this industry to do

so.

Mr. Lalonde: I want to thank the minister for her positive response. I am certain all Ontarians will be pleased to hear that our government is

not ignoring the challenges of banning the spreading of untreated septage on land. Minister, can you please describe some of the work that our government is doing to address the challenges, and

could you also give Ontarians some indication of when they may begin to see progress toward implementing a ban on spreading untreated septage on land?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I think what's important to identify here for the members of the Legislature is that when you ban untreated septage, it

means there have to be standards developed for the treatment of it, and that is what we are in the process of doing at the Ministry of the Environment with industry partners and municipalities. We

have a pilot project underway in Huron county. As well, we are working with specialists at the University of Guelph, and they are advising us around what the standards should be for septage. We

look forward, before the end of this year, hopefully in the fall, to bringing forward our plan to ban the spreading of untreated septage

FABRY DISEASE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. On March 22, I received a desperate

e-mail from Darren Nesbit, a 27-year-old Fabry patient from Sarnia, who said:

"On March 31, 2005, I will lose my treatment and join Bill and his sister in the fight for our lives.... Now that time is here! And where is my Ontario

government? They are hiding behind the CDR board.... I tell you and anyone who will listen to me that this health minister and his government are killing us. They have the chance right now to

change the thoughts of young, sick Fabry's children. Give these people a chance." End of the desperate e-mail.

I say to the minister, what is your answer to Darren's desperate plea for help as he fights for his life?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I say to you, honourable member, that Derek is in exactly the situation that

you surely must have envisioned when you were a leader in helping to create the Common Drug Review in our country. The reality is that of course we have sympathy for patients who are in a

circumstance where they have been offered the opportunity of a hopeful new product, but each product must be measured for its clinical efficacy. This is the long-established practice in

Ontario.

The member, in her role as Minister of Health, working with other Ministers of Health, went even further, and that was to create the Common Drug Review. The

company wasn't satisfied with their first go-round of the Common Drug Review. They said they wanted to resubmit based on new data, and everybody agreed. That's the current status. My argument to

the honourable member in the earlier session of the House this year was that it was inappropriate for the company to suggest that they would cut people off while this review was ongoing, and it's

my understanding that the company has made those arrangements and is flowing product for those people to whom it was being provided heretofore. So I believe that's the answer for Derek.

Mrs. Witmer: The minister's answer gives little comfort to Darren or to any other people who have been told they will no longer get treatment.

The minister also knows that the CDR was never established to deal with this type of drug product.

But Darren sent me another desperate e-mail yesterday, March 29, and he says: "I, Darren Nesbit, have no more treatments of my drug! How can this government

kill its own people? My MPP from Sarnia has done nothing on this issue.... I watch Queen's Park every day, watching and seeing if anyone cares."

Minister, what do you say to Darren, as he has now been cut off and he fights for his life? Will you now commit to permanent funding for enzyme replacement

therapy?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: First and foremost, any drug program operated by any province must establish clinical efficacy before a product can

simply be listed on the formulary. With all due respect to the honourable member, for whom I have great respect, she knows this fundamentally from her role as Minister of Health.

The situation, as I have been apprised of it, is that we will work to make sure that this is the circumstance in his situation -- and I'm not sure if you said

Darren or Derek; I apologize. The company has advised us they are going to continue to ship the product to hospitals. They're also sending invoices along; we think that's inappropriate. The company

subsequently asked for a review through the Common Drug Review. They submitted additional data. That review is ongoing. It has been our position for quite some time that it's appropriate that in

that circumstance they continue to support people on the compassionate grounds that they did when they first began to offer this product.

So my understanding is that the product is continuing to be available to that patient, but if you want to provide us with that information, we'll make sure

that he is being treated as the company has told us that he would be. In the meantime, the Common Drug Review and clinical efficacy will stand, as it must for any province.

LABOUR UNIONS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Labour: Workers and their friends across this province are denouncing your Bill 144 as

not only inadequate but discriminatory, sexist and racist. Yesterday you heard some of that outrage and denunciation here in this chamber. Workers who are mostly women, mostly new Canadians and

mostly people of colour, all of them desperately underpaid -- surely these workers deserve the same rights of card-based certification that you're prepared to restore to building trades workers.

