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

October 4, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Oct-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 October 2006 Mercredi 4 octobre 2006

APOLOGY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HAMILTON DAY

LIBERAL LEADERSHIP

ONTARIO'S RED MEAT SECTOR

HEALTH CARE

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GROUND CURRENT

POLLUTION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA POLLUTION CAUSÉE

PAR LE COURANT TELLURIQUE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ELECTRIC BICYCLES

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

ELECTRIC BICYCLES

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

ELECTRIC BICYCLES

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

VISITORS

CHINESE-CANADIAN

HEAD TAX REDRESS DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOTTLE RECYCLING

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND GAMING

HEALTH CARE SPENDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

MINISTER'S COMMENT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

WATER QUALITY

LONG-TERM CARE

ONTARIO ARTISTS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

CLIMATE CHANGE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

HEALTH CARD REGISTRATION OFFICE

CHILD CUSTODY

LONG-TERM CARE

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

WATER QUALITY

LONG-TERM CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

LONG-TERM CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

OPPOSITION DAY

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

APOLOGY

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, during the last question of the day from the Conservative government and before

the response from the Attorney General, I made a heckle which was clearly inappropriate and I certainly want to apologize for that.

Secondly, on a much prouder note, I would like to wish my mother a happy 89th birthday today. Mom, I love you.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): In this Legislature, we saw a condemnation of the Premier for his failure in Caledonia. A week after that, on June 16, Housing Minister Gerretsen

issued a press release promising emergency funding for homeowners in Caledonia. But we know that Ontarians have put up with three years of broken promises from this McGuinty government. Gerretsen's release stressed the urgency of the situation,

using words like "immediate" and "emergency," and he instructed his local liaison committee to provide recommendations by June 19. That was four months into the occupation; it's now seven months and counting. Caledonia homeowners have seen no

money, Caledonia homeowners have seen no timeline and Caledonia homeowners have seen no indication that the McGuinty government will be keeping this promise. You may recall Minister Cordiano wading into the dispute with his promise of money. Where

is Cordiano now? Brant MPP Dave Levac waded into this broken promise, calling it "welcome news for the community."

People have had enough broken promises from a government which will say anything to get re-elected. Caledonians in particular are tired of the McGuinty government's endless flood of promises without delivery.

Congratulations to Minister Gerretsen and MPP Levac. They are runners-up for promise breaker of the day award. They get an A for announcement and a D for --

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

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm speaking today to advise the House of an innovative and proactive initiative that has been put forth by the city of London this morning. Anne Marie

DeCicco-Best, the mayor of London, as well as community leaders, made an announcement which launched the Mayor's Task Force to End Woman Abuse. This is a new initiative to focus on the issue of woman abuse in our city. There has been an increase

in violence against women within our community throughout this past year. I am proud that the city of London is being proactive in responding to the growing need to end violence against women.

ensure the availability of practical training materials to assist the community sector in responding effectively and proactively to situations of woman abuse; liaise with local media to inform, educate and bring public awareness to the issue of

woman abuse and its impact on the community; and hold a conference utilizing local experts to showcase the best practice within the business, government and human services sector.

Mayor DeCicco-Best will chair the task force, which consists of a cross-section of leaders, including representatives from law enforcement, education, business, health and social sectors.

It's a very great initiative, and hopefully all of us will support it.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member for Toronto-Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, with a tone of questioning in your voice. Nonetheless, thank you for the recognition.

Yesterday the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario brought forward a milestone report. He brought forward a report three years into the term of this McGuinty government that showed that what we in the

opposition have been saying for so long is entirely true.

This government does not see the environment as a priority. This government does beautiful, fabulous work when it comes to advertising and marketing, but when it comes to the environment, substantial work is not

there. This government has no plan to deal with climate change. The Minister of the Environment will say, when asked, "No, we're doing work, here, there, everywhere," but no coherent approach.

The reality is that climate change will have significant impact on this province. Climate change will bring about changes in our climate, our weather, that will impact on people's lives, our prosperity, and yet,

given that they're doing nothing to stop climate change, nor are they doing anything to adapt to the inevitable challenges, crises, that this province will face.

This government has abandoned its responsibilities. It has neglected its obligations. This government is a failure on the environmental file.

HAMILTON DAY

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I am proud to rise and sing the praises of Hamilton:

Once upon a time there was a city,

Hamilton was where we all called home.

Last April I brought forward, along with my fellow members, a private member's bill identifying the first Wednesday in October as Hamilton Day. We are celebrating Hamilton at Queen's Park today, and I want to

acknowledge and welcome Mayor Larry Di Ianni, Councillor Bill Kelly, Councillor Margaret McCarthy and physician recruiter Dr. Jane Walker to Queen's Park.

Hamilton has a great history, inspired by people, places and politics. Hamilton is located at the head of Lake Ontario, captured by the splendour of the Niagara Escarpment. It all began at Hamilton Harbour,

which provided the perfect shipping opportunity needed to celebrate the industrial development.

But today our airport travels to all points in the world. We have an industrious business culture, with the direction of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and a thriving small business and entrepreneurial spirit.

Today, Hamilton is a model city where diversity is not only accepted but welcomed. McMaster University, Redeemer University and Mohawk College are all wonderful, leading post-secondary institutions. We're very proud of the care we receive at St.

Joseph's Healthcare, St. Peter's Hospital and Hamilton Health Sciences.

We also need to celebrate Hamilton's entertainers. We have them all over the world. Hamilton is a beautiful place to live, work and raise children. We want Ontarians to know that Hamilton is a vibrant community,

open for business, and that Hamilton thanks the McGuinty government for their support and encouragement over the past three years, and there's more to come.

LIBERAL LEADERSHIP

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): After three lost years and one to go, the knives are out for Premier McGuinty. His wannabe replacements are lining up already. It seems the

Liberal caucus feels the same as Ontario voters: It's time for a change. Indeed, the Toronto Star reports that provincial Liberals have already started undermining their leader. They can feel the sliding momentum. They recognize their slip in

public opinion. They know this could be his last year.

Let's look at the top contenders. Could it be furious George, the animated health minister who spends more time on late-night press releases attacking John Tory than he does fixing the problems in our hospital

ERs?

How about the member from London West? No, no, he's not going to win his own seat -- you know, Green Lane?

Better still, the visionary pit bull from St. Paul's. Please.

Or how about a compassionate man, the eminently quotable energy minister who tells struggling Ontarians worried about hydro rates to wrap themselves up in a blanket and get some good red wine?

Maybe they'll pick a female leader: the public face of last month's disastrous by-election in Parkdale-High Park; the Minister of Economic Development is reportedly honing her French skills. Might I suggest

public relations training?

Or maybe the Tory floor-crosser from Ottawa West-Nepean? Then again, maybe he wants back in our House.

And why not throw in the former transportation minister, although he'd want the leader's office at Chalmers Group?

It's going to be a fun year. Keep your head up, Dalton.

ONTARIO'S RED MEAT SECTOR

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): The Ontario Cattlemen's Association, Ontario Pork, the Ontario Veal Association and the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency all form part of Ontario's very

successful red meat sector. The sheer number of producers in this industry is indicative of how important it is to the economy of rural Ontario. For example, there are over 28,950 producers in the Ontario red meat sector: 450 in veal, 3,300 in

pork, 4,200 in sheep and lamb, and 21,000 in cattle.

The economic impact of this sector is even more impressive. Ontario farm cash receipts estimate a total of over $1.8 billion.

I would also like to point out what has been accomplished by the McGuinty government working with the agricultural industry, including $910 million for income stabilization and $4 million in transitional support

for dead stock collection. These are just a few of the things that we have done.

In celebration of the Ontario red meat sector's tremendous importance and success, please join myself and representatives from the red meat sector in committee room 228 from 3:30 to 6:30 for a roast and hors

d'oeuvres reception.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery members from all four associations that make up Ontario's red meat sector. Please stand and be recognized by the members. Thank you for

all the good work that you do in support of our rural communities.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Picture it: The health minister, George Smitherman, up late in his office gnashing away at his keyboard to put out his latest juvenile and screedish press

releases.

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I was in my car.

Mr. Hudak: He may have been in his car while he was doing them, to correct the record, but we all know it's George Smitherman because of that now familiar and endearing angry loner tone that

comes across in some of those press releases.

While the health minister is pounding out these press releases, real pressing and serious issues go unaddressed in our health care system. After promising to protect public health care, the Dalton McGuinty

Liberals privatized physiotherapy, optometry and chiropractic care. And with the growing problem with emergency rooms across the province, you'd think the Minister of Health and Deputy Premier would be addressing that issue as opposed to his

keyboard.

Even taxpayers in Niagara are now worried about what is going to happen to the ERs in Port Colborne, Fort Erie, St. Catharines and West Lincoln. In fact, Port Colborne recently lost its walk-in clinic because of

the issue of getting doctors to cover those procedures.

Yesterday, a paltry and empty long-term-care bill that falls far short of promises; nursing promises not kept; and, bizarrely, an attack on small-town mom-and-pop pharmacists in their drug bill.

I'd say to the health minister that while I enjoy reading these releases from time to time, I'd suggest he spend more time with his deputy minister and start addressing the real health care problems across the

province.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I rise in the House to highlight just a few differences between this government and those of the past.

Just three short years ago, the education system of Ontario was on life support. The previous government talked down their noses to teachers and trustees: Students suffered.

This government decided long ago that we would work together to find a balanced approach with our school boards, our teachers and our trustees to benefit children in Ontario, and it has.

The choices you make as a government send a message about what you value. The message that the Tories sent was, "We don't value education as much as we value tax cuts." The message the NDP sent was, "We don't

value teachers so much, so we will rip up their contracts." As a result, students suffered.

We are trying to ensure not only stability in education but also in progress. That is why this government has invested an additional $2.75 billion -- that is $1,600 per student -- in contrast to Ernie Eves, who

cut more than $1 billion out of education in his first two years alone.

The differences between this government and members opposite are stark. While the Tory Tories talk down to teachers and school boards, we are standing shoulder to shoulder to find real, positive solutions

together. We have updated salary benchmarks for teachers, we have updated our school operations benchmarks, and we have created a new billion-dollar school foundation grant.

We are on the side of parents and teachers in Ontario.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has decided to run in the next provincial election in the riding of Don Valley West. The first question that

comes to my mind is, "Is he nuts?" Given his performance thus far as Leader of the Opposition, John Tory would have trouble getting elected anywhere but the safest Tory seats in Ontario, but given his party's and his anti-Toronto positions on

everything from public transit funding to fiscal assistance to this city and his inexplicable opposition to the City of Toronto Act, the people of Don Valley West know full well that John Tory, once an advocate of Toronto, has been co-opted or

influenced by his caucus to be anti-Toronto.

After spending his time as Leader of the Opposition slagging our city and encouraging Tory members of his caucus to continue the Tory strategy of playing on the negative sentiments from outside the city against

our city, John Tory thinks the people of Don Valley West are going to forgive and forget.

I have news for the Leader of the Opposition: They will not forget, and they will not forgive him for that. They will remember that he was part of that government that brought in downloading on the city of

Toronto, that damaged our community from one end to the other. But the biggest barrier Mr. Tory is going to have in getting elected in the riding of Don Valley West is none other than our own Kathleen Wynne.

I have more to say on this, but I'm running out of time. He'll never do it.

VISITORS

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to recognize the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, who are visiting with us today in the members'

gallery.

As well, I would specifically like to recognize Bob Bernhardt, president and CEO of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, which is located in Willowdale and plays a huge role in my riding.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would also like to recognize the naturopathic doctors, particularly Alison Dantas, the CEO of the Ontario

Association of Naturopathic Doctors; and also Jennifer Forristal, a naturopathic doctor from my own riding of Kitchener-Waterloo. They're going to be hosting a reception later today, and I hope all MPPs will attend.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GROUND CURRENT

POLLUTION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA POLLUTION CAUSÉE

PAR LE COURANT TELLURIQUE

Mrs. Van Bommel moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 143,

An Act respecting ground current pollution in Ontario / Projet de loi 143, Loi concernant la pollution causée par le courant tellurique en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Ground current pollution is more commonly referred to as stray voltage and is a major problem in hospitals, manufacturing plants and on farms.

It's the result of electrical current that uses the earth as the path of least resistance rather than the neutral wire provided by the electrical system.

It has been a problem on farms for many years. The levels of ground current can become so high that animals and humans experience electric shocks. The financial impact has been devastating for many farmers,

like my constituent Lee Montgomery of Dover Centre, near Chatham.

The purpose of the Ground Current Pollution Act, 2006, is to define objectionable current flow and to establish a time frame for utility companies to respond to and remedy complaints from their customers. This

bill, if passed, will set appropriate financial penalties to serve as disincentives for inaction. Finally, the bill will provide for the development and implementation of a plan to eliminate objectionable current from this province.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ELECTRIC BICYCLES

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): I rise in the House today to talk about an issue that affects everyone in Ontario, called sustainable transportation.

Ontario has the safest roads in North America, and our government is committed to maintaining and improving upon that record. The McGuinty government also recognizes the importance of having a sustainable

transportation system that will meet the needs of today while protecting our natural environment for the future. This means an infrastructure that supports more energy-efficient forms of transportation, more alternatives to the single-occupant

vehicle, an infrastructure that promotes low-emission vehicles.

Power-assisted bicycles, more commonly known as electric bicycles or e-bikes, are part of that vision. Earlier today, I was joined by Minister Broten and our government safety partners in launching an exciting

pilot to allow e-bikes on Ontario roads for the very first time in the province. E-bikes work just like regular bikes, with an electric motor that goes up to 32 kilometres an hour. The motor can be used to help make riding easier.