How do you justify this blatant discrimination against so many women, new Canadians, people of colour, visible minorities and underpaid workers?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): Actually, Bill 144 does nothing such as the member outlines. It's a very progressive series of

changes that will assist working people, regardless of where they work, in deciding for themselves whether they wish or do not wish to be members of a union. It contains changes, such as remedial

certification and interim reinstatement, that apply for the protection of all workers.

This government does not simply wish to delegate its role in protecting the vulnerable, protecting all workers, to any individual or group or organization.

That's why we've taken very significant roles in enhancing worker health and safety in all workplaces, in ensuring the minimum wage is increased, in bringing about the end of the 60-hour workweek,

in bringing about family medical leave legislation and in ensuring that the employment standards provisions in the province are actually enforced.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, the women providing home care for seniors, the recent immigrants, the new Canadians providing retail services in

Wal-Mart stores, surely deserve the very same right to card-based certification as you're prepared to give to workers on a building site. David Peterson, Bill Davis and even Leslie Frost understood

this. Only Mike Harris, Ernie Eves and now you and Dalton McGuinty think that this sort of blatant discrimination is acceptable.

Bill 144 discriminates against workers who are mostly women, mostly new Canadians, mostly people of colour and the poorest, lowest-paid workers in this

province. You have created two classes of workers. Have you at any point conferred with the Ontario Human Rights Commission to get their opinion on your discriminatory bill?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: Once again, the legislation does nothing such as the member outlines. In fact, it is a very progressive series of changes

that will assist all workers.

We're determined to ensure that all working people have support in exercising their right to choose whether they wish to be members of a union or do not.

That's why there are provisions that apply to all workplaces. Because construction has long been recognized as a separate and distinct part, for the purposes of the act, for the purposes of

bargaining regimes, there are some extra steps that we had to take in the context of construction to ensure that that right to choose is effective.

What we won't do is return to the NDP position between 1990 and 1995, where they did everything they could to drive out investment and business from the

province, because that means every worker is out of a job. We won't go there.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

COMPENSATION FUND

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. We were all shocked two weeks ago when

Jetsgo airlines folded so suddenly, leaving travellers stranded in airports across the country. The federal transportation minister's response to this crisis was to suggest that nothing could be

done for these customers, effectively leaving them financially stranded as well. Minister, what has our government done to aid consumers in the wake of this unfortunate event?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I thank the honourable member for Etobicoke North for his question. I want to

take a moment to thank Michael Pepper. He's the CEO of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, an agency of my ministry. They acted extremely quickly after the Jetsgo failure to provide hourly

information updates to consumers on their Web site. They also worked around the clock to secure alternative travel arrangements for stranded passengers. Our office worked to inform members of

provincial Parliament of what was going on and what our compensation fund was all about.

Ontario is a leader when it comes to a compensation fund for end-supplier failures. We have a compensation fund that is in extremely good shape: a $5-million

cap per incident, $5,000 per individual traveller. Information is available on the TICO Web site, which is www.tico.on.ca, for those individuals who were registered through a travel agency and

bought their tickets through those travel agencies.

Mr. Qaadri: Certainly, people are encouraged, but there are many customers who are still waiting for compensation --

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Me.

Mr. Qaadri: -- including the MPP from Toronto-Danforth, from a similar situation that occurred over three years ago when Canada 3000 went

belly up. Minister, how is our government working with the federal government to ensure that Ontario's travellers never again become victims of poor business practices by airlines like Canada 3000

and Jetsgo?

Hon. Mr. Watson: I'm sorry that the honourable member from Danforth was not stranded longer at her destination, but I could certainly look

into that.

The member raised the situation of Canada 3000, a much more complex issue, because Canada 3000 was, in fact, five separate corporations. TICO advises me that

compensation claims will be available within two to six months for Jetsgo customers.