We've tested e-bikes because people have told us that they would like to have a safe, reliable alternative to travelling by car or the standard bike. We've been told that e-bikes provide a good source of

exercise for those who may need a power boost going up the hills or for those who are recovering from, for example, knee surgery. This pilot test will help ensure that e-bikes can integrate safely with other road users, such as larger vehicles and

pedestrians. Under this pilot, e-bikes will be permitted to travel wherever bikes are allowed. Riders must wear a helmet and riders must be at least 16 years old.

Our vision for a sustainable transportation system is to promote healthy lifestyles and to reduce congestion on our roads. The benefits for riders include exercise, obviously, fuel efficiency and reduced

traffic congestion. If more people choose a healthier lifestyle, then we all benefit. E-bikes encourage people to leave their cars at home in their garages. Electric vehicles meet lower emission standards, and they help to reduce pollution.

Through this pilot, we are giving people the opportunity to make healthy choices for our environment and help us realize that our vision of a sustainable transportation system is here in Ontario. So it is an

important and very exciting day. Ontarians now have more mobility choices that are environmentally friendly, and I know that all members will join me in encouraging the safe use of these vehicles on our roads.

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): It is my privilege to rise in the House today to mark Child Abuse Prevention Month in Ontario. This month the purple

ribbon/purple bracelet campaign provides an opportunity to remind all Ontarians that we have a collective duty to be vigilant on behalf of our society's most vulnerable members. We all have responsibility for the protection and well-being of our

children.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members of the public, including professionals who work with children, that we have a solemn duty to promptly report any suspicion that a child is or may be

in need of protection as a result of abuse or neglect. Abuse can be physical, sexual and emotional. Neglect occurs when a caregiver fails to provide basic needs such as adequate food, sleep, safety, supervision, clothing or medical treatment. A

member of the public does not need to be certain that a child is being abused or neglected before reporting the situation to the proper authorities. If any person exercising objective and honest judgment has reasonable grounds to believe a child

is at risk, they should report this to their local children's aid society or to the police for further investigation. I ask all members to please visit www.useyourvoice.ca for more information.

The McGuinty government takes its responsibilities to children in Ontario very seriously, and we continue to work to better serve the more than 30,000 children in the Ontario child well-being and protection

system.

In March of this year, the Child and Family Services Statute Law Amendment Act was passed by the Ontario Legislature. The act is part of our government's broad reforms to improve the lives of vulnerable

children. When proclaimed in November, this legislation will provide for increased accountability of children's aid societies through a stronger, more timely complaints process. It will allow more children to be adopted and provides more options

for children who cannot be adopted so they can grow up in caring, permanent homes.

Just last week the Ontario Legislature took another important step in improving the protection of vulnerable children in our province by passing Bill 89, Kevin and Jared's Law. When fully implemented, Kevin

and Jared's Law will complement changes that we have made to Ontario's child well-being and protection system. I would like to acknowledge the work of the former member from Burlington and the member for Brant for their efforts on behalf of Kevin

and Jared's Law.

On behalf of the government of Ontario and children throughout the province, I would like to thank everyone who has reported signs of child abuse or neglect. Last year, Ontario's children's aid societies

received over 160,000 new referrals. I thank those who dedicate themselves to protecting Ontario's children, including police, teachers, medical professionals, early childhood educators and social workers. I would also like to thank all members of

the public who keep a watchful eye out for our children, be they a relative, a friend or a neighbour. Everyone has responsibility for the protection of our children and youth each and every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Statements by the ministry? Responses?

ELECTRIC BICYCLES

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Today I attended in the rain, with the minister, her photo op on the announcements of e-bikes, which I look forward to using in the wintertime. Nobody actually has a

problem with this idea, except that the bald-faced truth of it all is that it's really a simple election stunt, a photo op stunt.

I asked the minister yesterday in this House what she is doing about the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority. To date, after almost four years and five promises, there's no board, no appointments, no

committee and no money.

Meanwhile, if you look at the record of this government, gridlock is up, taxes are up, our hospitals and schools are calling for more resources, and yesterday's scathing report from the Environmental

Commissioner, entitled Neglecting Our Obligations, I think says it all.

Quite honestly, perhaps we could all consider using the electric bike to return our empty liquor and wine bottles to the Beer Store. Good luck with the photo ops, Minister.

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): I rise to join with other members of this House to recognize child abuse awareness month in Ontario. It is sad that we even need a month to increase awareness,

but it is necessary to make all Ontarians aware of child abuse and their responsibilities to fight against it.

The Canadian Red Cross tells us that about one quarter of all Canadian children are victims of abuse or neglect before they turn 16. In addition to the legacy of damage and pain, child abuse costs an estimated

$15 billion a year in Canada. The Red Cross program to fight child abuse gives us three important steps to follow if we suspect abuse.

The first is, of course, to learn to recognize abuse. Abuse can be emotional, physical or sexual. It can be a constant attack by an adult that negatively affects that child's self-esteem. And when someone

neglects a child by failing to provide the basic necessities of life, that's also abuse.

Number two: If you see or hear something that seems abusive, pay attention. Contact the police or social agency that protects children in your area and tell them what you know. It's their job to investigate

and determine the appropriate steps.

If something seems wrong with a young person in your life, you should gently ask them if something is wrong and if they would like to talk about it, but don't try to force the issue. Just let that individual

know you are willing to listen.

We also have a responsibility to our own children. Let them know they can tell you anything and that you'll listen. Also, teach them how to react if a friend tells them about abuse, because young people often

share information with one another that they won't share with adults. Remind them not to keep the secret, and let them know they can come to you at any time. Encourage them to keep telling until they get the help they need.

I would like as well to recognize the important role that Family Services York Region and YRAP, the York Region Abuse Program, provide to the families in my riding and the rest of York region. We all have a

responsibility to protect children. We need to know what to watch for and what steps we need to take.

ELECTRIC BICYCLES

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): It's clear that exploring low-polluting transportation options is important, but one of the disappointments this announcement about electric bikes does

today, one of the disappointments for Ontarians, is that the electricity used to power these electric bikes under this pilot project will still be coming from dirty coal-fired electricity generating plants, the same plants that Dalton McGuinty

promised to close, a promise he has walked away from.

We all know about the tonnes and tonnes of greenhouse gases produced by coal-fired generating plants. And as confirmed again by the Environmental Commissioner, the McGuinty government's complete lack of a

climate change plan to address the reduction of greenhouse gases is a disgrace. It's very unfortunate that broken promises and environmental indifference have become the price for producing electricity in this province.

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I appreciate the opportunity to make some remarks about the child abuse and neglect prevention month that is upon us right now in Ontario.

I listened carefully to the remarks of the minister, who is charged with the responsibility of making things better for the children of Ontario, and I have to say that one of the things that I found a little

disappointing, frankly, is the reference to the bill that was passed by this Legislature many, many months ago but, from my reading of the order paper, is still awaiting royal assent. So I would simply encourage the government to get that piece of

work completed, because it's extremely important, although I personally disagreed with some of the measures, particularly around the way the government decided to deal with issues of complaints against children's aid societies.