As the member knows, the federal government is responsible for regulating the airline industry. I'm pleased that Minister Lapierre just yesterday indicated

that they're willing to look at a national compensation fund and follow Ontario's lead. I look forward to working with the federal government and my other provincial consumer ministers at our

consumer ministers conference in Quebec City in June for the better protection of all consumers, not just those in Ontario, but across Canada.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday you announced a trickle of money for our tobacco farmers

and another trickle for our grain and oilseed producers. The tobacco farmers tell us that this just isn't enough. A mere $35 million cannot offset the burden of increasing higher tobacco taxes. We

now discover that the $79 million going to the grain and oilseed producers is only 40% of their MRI entitlement.

On May 15, 2002, Minister, quoted in Hansard, you said to the minister of the day: "We know that the safety net programs in this country are cost-shared on a

60-40 basis, but you can go beyond; you can do more. Alberta does more; Quebec does more." Minister, these are your words, and you are absolutely correct: You can do more.

Minister, yesterday you announced that our farmers would get 40% of the 2004 benefits. When are you going to do more? Why did the casinos get $400 million and

the oilseed farmers are only worth $79 million?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): On a number of fronts -- and I'll start with tobacco. Perhaps the honourable member may

want to talk about other issues.

We've been commended by the University of Guelph for the efforts we have taken to invest in tobacco-growing communities -- $15 million -- to assist: "This

funding will provide an opportunity for continued partnering, and the university is ready to assist the sector in any way it can to develop innovative solutions for farmers facing challenges."

We're investing in community economic development. We're investing $35 million to assist tobacco growers in transition, as they move to alternative crops. We have approximately 750 tobacco growers

in this province who are certainly facing a number of challenges. We made a commitment that we were going to come to the table with $50 million in support for growers and communities. Promise made;

promise kept.

Mr. Hardeman: Mr. Minister, in yesterday's announcements you also indicated that you expected the federal government to stand up and put in

$120 million to make it a complete payment in our market revenue program. I want to go on and quote from the same part of Hansard. This is you speaking: "I know we can hear this rhetoric from the

other side," and I want to say that to you now, "`Well, the federal government has to do its part.' I'll repeat the words that I said yesterday. I will say it again and put this government on

notice, to the Minister of Agriculture, that waiting for the feds ... is like waiting for hell to freeze over."

Minister, that's what you said. So are you saying now that the farmers should just wait for hell to freeze over because that's how long it's going to take for

you to support them?

Hon. Mr. Peters: I think we've demonstrated very clearly the support that we're giving to agriculture, unlike the previous government: in

1996-97, $12.8 million cut from the budget; 1997-98, $31.4 million cut from the budget; 1998-99, $62.8 million cut from the budget.

We're making significant investments in support of the agricultural industry. Not only did we flow $88 million for the 2004 market revenue; we've added an

additional $79 million, which comes to a total of $167 million in support for the grains and oilseeds sector. We've flowed and will be flowing over the next two years $172 million in support of

wedge funding for transition to programs, including an investment of $35 million in research, including the CAIS program, which for the 2003 crop year will flow in excess of $180 million in support

for Ontario farmers.

I agree with what the member --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): New question.

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education. Fort Severn is the most northerly community in Ontario.

The school in that First Nations community is closed for public health reasons. Toxic mould is found virtually everywhere in the school building. As a result, children and their families have been

forced to move hundreds of kilometres to communities like Sioux Lookout or Thunder Bay just so their children can attend school and get an education. But many in the community can't afford to move

to Thunder Bay or Sioux Lookout, so their children are now doing without.

These students are citizens of Ontario. They need access to education. You are the Minister of Education for Ontario. What will you do to help these students

receive the education they deserve?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I know the member opposite, and no member of this House, would want to politic with the future of

those particular children, who are facing more than the average challenge of students in this province.

The member opposite is fully aware that there's a federal government responsibility and a dispute in that community. What I should say is that the education

ministers of Canada recently had a meeting in Toronto and have decided to make aboriginal education, notwithstanding any level of government's ostensible and constitutional responsibility, part of

their business; in fact, one of their three top priorities. There is work going on right now with my office and the offices of other education ministers to try to find a way that we can

collaborate.

I want to assure the member opposite that we agree there is no excuse for any school-aged student in this province not to be getting a quality education. We

will work, and we invite the member opposite to work with us, to find a resolution wherever that is taking place. But we have initiated that through the federal government, through our colleague

ministers. We are looking into our responsibilities. It's certainly in our sights, and we will help find a solution for the situation he's describing.