The minister will recall that my preference was to have an absolutely separate and unbiased perspective on those issues through an Ombudsman oversight of children's aid societies. Nonetheless, a separate

system was put in place by the government. The unfortunate thing is, that system is not yet up and running, so many children and their families remain in a state of limbo when it comes to concerns about the treatment of their cases or their

situations by children's aid societies.

In fact, there is a particular gentleman who has been in touch with my office, quite concerned not only about his own experience -- he comes from Hamilton; he no longer lives in Hamilton -- of horrific,

horrific child abuse and his frustration and inability, even to this day, to have his experience not only acknowledged and dealt with as a serious complaint against the system, but also concerned that because the system is still not completely in

place to address these kinds of problems, many, many other children in the province are at risk of a similar lack of response when it comes to the abuses they are unfortunately, tragically, being faced with here in the province of Ontario.

The gentleman's name is David Witzel. He asked me to explain to the members of this Legislature his specific experience at the hands of an abusive foster home. He and his brother were both beaten extensively

with a belt buckle. They were never fed appropriately. Their foster parents were extremely sadistic. They were basically given table scraps as opposed to real meals.

I can go on and on. I feel uncomfortable, to be honest with you, raising these graphic descriptions, because the unfortunate reality that we have in the province, which is why this campaign is so important, is

that we know very well there are children who are still being abused at the hands of people who have a real sick, sick problem, illness, in terms of their inability to treat children with the love and respect they deserve.

I was also interested to hear the minister's words, because in her words, she mentioned some of the features of neglect. But interestingly enough, the words she spoke didn't match the actual text of her

speech. The text of her speech included "when a caregiver fails to provide basic needs such as adequate food." That was the first one on the paper. I didn't hear that in the minister's voice when she made the remarks based on this speech. It makes

me wonder whether that's because the government is really embarrassed about the fact that there are still children in this province who are going to bed hungry, which is one of the biggest types of neglect that we have in the province of

Ontario.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery a delegation from the province of Ragusa, Italy, led by the Honourable Dr. Franco Antoci. Please join me in

welcoming our guests.

CHINESE-CANADIAN

HEAD TAX REDRESS DAY

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent for each party to be allowed to speak on the subject of

Chinese-Canadian head tax redress for up to five minutes.

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

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I rise on behalf of the government of the province of Ontario and the Premier, the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, to endorse this

resolution recognizing June 22 as Chinese-Canadian Head Tax Redress Day.

Our country committed a grave and deliberate injustice against Chinese Canadians. This injustice continued for over six decades. As there was no official response to this atrocious act of state for so many

unequivocally.

and the subsequent exclusion of Chinese immigrants.

Throughout our history, Canada's greatest strength has been its welcoming of immigrants from all over the world, but there have been times in our development as a nation when we have not recognized, valued or

supported this reality. This was one example during those six decades.

This was the case with the abhorrent treatment of Chinese Canadians. It was in 1881 that more than 15,000 Chinese labourers, almost all young men, began to build one of our nation's icons, the Canadian Pacific

Railway. This remarkable and pioneering landmark of infrastructure linked our nation from sea to sea. It was essential for the development and growth of Canada as we know it. Yet the incredible sacrifices of the Chinese Canadians who built our

national railway were never acknowledged. These young Chinese men toiled under appalling conditions. Tragically, over 1,000 of these nation-builders perished, with little recognition or appreciation, yet they got the job done. Without these

Chinese labourers and their sacrifices, this national dream, which is not only the railway but our country being unified from sea to sea, never would have happened.

It's sad to say that once the last spike was driven, these young immigrants were not given the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. In 1885, a head tax of $50 was imposed to

discourage Chinese immigration to Canada. It was increased to $100 in 1900 and $500 in 1903, which is comparable to two years of wages; in other words, this was two years' wages that they had to pay to immigrate to Canada. These levies meant that

many labourers who built the CPR and many Chinese immigrants who came later could not afford to bring their loved ones to Canada for years, if ever. Those families who eventually reunited were often forced to live in utter poverty.

This outrageous tax remained in effect until 1923, and was followed by a ban on Chinese immigration that continued up until 1947. This shameful policy closed the door to further Chinese newcomers, creating a

lasting sense of exclusion among Canadians of Chinese heritage. Sadly, these malicious, racist measures, aimed solely at Chinese Canadians, were implemented with deliberation by the Canadian state and lasted, as I've said, for over 60 years.

We cannot undo the past, but we can and must learn from it. We can remember these historic wrongs and honour the contribution of Chinese Canadians to the prosperity and inclusivity of the society we are

blessed with today. Commemorating June 22 each year will help us to do this. It will help our young people and future generations to be aware of the wrongs committed, the braveness and commitment required to stand up for injustice, and the

strength that our nation and our province have gained from the contributions of Chinese immigrants and their descendants.

The head tax and the restrictive laws that followed were the product of a different time. I believe our deep regret that this has ever happened in Canada will help ensure that this never happens again.

For Chinese Canadians and for all Canadians, June 22, 2006, was a proud day, a day when we reaffirmed the vision we share for Canada, where all of our people are valued and all have the opportunity to live in

dignity.

We also should congratulate the head tax families, the redress-seeking groups and the entire Chinese-Canadian community for their unwavering efforts to right this wrong, to secure redress for the head tax

payers and to secure a formal apology for this grave injustice. I salute you and I salute all the victims of this horrific act of racism.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I rise on behalf of John Tory, leader of the official opposition, and the Ontario PC caucus in support of the motion before the House to declare June 22 as

Chinese-Canadian Head Tax Redress Day. This day would truly serve to honour the head tax families, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Ontario Coalition of Chinese Head Tax Payers and Families, and the entire Chinese-Canadian community,

especially in support of their efforts to rectify the injustices that resulted from the head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. It would also serve to gratefully acknowledge the many ongoing contributions of the Chinese-Canadian community in

Ontario and in this country. It is largely due to the struggles of Chinese Canadians and others throughout Canadian history that Canada is today the inclusive multicultural society that we all enjoy and appreciate.

Chinese immigration to Canada began around 1858, to the gold rush in British Columbia. When the Canadian Pacific Railway was constructed between 1881 and 1885, however, Chinese were brought in from their

homeland to help build it. During those four years, over 15,000 Chinese immigrants arrived in Canada. However, as soon as the CPR was completed, the federal government moved to restrict the immigration of Chinese to Canada. The first federal

anti-Chinese bill was passed in 1885, and it took the form of a head tax of $50 to be imposed, with few exceptions, on every person of Chinese origin entering Canada. No other group was targeted this way. The head tax was increased to $100 in 1900

and again to $500 in 1903. Five hundred dollars at that time was the equivalent of two years' wages of a Chinese labourer. At the same time, the Chinese were denied Canadian citizenship.

In all, the Canadian government collected $23 million from Chinese immigrants through the head tax. Despite this discriminatory tax, Chinese immigrants continued to come to Canada.