Mr. Hampton: The minister should know that, yes, the federal government has primary responsibility here, but the federal government is

dithering on the issue of building a new school. Meanwhile, these students have to follow the Ontario curriculum. They have to pass Ontario literacy tests and other standardized tests, just as

children all across Ontario have to pass those tests. They are citizens of Ontario, just as someone who lives in Toronto or Ottawa or Thunder Bay is a citizen of Ontario.

I'm asking you to do two things: Will you get in touch with the federal ministers responsible and say to them, "It's not acceptable in Ontario that children go

without an education just because they're aboriginal children"? And, in the interim, will you help those families who've had to move to Thunder Bay or Sioux Lookout in order that their children can

receive an education? Will you do those two simple things, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: Again, I think, at root, one of the most serious challenges we have in this country is the future of aboriginal children.

The education system that should be giving them a boost forward -- and I think everyone is in agreement -- is not doing that to a sufficient degree.

I would say to the member opposite that when it comes to these particular kids, more is required than what you have offered. What you have offered, frankly,

isn't about their specific needs. There's a problem to be solved. I ask the member opposite to lend his good offices to untangling the mess in that particular community, and I offer to do the same.

They deserve a school in their home community, they deserve not to be dislocated and they deserve not to get ensnarled in machinations, whether it's the federal bureaucracy or provincial

politicians. So I say to you, member opposite, that these kids need to have a direct involvement from the federal government. That is their responsibility. However, there is a need for third

parties, wherever they can come from, to actually roll up their sleeves and help solve this problem.

We are providing additional resources to the communities where First Nations people are receiving an education, and we'll continue to do that.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education. I'm concerned about violence in our schools. A report

released last year by the CAMH stated that one third of students were being bullied in the year 2003. This is unacceptable. We must ensure that our schools are safe places for our students. They

shouldn't have to worry, when they go to school every day, that they're going to be verbally or physically bullied or abused.

Last December, the minister appointed a special safe schools action team to advise us on the implementation of new measures to protect students. I know the

action team has been travelling the province and meeting with parents and students. When can we expect the safe school action team to release its findings?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I think it's something that everybody in this House has some exposure to but still is fairly

unremarked on as an ongoing problem. Bullying is probably a fact in every school in this province. It's something that we need to do more about. We have an action team. In fact, the author of the

report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health is on that team. They found so much interest in getting a successful anti-bullying program into every community and every school in this

province that they're now holding public hearings and discussions with people, one of which was held this week in Kingston. It's headed up by Liz Sandals, the parliamentary assistant to the

Minister of Community Safety, and it involves some of the best people in this province.

We need to do this. We need to turn the corner on making bullying unacceptable in this province.

Mr. Duguid: Students across Ontario are already experiencing the benefits of the McGuinty government's education reforms, but safe schools are

an essential element of a quality education. While we look forward to the action team's recommendations, apart from helping victims of bullying, what other initiatives will the action team examine

to ensure that Ontario schools are safe learning places for all our students?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: It's an easy thing to take for granted, the safety of our schools. They are safe, but we need to have constant alertness and

vigilance about it. So the safe schools action team has been working since December to make sure we have physically safe spaces; for example, that entranceways in elementary schools are not

accessible by intruders who can't be seen by the school staff. They're working on that problem. They are also going to examine some of the incomplete work by the previous government around safe

schools. We may stand in this place and think so, but you can't pass a law and suddenly make kids safer. In fact, we need more prevention. We need not to fill the shopping malls with kids who have

been expelled or suspended from school. We need to prevent violence, or the incipient acts of bullying and other things that lead to violence, from taking place in the first place.

We'll be reviewing the Safe Schools Act, making changes in programs and reviewing the Robins report as well to make sure we have comprehensive alertness on the

safety of children in our schools.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like once again to seek unanimous consent that we call Bill 92

today. I am pleading with the government to call this bill to help AMO, Roger Anderson and Pat Vanini. Would you do that?

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The member from Nepean-Carleton has asked for unanimous consent. I'm hearing a no.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Again the government seeks unanimous

consent to give second and third readings to Bill 92, to assist the member and his desire to help AMO. Will you grant us unanimous consent for second and third readings of Bill 92?

Mr. Baird: We would be more than happy to give second and third readings if we can begin to debate the bill today.

The Speaker: The government House leader has asked for unanimous consent to call second and third readings. Do we have unanimous consent? I

heard a no.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO FARMERS

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

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park because of a lack of response from the Dalton McGuinty

government to farm-related issues; and

"Whereas farming in Ontario is in crisis because of the impacts of BSE, unfair subsidies from other jurisdictions and bureaucratic legislative burdens that

fail to understand the value of agriculture as a strategic industry; and

"Whereas the current prices for farm products do not allow for sustainable agriculture in Canada, with a 10.7% decline in the number of Canadian farms reported

between 1996 and 2001;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to consult with Ontario farmers to develop a long-term strategy to ensure the viability

of agriculture in our province and to develop immediate short-term solutions, such as support for grain and oilseed producers, a workable production insurance program for horticulture and a CAIS

program that delivers real income support on a timely basis."

I'm pleased to support this on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's titled "Save the Southwestern Regional Centre,

Home to People with Developmental Disabilities."

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close the Southwestern Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

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

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

developmental services sector and the economies of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of the Southwestern Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional

training to many clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep the Southwestern Regional Centre open as a home

for people with developmental disabilities, and to maintain it as a `centre of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they

live."

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

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

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

I'm pleased to sign that.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This petition has been sent to me by John and Anne Deveau, who live in my riding. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close the Rideau Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of the Rideau Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional

training to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep the Rideau Regional Centre open as a home for

people with developmental disabilities and to maintain it as a `centre of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they

live."

The petition has been signed by about 393 people. They've asked me to introduce it for them, and I have, and I've affixed my signature to it.

COLLEGE FUNDING

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I have a petition signed by literally thousands of students.

"Whereas Ontario's colleges in 2003-04 served 53% more students than 15 years ago and received 29% less in grant and fee income (after inflation);

"Ontario colleges currently rank 10th out of the 10 provinces in Canada in per student funding; and

"Ontario college students are now paying at least 145% more in tuition fees than in 1990;

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

"That the Ontario government must commit to increasing funding to Ontario's colleges in the 2005 budget to reach the national average by 2007-08."

I have signed this petition myself. I have this box with probably 1,000 petitions, and I have eight other boxes that will all be coming to the table.

ONTARIO FARMERS

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

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park because of a lack of response from the Dalton McGuinty

government to farm issues; and

"Whereas farming in Ontario is in crisis because of the impacts of BSE, unfair subsidies from other jurisdictions, rising costs for energy and a crushing

regulatory burden on farmers; and

"Whereas current prices for farm products do not allow for sustainable agriculture in Canada, with a 10.7% decline in the number of Canadian farms reported

between 1996 and 2001;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to consult with Ontario's farmers to develop a long-term strategy to ensure the

viability of agriculture in our province that protects our rural way of life, and to work in the short term to alleviate the farm income crisis and listen to the concerns of farmers about the

greenbelt."

I support this petition.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from my riding of Mississauga West. It reads as

follows:

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and the Halton Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the

Credit Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered each

year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million of a $50-million

fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility to meet the needs of our community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at

Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients in

the hospital emergency department and to better serve patients in the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

I certainly support this petition. I've affixed my signature to it, and I'm going to ask Alexandre to take it down.

PIT BULL LEGISLATION

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

I'm trying to leave time for the member from Simcoe North.

"Whereas Ontario's Attorney General has raised the issue of banning pit bulls;" -- it's passed now -- "and

"Whereas we, as concerned members of the public, believe the proposed ban is a mistake; and

"Whereas we would rather see legislation requiring all breeds of dogs to be micro-chipped and spayed or neutered within the first year of possession unless

being shown or bred under the CKC regulations; and

"Whereas owners should be held responsible for their animals' behaviour at all times, laws must be enforced, and the responsibility for control of dogs should

be rightfully placed on dog owners;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take all the necessary steps to re-evaluate and reconsider the

pending law to ban pit bulls."

I read this because, after passing the law, this petition still has merit.