In 1923, the Canadian Parliament passed the Chinese Immigration Act, which excluded all but a few Chinese immigrants from entering Canada. Between 1923 and 1947, when the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed,

less than 50 Chinese were allowed to come to this country. Passed on July 1, 1923, Dominion Day, this law was rightly perceived by the Chinese-Canadian community as the ultimate form of humiliation. This is why July 1 has been called Humiliation

Day by Chinese Canadians, and why they refused to celebrate Dominion Day for years afterwards.

The most devastating impact of the head tax and the exclusion act, however, was their impact on the development of the Chinese-Canadian family. During the exclusion era, early Chinese pioneers were not allowed

to bring their family, including their wives, to this country. As a result, the Chinese-Canadian community became effectively a bachelor society as families became separated from one another for long periods of time. Many Chinese families did not

reunite until years after, and many did not reunite at all.

Since 1984, the Chinese Canadian National Council has been seeking redress on behalf of the surviving head tax payers and their families and descendants, over 4,000 in all who have suffered from decades of

discrimination. Although in July 2001 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed a class action suit on behalf of the head tax survivors, Mr. Justice Cumming made the following important statement that is worth noting: "It is vital that Canadians

acknowledge this regrettable legacy as we strive towards building a society that both celebrates diversity and protects every individual's right to equality." To that end, "Parliament should consider providing redress for Chinese Canadians who

paid the head tax or were adversely affected by the various Chinese immigration acts."

It is an established custom in Canada and her Parliament and legislatures to honour the pioneers of our country and of our diverse cultural communities. The surviving head tax payers of the Chinese-Canadian

community are, in many ways, its true pioneers. But to adequately pay them their due, Canada must first redress the historic injustices committed against them by way of the head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act.

injustices. The official opposition joins with him in that sincere apology.

I quote the words of the Prime Minister: "For over six decades, these malicious measures, aimed solely at the Chinese, were implemented with deliberation by the Canadian state. This was a grave injustice and

one we are morally obligated to acknowledge. We have the collective responsibility to build a country based firmly on the notion of equality of opportunity, regardless of one's race or ethnic origin."

However, the pain and the suffering of these injustices are not and cannot be easily erased from the memories of the families and their descendents who experienced them. This is why the proclamation of June 22

as the Chinese-Canadian Head Tax Redress Day will build on the important initiatives of the Prime Minister at the provincial level. Again, on behalf of John Tory and the PC caucus, and as the PC critic for citizenship and immigration, I am proud

to support this motion.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): Today, this Legislature is honoured. It's honoured by the presence of individuals and their families whose fight against legislated racism has helped

Canada turn the page from a dark

chapter in its history. Today, this Legislature moves to honour them and formally express Ontario's gratitude to them for their tireless efforts and contributions toward making our society more inclusive, more

prosperous.

In the gallery are Chinese-Canadian survivors of the discriminatory head tax. They're descendents and activists from the Chinese Canadian National Council and the Ontario Coalition of Head Tax Payers and

Families. Together, they comprised a driving force behind the Chinese head tax redress campaign, which this year turns 22 years old. Their work and stamina in getting us all to this juncture cannot be understated. Over the course of the past two

decades, the redress campaign has endured court cases, appeals, four different federal governments and setbacks, some of which are endemic to any such project, some of which are specific to attempts to redress the wrongs made by government. The

campaign persevered and finally saw those efforts culminate in success this past June 22, when the federal government issued a formal apology for the head tax and the accompanying Chinese Exclusion Act and made a commitment to redress.

There is a general tendency to talk about legislation in abstract terms. The individuals who are joining us today remind us that legislation shapes the course of people's lives. They endured discrimination and

impoverishment because of statutes passed in a Parliament, because of policies pursued by legislators.

Among those invited to watch this debate today is Mr. James Pon. Mr. Pon is an engineer, recipient of a Governor General's medal and he helped establish the Mon Sheong Foundation Home for the Aged and the

Foundation to Commemorate the Chinese Railroad Workers.

Mr. Pon is also a head tax survivor. His father paid the head tax for him and his mother so the family could be united here in Canada.

In an interview with the Toronto Star, he recounted the struggles he incurred because of the head tax. Mr. Pon's father had to borrow the money to pay the head tax, encumbering the family with a debt that

would take 17 years to pay back. This debt left Mr. Pon's family unable to support him, so at the tender age of 12, he found himself working in restaurants while going to school full-time.

Mr. Pon eventually moved to Toronto and proceeded to study engineering and business administration. He overcame other forms of institutionalized racism throughout the course of it all. Mr. Pon during his Star

interview also revealed that, for years, he never mentioned the head tax to his family, in part due to feelings of shame.

He eventually decided to draw upon his experiences, to see to it that the story of the head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act would end with a formal acknowledgment that the policy was unjust and a mistake.

Mr. Pon and all the others saw their efforts bring about just such a watershed moment on June 22 this year. That day marked the start of the official reconciliation with the Chinese-Canadian community. Shortly afterwards, the city of Toronto moved

to pay tribute to the head tax survivors, their families and the organizations by proclaiming June 22 as head tax redress day.

Today, this Legislature moves to recognize in a formal way the terrible injustices that the Chinese-Canadian community has experienced in the course of making our society more prosperous, and how it has made

sure Canada turned that page from the dark

chapter of its history.

It was stories like Mr. Pon's, and seeing first-hand the work undertaken by individuals such as himself, descendants of the head tax families and activist organizations, that prompted me to propose the

resolution we are debating and voting upon today. June 22 should serve as a day when we commemorate how a community succeeded in it efforts to end an injustice. It should be a day when we acknowledge the tremendous debt we owe to the

Chinese-Canadian community for its contribution in building our society's prosperity -- contributions that for decades went unacknowledged.

To all those who fought for justice, thank you. Doje lay, doje sai.

Applause.

Mr. Tabuns: Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice respecting Chinese-Canadian Head Tax Redress Day, following which the Speaker shall put every question

necessary to dispose of the motion.

The Speaker: Mr. Tabuns asked for unanimous consent to put a motion without notice regarding Chinese-Canadian Head Tax Redress Day. Agreed.

Member for Toronto-Danforth?

Mr. Tabuns: I move that, in the opinion of this House, June 22 be recognized as Chinese-Canadian Head Tax Redress Day to honour the head tax families, the Chinese Canadian National Council,

the Ontario Coalition of Chinese Head Tax Payers and Families, and the entire Chinese-Canadian community, their efforts seeking to rectify injustices that resulted from the head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act and their contributions in making

Ontario a more prosperous and inclusive society.

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

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Small Business and Entrepreneurship): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to recognize the students from T.L. Kennedy Secondary School in my riding

and their teacher, Darshan Harricharran. Welcome to the Legislature and enjoy the question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOTTLE RECYCLING

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. I read in the paper this morning about all the people that are lined up, after only

three years, seeking the Premier's job, and I felt very badly because his name wasn't on that list. So I thought, out of a sense of fairness, that I would ask him this question that the Premier had previously been unable to answer.