DISABILITY BENEFITS

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I've got a petition here from the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group on deeming. It

reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board adds Canada pension plan disability benefits to an injured worker's deemed earnings to determine the loss of

earnings or future earnings lost; and

"Whereas deducting Canada pension plan disability benefits from loss of earnings or future earnings loss benefits systematically undercompensates injured

workers; and

"Whereas the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board bases long-term compensation on deemed earnings that an injured worker is not actually receiving;

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

"To amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act by removing the deeming provisions and providing legislation to base a loss-of-earnings benefit to reflect

actual lost earnings;

"To amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to end the deduction of Canada pension plan disability benefits from future economic loss and loss of earnings

benefits retroactively."

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

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

"Whereas Sir Frederick Banting was the man who discovered insulin and was Canada's first Nobel Prize recipient; and

"Whereas this great Canadian's original homestead located in the town of New Tecumseth" -- Alliston -- "is deteriorating and in danger of destruction because

of the inaction of the Ontario Historical Society; and

"Whereas the town of New Tecumseth, under the leadership of Mayor Mike MacEachern and former Mayor Larry Keogh, has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement

with the Ontario Historical Society to use part of the land to educate the public about the historical significance of the work of Sir Frederick Banting;

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

"That the Minister of Culture and the Liberal government step in to ensure that the Banting homestead is kept in good repair and preserved for generations to

come."

I've affixed my name.

TUITION

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's been sent to me by Shailagh Keaney, the vice-president of student issues at

Laurentian University. It has 1,492 signatures, and it reads as follows:

Whereas the Ontario Liberal government took an historic step forward by funding a tuition fee freeze for two years; and

"Whereas a majority of Ontarians support increased public funding for colleges and universities as well as reduced tuition fees; and

"Whereas increasing student debt through income-contingent loan repayment schemes or raising loan limits only increases the cost of post-secondary education

for students from modest means; and

"Whereas per student investment in Ontario still lags gravely behind the vast majority of jurisdictions in North America;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, supporting the Canadian Federation of Students' call to increase funding for colleges and universities and reduce tuition fees

for all Ontario students, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reduce tuition fees for all students in Ontario, increase public funding for post-secondary education to at least the

national average, and implement an upfront, needs-based grant system for Ontario full-time and part-time students."

I agree with the call for reduced tuition fees, and I've affixed my signature to this.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I have a petition here from the Retired Women Teachers of Ontario, St. Catharines branch.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"To immediately commit to action and funding to ensure the rights and protection for our citizens living in nursing homes and retirement homes in Ontario."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased --

Interjection: Have you done one already?

Mr. Dunlop: This is my second one, thank you.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities;

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

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

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

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

I am pleased to sign my name to this.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I'll try to read it as

quickly as possible.

"Whereas funding has only been increased to provide better long-term care for people in long-term-care facilities ... but not to any `self-directed' programs

that help seniors live in their own homes (because they either choose to live at home or because they are not suited to live in LTCFs)" -- which are the long-term-care facilities -- "and

"Whereas the current policy continues to use the community care access centre ... model to look after all long-term care in this province; ...

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

"That the government consider amalgamating the five separate CCACs in Toronto and create one CCAC that will indeed follow its own motto of `Helping People Live

at Home' and, if necessary, create a new self-directed LTC model, perhaps like the one instituted in Germany in 1994 and adopted by other European countries, to allow seniors, our parents and

grandparents to live at home, if they choose. This model has proven to be more caring because it is family-based, while eliminating the frustration of bureaucracy and the wasteful and inefficient

management of health care funds. Our seniors and the disabled would get what they always wanted: the choice to stay at home."

I submit that to the assembly today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

CONCERNANT LES RELATIONS

DE TRAVAIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 29, 2005, on a motion for second reading of Bill 144,

An Act to amend certain statutes relating to labour relations /

Projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant des lois concernant les relations de travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier Essex): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm pleased to speak on behalf of New Democrats here at Queen's Park, but as well on behalf of thousands

upon thousands of working women and men who are going to be denied their right to effectively join a trade union if this bill is not amended to ensure that every worker -- be he or she in the

building trades, on construction sites or working in a Wal-Mart -- has the right to establish their union local by way of card-based certification.