Minister, you are responsible for the LCBO. We've asked the Premier, we've asked the Minister of the Environment, and so far no one has been able to tell us what the cost is of this bottle return scheme that

was announced in a hurry, in time for the photo op on September 10. Can you tell us how much this program will cost? What will be the cost?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): I want to thank the member, and I note that his name is not on the list for the next Premier of

Ontario either.

It's very true; for years, this member and his party, and the other party in fact, had a chance to show leadership and implement a deposit return system here in the province of Ontario. It took Premier

McGuinty and the leadership of this government to want to take this kind of initiative, where others had not done before. You now say that you're interested in doing it, but I think your actions and your question speak volumes about the fact that

you're not.

I'm very heartened by the words of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario president, Doug Reycraft, who says, "An LCBO deposit return system makes good sense environmentally and economically." That's the

kind of leadership that is supporting this kind of initiative, municipal leadership right across the province of Ontario, and it will be the people of Ontario who will benefit.

Mr. Tory: Anybody can organize a photo op. I think the people of Ontario knew how serious this was when they saw the Premier of Ontario returning beer bottles on a Sunday morning. They know

how customary an affair that is.

Now, it's a problem here that you can't answer the most basic question about your own scheme, because you promised many, many times over, personally, and your government has promised, not to waste the

taxpayers' money. If you can't be transparent and accountable, then that represents one more broken promise. We asked the Premier how much this will cost. He didn't know the answer. We asked the Minister of the Environment, and this is what she

said -- and I quote from Hansard: "If you want to know the details of the contract, you would know that's a responsibility of public infrastructure renewal. They're responsible for the contract so you should ask them."

So I'm asking you now: Isn't it reasonable that when you announce a much-heralded initiative like this, when the Premier was taking his beer bottles back on a Sunday morning, how much will it cost? Simple

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The question's been asked.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: We want to give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to take his Chablis bottles back and return them, and make sure that he has the ability to do that. Here's what's

particularly interesting: We have support from municipal leaders who have been calling for this kind of action for years. We have the Environmental Commissioner of the province of Ontario, who in fact in the committee said that one third of

Ontario's used bottles meant for recycling end up in landfills. Is the blue box a proper way to capture LCBO containers? That's really the question. In that context, Gord Miller, an officer of this Legislature, says it's not.

The issue has been on the table for years. It's taken the leadership of this Premier and this government to want to get the job done, not only to have a good economic deal for the province of Ontario but to

have the right environmental practices.

Mr. Tory: I guess that would be the same Gord Miller who yesterday said that this government was guilty of fundamental neglect of the environment. I think the people you talk about in the

municipalities would have said that if you're going to do something like this, you do it properly.

You can't tell us what the cost is, or you won't. We have a letter here dated September 20. It's signed by the restaurant, hotel and motel people; the craft brewers' association; Spirits Canada; the Imported

Wine-Spirit-Beer Association; the Greater Toronto Hotel Association; and the Wine Council of Canada. These people represent thousands and thousands of jobs across the province of Ontario and they're directly affected by this scheme. They say in

their letter that they were not consulted in the rush to the photo opportunity on Sunday, September 10. They share our view that any scheme has to be transparent, accountable and cost-effective. They're asking that you not sign a contract until

you sit down and talk to them.

My question now, beyond asking you one more time what it costs, is, will you sit down before you bring this scheme in and listen to these people? Isn't that a fair request?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I've got to tell you, quite frankly, it doesn't take the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey -- for now -- to ask us to talk to the wine council and the craft brewers'

association and Spirits Canada. We meet quite regularly with them.

I should tell you, the question really is, is Mr. Tory for or against a deposit return system? I hear a lot of rhetoric coming from the gentleman, but what true leadership would say is, "Let's get involved."

Every province in Canada, save and except Manitoba and Ontario, has implemented this system. This government has taken a leadership position where others, your government and the previous government, have failed to do so. Sir, this is incumbent

upon you. Are you for it or are you against it?

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND GAMING

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I have another question for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Let me say to him that I have been, since 2003, before you were elected, in

favour, but in favour of doing it properly: knowing how much it costs, having a system that works. And I should say --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. The Minister of Health will come to order. The Attorney General will come to order.

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: The minister's leadership campaign is off to a very, very shaky start indeed.

We have received the results of a freedom-of-information request in which we asked for the costs associated with the rebranding of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. According to the letter, it cost the OLGC

$6 million to drop the "C," and that doesn't even include the cost of advertising. I think we would all agree that the only one maybe who deserves $6 million for a "C" is Mats Sundin.

Anyway, let's add several million for this ad campaign you have on that won't sell one lottery ticket anywhere, anytime. We now have you spending $10 million of public money on this rebranding. As the minister

responsible, can you tell this House if you think this is a wise investment of the public money, and will it produce good value for Ontario taxpayers? Is that your view?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): Quite frankly, I don't know where this new figure from the member opposite has come from. I know

members of his caucus had a chance to speak with Ontario Lottery and Gaming president and CEO Mr. Duncan Brown at the standing committee on government agencies. He made it very clear that it was a $6-million strategy, including advertising, on the

rebranding exercise.

It is a large amount of money that they have allocated to advertising, and it is quite reasonable, as an organization, for this size and this scope and the kind of activity that they have. Any new rebranding

effort that will help Ontarians know that they received the same high standard of integrity, entertainment and service at any of the OLG's 27 gaming sites, or where lotteries are sold. This is a good investment.

I would recommend that the member review the Cooper 360° broadcast where they show that there is a significant problem as far as the integrity of gaming --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Tory: I say to the minister, and I think the public would agree with this, that not only is it not a good investment; it is obscene that you would spend $6 million on that kind of --

Interjections.

Mr. Tory: This is public money that the lottery corporation and I'm sure your government tell people, when they support the gaming, goes to hospitals, community organizations and non-profit

organizations. It could be used for any purpose more important than signs and ad campaigns handed out to your Liberal friends.

Can you tell us why it is more important for you to spend somewhere between $6 million and $10 million, when you add in the ad contract, of the hard-earned money the taxpayers have sent to the lottery

corporation on the ad campaign and the signs and all of these other obscene expenditures than to give that money to help solve the emergency room crisis, to help some farmers who need help or, heaven forbid, to help the families of autistic

children, for whom you've done nothing?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: The leader of the official opposition presents incorrect information to this Legislature. In fact, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. for the province of Ontario provides

additional resources that we can invest in hospitals, in schools and in infrastructure.

We saw under the previous government the beginning of revenue decline in this agency, the need for investment and the need for their ability to generate even more revenues so that we could and so that our

Treasurer could invest more in hospitals, more in schools and more in the infrastructure of the province of Ontario.

I know Mr. Tory is quite familiar with these kinds of exercises. In fact, this is the same type of exercise that was used during his term of office at Rogers Communications.

Mr. Tory: You seem to have some trouble distinguishing between taxpayers' money and other money. This is money that could have been invested in more nurses for Ontario, could have been

invested in helping more autistic children in Ontario, could have been invested in helping more farmers in Ontario. But instead, what you did, according to the freedom-of-information material, is you used it to invest, for example, $200,000 in

focus groups and public opinion research just so we can see the degree to which the public was clamouring for you to take this "C" out, at a cost of $6 million to $10 million.

Will you agree to table this research so we can all see how the public as one were rising up and saying, "Please spend $6 million or $10 million of our hard-earned money on a rebranding exercise instead of on

nurses or farmers or autistic children"? Will you table that research?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: The facts of the matter are these: Revenue under the Tories for this agency was in decline, so this government has made, with its agency, specific investments in Windsor in

the corporation in order to enhance the brand and enhance the revenues that are invested in our hospitals.

That party cut funding to hospitals; this party invested in our health care system. That party cut money to education; this party invests money in education. That party downloaded infrastructure onto our

communities; this party is investing $30 billion in our much-needed infrastructure.

I will put our record up against Mr. Tory and his government any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

HEALTH CARE SPENDING

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, under the McGuinty government, the number of doctors being paid more than $476,000 a year jumped by 56% last

year. Meanwhile, the McGuinty government okays the takeover of hospital emergency rooms by profit-driven private corporations, and other hospital emergency rooms are on the verge of closure. Emergency room doctors, like those at the Grand River

and Cambridge hospitals, are quitting because of poor working conditions and inadequate pay.

Premier, if more doctors are getting paid close to a half-million dollars a year than ever before in Ontario under the McGuinty government, why aren't things getting better for patients in hospital emergency

rooms?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): It's hard to figure out from one day to the next where the leader of the NDP is coming from on this particular issue.

Yesterday his colleague said that we should be paying more to emergency room doctors. Today he's telling us that he's got a real concern about the increase in pay being received by some Ontario specialists.

We are glad to make that investment in improving the quality of health care and access to health care for the people of Ontario. It's because of that investment that we've had an 11% increase in productivity

from doctors in the province of Ontario and those doctors have been able to take on 420,000 more patients. Is that money well invested? We think it really and truly is, and we're pleased to make that investment on behalf of the people of

Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, the simple fact remains: Yes, you're paying out a lot more money to physicians, but the situation in emergency rooms is getting worse. Your Minister of Health claims that

emergency room doctors are being paid upwards of $170 an hour. Emergency room physician Dr. John Carter from Grand River says, "To realize this amount, the typical full-time emergency physician must work 26 weekends per year, including holiday

weekends, and provide the majority of their clinical services in the middle of the night. It is not surprising that there is a dwindling cadre of physicians who will practise in the ER, especially when they know they can work more regular hours in

a lower-stress environment while earning similar or grander incomes outside of the ER."

Premier, you won't let hospitals pay their emergency room doctors appropriately because you say you don't want to pit communities against one another. Meanwhile, exhausted and overworked and underpaid ER

physicians see the McGuinty government paying physicians a half-million dollars a year. Where's the logic in that, Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Now I get where the leader of the NDP is going. He now wants to pit some doctors against other doctors and some communities against other communities.

The agreement this government entered into with the Ontario Medical Association specifically provided for removal of that artificial cap that had suppressed the activities of some specialists in Ontario. I

think we all recall stories about ophthalmologists, for example, who closed up shop on a Thursday afternoon. Now they're open on a full-time basis throughout the week.

We also negotiated as part of that same OMA deal an increase for our emergency room doctors of 12%. That was part of the package. So we saw what we think is a fairly generous increase for all of our doctors.

We made our family docs the best paid in Canada and our specialists the second-best-paid in Canada. We knew we had to be competitive. We knew we had to ensure that we had doctors who were enthusiastic about going to work and providing good-quality

care to the patients. That's what we put in place. That's what we will continue to support.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, when you and your Minister of Health boasted about your pay deal with the OMA, you promised things would change, would get better for patients in Ontario, but there are

more underserviced communities that can't get a doctor today than ever before. There are over one million orphaned patients and 20 emergency rooms on the verge of closure or takeover by profit-driven corporations, which you say is okay.

Premier, I think it's pretty clear you didn't think much about emergency room physicians when you boasted about your OMA pay deal, but the question is, did you forget about the emergency room patients too?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the contrary. We are very proud of our agreement that we entered into with Ontario doctors.

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): He called it nasty.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the NDP called it nasty. He said that we had wrestled doctors to the ceiling, and he said it was a bribe, effectively telling us that we were paying far too

much to Ontario doctors. That's what he said.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Now he says it's not enough.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Now he's saying, of course, that it's not enough.

Part of that package involved a 12% pay hike for emergency room doctors. I think we have a real issue -- and I acknowledge this to the leader of the NDP -- when it comes to pay packages for emergency room

doctors, and we're taking a look at that. I want to make that clear. That's something we're doing in concert with them.

Beyond that, we have made some significant progress, whether it's taking on 420,000 new patients, ensuring that our specialists are working on a full-time basis, or bringing angiography wait times down by 28

days, cataract surgery down by 61 days, hip replacements down by 63 days, knee replacements down by 52 days and MRIs down by 28 days. We have made some strategic investments. They've resulted in continuing improvement and quality of care for

Ontarians. There is an issue in our emergency rooms, and we are on top of that.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Emergency rooms that hundreds of thousands of patients need access to every day are falling further and further behind under the McGuinty

government.

Premier, it's three years to the day since the last provincial election. Back then, a flawed education funding formula was forcing damaging cuts in the classroom. Back then, democratically elected school

trustees were axed because they respected their parents and their students and they refused to implement those cuts in the classroom. Back then, the Premier said that they'd made unprecedented investments in education and that trustees were simply

being irresponsible. Premier, you promised to fix all that. Can you explain why, three years later, so little has changed?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): Well, if the leader of the NDP truly believes that nothing has changed in public education, then I can only surmise that he

has not visited one of our public schools in the last three years, because there is a level of enthusiasm, there's a level of excitement, there are more text books, there are smaller classes, there are more teachers, there are more teachers who

are getting better training. Test scores are going up. Graduation rates are going up. There is a level of commitment from a government towards public education that is virtually unprecedented in the history of this province. So I'd ask the leader

of the NDP to remove himself from the confines of his office and to physically visit schools in Ontario, talk to parents, talk to teachers, talk to students and come to better understand that yes, we are making progress in Ontario in public

education.

Mr. Hampton: Well, unlike you, Premier, I actually have two children in elementary school and I talk to teachers every day, so maybe you should follow your own advice.

But like the Conservative government before you, you claim that you've made --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Stop the clock. I'm having great difficulty hearing the leader of the third party. I need to be able to do that. Leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: Like the Conservative government before you, you claim to have made unprecedented investments in our public schools. But a report released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives says one in three Ontario students is getting less funding from the McGuinty government than they got from the Conservative government 10 years ago. The study also reveals that your so-called investments are actually causing cuts in

the classroom, since you provide less money to boards than it costs to implement your latest schemes.