Let's understand at the onset that it is our position in the New Democratic Party, and increasingly the position of more and more working women and men and

their friends, families, co-workers and neighbours across the province, that this bill is discriminatory, that it is sexist and that this Bill 144 is racist, and I will tell you why.

Let's for a moment, though, reflect on the history of card-based certification, because it is by no means a radical proposition. Indeed, it goes back 50 years,

to 1950, when Ontario created its own Labour Relations Act -- it included card-based certification; card cert., as abbreviated -- through to 1961 under Premier Leslie Frost, a Conservative Premier

of this province -- no radical, no left-winger, no Bolshevik or anarchist; far from it. Card-based certification was a way in which working women and men, all working women and men in this

province, could exercise their right to belong to a trade union.

From 1961 through to 1971, under Premier John Robarts: card-based certification. John Robarts: no radical, no left-winger -- far from it -- no Bolshevik, no

anarchist, no syndicalist, no Wobbly; as conservative as they come. Under the premiership of Conservative John Robarts, card-based certification was the rule of the day for every working woman and

man in this province.

Bill Davis graced this House yesterday. Bill Davis was no red, no pinko -- far from it -- as conservative as they come. Yet under the premiership of Bill

Davis, from 1971 through to 1985, card-based certification -- card cert. -- was the rule of the day. It meant that signing up 55%-plus membership cards in a trade union would effectively form a

trade union local.

Frank Miller, whose legacy is, among other thing, his own son sitting in this Legislature, and again, no lefty -- far from it -- as conservative as they come.

Under the premiership of Frank Miller, card-based certification -- card cert. -- was the order of the day for every working woman and man in this province, not just for some; not just for one group

who were entitled to card-based certification yet another group wasn't, never mind the largest number of working women and men in this province. Every worker was entitled to exercise his or her

right to join a trade union by virtue of card-based certification.

David Peterson, while Premier of this province -- card-based certification was the order of the day.

It wasn't until 1995 and the election of one of the most reactionary governments that this province has seen in many, many, many years, if ever -- the Mike

Harris revolution and Bill 7; the neo-cons and Bill 7. Among the first orders of the day for the Harris revolutionaries was the most fundamental all-out attack on workers in this province that has

been witnessed in 70 years. Not since the Pinkertons of the 1920s and 1930s have we seen as vicious an attack on workers in this province and their trade unions, and nothing changed under the

leadership of Ernie Eves.

People voted for change in 2003 when they elected Dalton McGuinty, and nothing changes even now, because even now, card-based certification, denied workers by

Mike Harris and his gang of neo-con revolutionaries and maintained by his successor -- worthy or not, but I'm sure liked by so many -- Ernie Eves, is now a tradition that's being sustained by

Dalton McGuinty. Dalton McGuinty, you see, hasn't joined the company of Leslie Frost, John Robarts, Bill Davis, Frank Miller or David Peterson. No, Dalton McGuinty is joining the company of Mike

Harris and Ernie Eves.

If you had to choose where you're going to be in the history books, who you're going to be with and where you're going to be situated in the index, one would

think that for a Premier who campaigned on and advocated change, Mike Harris and Ernie Eves would be the last

chapter mates you would choose. But in fact we've learned perhaps far more about Dalton

McGuinty than we've ever wanted to when we witness his aligning himself with Mike Harris rather than with David Peterson, Bill Davis, John Robarts, Leslie Frost or Frank Miller.

So we witness an ongoing attack on workers in this province, and shamefully, regrettably, tragically, on the weakest workers, the most vulnerable workers, the

language, invisible minorities and people of colour.

Those in this chamber witnessed a spontaneous expression of denunciation and concern around the racist, sexist and discriminatory nature of this bill --

inappropriately, I acknowledge -- coming from the visitors' galleries. These people were apprehended by the gendarmerie and promptly escorted from the building. But I say to you, their message was

not lost on those of us in the New Democratic Party, because the denunciation of Bill 144, the maintenance of the Harris-Eves denial of card-based certification of the vast majority of workers in

this province, is ringing and echoing across Ontario. That's why, first of all, New Democrats say very clearly to this government that this bill has got to be the subject matter of public and

province-wide committee hearings -- that's number one -- not token hearings.

There's a whole lot of folks out there, a whole lot of working women and men, a whole lot of workers, a whole lot of new Canadians, a whole lot of women

workers, a whole lot of visible minority workers, a whole lot of the lowest-paid workers in this province who have something to say about being denied the right to join a union on the basis of

card-based certification; not just joining but forming a union local.

Understand what this means, Speaker. Being able to form a union local means that you can engage in free collective bargaining with your boss. What could be a

more fundamental right in a democratic society than to be able to engage in free collective bargaining with your boss, of course for wages, of course for benefits, of course for pensions, but also

for safer workplaces, for fairer treatment in those workplaces and for the maintenance of jobs that workers work hard at?

I had occasion to tell you yesterday, during the opportunities given to me during questions and comments in response to other members' participation in this

debate, and I'm proud to say it again, that I firmly believe that the trade union movement, its membership, its leadership, does more to create social and economic justice in this province, in the

Western world, than any other institution, bar none. I have no hesitation saying that because I believe it. I believe it as firmly as I could ever believe anything.

Why do I believe that? Well, I've had occasion to tell you more than once how I, like any other person, am very much the result of how we grew up and who our

parents are or were and our grandparents before them. Like more than a few others here, I'm the son of immigrant parents, for whom completion of grade 8 was considered a significant achievement,

and uneducated, or rather, unschooled.

As a child during the 1950s, and then growing up into the 1960s, I watched this generation, in this case post-war immigrant Canadians, build things. I watched

them build homes, and they did it with their own hands, breaking their own backs in the course of doing it. You, Speaker, being, give or take, my age, may recall that there was a time in this

province when building a house didn't mean hiring a contractor; it meant you and your partner and your kids, if they were old enough, and maybe some relatives, coming down and building a basement

-- digging it not with a steam shovel but by hand -- and living in that basement while you built the first floor and then the second floor of that house. I'm sure I'm not the only person in this

chamber who has recollections of that as a kid during the 1950s.

These people built homes, they built neighbourhoods, they built schools, they built churches, they built hospitals. They built and worked in factories, and in

the course of working in those factories and creating huge amounts of wealth -- because those workers did, they created huge amounts of wealth. They, in the course of forming trade unions and

engaging in collective bargaining and advocating for fair labour laws in this province, which date back to the 1950s with the advent of card certification under the premiership of the very

conservative Leslie Frost, and building those trade unions, struggling -- and struggle they did, and the struggles oftentimes were bloody. People went to jail, and people were, as they said it

then, blacklisted and denied the opportunity of working in any number of industries because they were active in the trade union movement or they were organizers in the trade union movement or they

were considered agitators.

So the struggle to build trade unions in this province is not an insubstantial one by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it an insignificant part of this

province's or this country's history. The median age in this chamber is adequate for most of us, albeit as children, to have been witnesses to some of the significant battles, struggles and

sacrifices made by working women and men during the course of building trade unions and trade union locals and developing fair labour relations legislation here in the province of Ontario and in

other parts of the country.

The achievement of that was not without its substantial consequences as well. The trade union movement is solely responsible for the creation of the working

middle class. There would not be a working middle class were it not for the trade union movement. No corporate boss ever gave a raise to a worker or let that worker take home his or her fairer

share of the wealth that that worker created in that workplace as a result of, oh, largesse or benevolence or noblesse oblige. Let's understand something -- and don't take it from me. George Soros

himself -- you know George Soros; I've talked about him before -- the multi-billionaire money trader, über-capitalist and author, writes very fundamentally in more than one place in the

numerous stuff he has published about how the very nature of the corporate beast is to make profit, and it's neither good nor bad. It's an entirely neutral thing. Corporations have no conscience,

they have no soul, they have no heart and, increasingly, as we understand, they have no nationality -- none whatsoever, do they? Capital can be rotated and switched from one jurisdiction to the

other, not even with the stroke of a pen any more but the click of a computer key. We witness it on a daily basis, don't we, and working women and men in this province suffer as a result of it on a

daily basis?

Just as an aside, I remember 1988. I remember that federal election around free trade. I will concede that many of us, if not all of us, who fought against

fre