Premier, you promised change, yet parents see more of the same. The question is, are you finally going to fix the school funding formula that you admit is flawed, or are you going to take the drastic step of

taking over the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and forcing your damaging cuts on the classroom?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Well, the leader of the NDP may not recall what it was like in our public schools during the Conservative government years, but students, parents and teachers most

definitely do. He knows that it is completely inaccurate to compare our level of funding in our first two years with the Conservative government's level of funding. They took $200 million out; we put $2.7 billion in. We've increased funding on a

per capita basis by $1,500. The point is this: We are working, we're working hard, together with our school board administrators, our trustees, our principals, our teachers and our parents, to ensure not only that we make essential investments in

public education, but beyond that, that we get measurable results for those same investments. We are making those. Some 68 out of 72 school boards have managed to balance their budgets. We will continue to work with those that are having

challenges.

Mr. Hampton: Well, Premier, I know 11 school boards up north that managed to balance their budget by making cuts in the classroom, cuts that your government ordered. You say that axing school

board trustees and appointing a provincial supervisor to make the cuts is simply "an administrative issue." You say, "It's not being done on the backs of kids." You say that your government is different. But here's what Oliver Carroll, chair of

the Toronto Catholic District School Board, says: "It's like saying the hangman is a nicer guy. What difference does it make? It's still a hanging."

Premier, the question is this -- and you can't avoid it; you admit that the school funding formula is flawed and inadequate: Are you going to fix the school funding formula like you promised, or are you going

to take over the school board in Dufferin-Peel and force your cuts in the classroom? Which is it, Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The sky is not falling in public education in Ontario. I would argue that the skies are bright and promising.

When it comes to Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board -- again, I think the facts are important -- over the last three years they've seen a per pupil increase of 18%. When it comes to class sizes, half

of the early years classes are now capped at 20. There are 137 new teachers. Test scores are up by over 10% across the board. They're performing very well. When it comes to rebuilding crumbling schools, almost $60 million has been invested in

projects to fix schools.

We think we have invested a tremendous amount of new dollars in public education. There are a few boards that are having some challenges, managing in the best way possible, so we are prepared to work with

those boards. We're prepared to ensure that they take every advantage of all the new dollars we've invested in a way that does not compromise quality of learning.

MINISTER'S COMMENT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Attorney General a question with respect to the proclamation of Bill 86, rescuing children from

sexual exploitation, and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines interjected during the Attorney General's response with a comment that --

Interjection: Was that on the record?

Mr. Runciman: Yes, it's on the electronic record -- "Tories abuse children." Earlier today, the Minister of Northern Development stood up, failed to withdraw that comment from the record and

trivialized the apology by including birthday greetings.

Premier, will you ask that minister to stand up today, now, repeat that apology and make a meaningful withdrawal of that offensive comment?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I believe that the minister made it perfectly clear that he was making an apology for that statement, that it was something

that he did not intend to cause offence through, and I think we should leave it at that.

Mr. Runciman: I suspect he trivialized it on the direction of the Premier's office, as it's the sort of thing we've seen from this government and this Premier: endorsement of vicious personal

attacks in the Parkdale by-election, politics through character assassination. It's your endorsement, by promoting your chief mudslinger to be Deputy Premier, of those kinds of activities that includes and encourages your own cabinet ministers to

make comments like that and not stand up and make a meaningful apology.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. The Minister of Energy will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I will warn the Minister of Energy for the last time.

The member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Runciman: I ask the Premier once again to show some moral rectitude and demand that that minister stand up, make a meaningful apology and withdraw that offensive remark.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The minister not only offered an apology from his seat; subsequent to that, he visited the leader of the official opposition personally, as well as Mr. Runciman, and

extended a personal apology. I'm not sure how this ranks in Mr. Tory's books, but in my books, one of my members made a mistake and he apologized for that. From time to time, any of us on any of these benches can make a mistake, caught up in the

heat of the moment. He extended an apology here and he crossed the floor and apologized personally to two gentlemen over there. In my books, that ends the matter.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Minister of Correctional Services: Why has your ministry ignored the recent plague of racist death threats that have been and continue to

be made against correctional officers in our provincial correctional system?

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): There's no place for racism or harassment in the workplace. Whether it be sexism, hateism, harassment or racism,

there's no place not only in the correctional service but throughout the public service, and it should be that way throughout every single workplace in the province.

You're obviously questioning me because of a statement that was put out by Leah Casselman of OPSEU, in which she says -- and I have to say to you, she says it incorrectly. She claims that "Community Safety and

Correctional Services has not launched an investigation, has not performed a risk assessment for the threatened individuals, has not spoken out against the threats in the workplace." I should tell you that this first emerged in 1998, 2000, 2002,

and we have addressed it. It has been handled by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and referred to their tribunal. On the supplementary, I'll tell you how we've done it.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, we're talking about the recent spate of death threats directed at black correctional officers, people like Charlene Tardiel and Trevor Marrett. They're here today.

However loath I am to do so, this is what they read when they open their lockers at work and the types of messages that are left in places in correctional facilities where inmates don't have access, including lines like "a gun will not be used,

nigga; a knife will be in place to cut your fucking throat."

Minister, you haven't launched an investigation into these death threats, you haven't performed a risk assessment for these threatened workers, and you have done nothing to bring this racist and criminal

activity to a stop. Isn't it time for a public inquiry into what's gone on in these correctional facilities and your ministry's failure to stop it?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is now repeating information that is incorrect. Every single event has been reported to the Toronto Police Service, every one of them, as well as to the ministry

investigation service. Right from day one, when the graffiti appeared, when the letters appeared, it was referred, and there are ongoing investigations by the Toronto Police Service. OPSEU knows that; they absolutely know that.

As far as the risk assessment, you can't do a risk assessment if you don't know where the risk is. There is some public safety counselling that is going on with the police, and the investigation is

ongoing.

As far as not doing anything about it, and this is really the thing that bothers me the most, we have a committee set up between OPSEU and the correctional service that is dealing with anti-racist remarks,

dealing with systemic change. It has gone to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Everybody knows that. As a matter of fact, the member from Simcoe North asked me that question on April 6, earlier this year, and I gave him the same answers that we

have now. We are totally aware of the situation, the police are investigating it --

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

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Yesterday the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario released his annual report. He

said that he is concerned "that changes to several of the requirements for large livestock operations have weakened accountability and assurance of compliance" with the nutrient management regulation.

I know that a healthy environment and a strong agricultural industry are not mutually exclusive. Farmers have long been important environmental stewards of this province. I'm proud of the farmers in my riding

and the work that they have done to better protect our environment. Minister, can you explain the changes that we made to this regulation and any assistance we are providing to help farmers be those good stewards?

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): It's a very good question. I want to say, first of all, that our ministry certainly looks forward to the report of the

Environmental Commissioner. We are always eager to understand ways that we can improve our record and that we can better communicate our record.

I think it's very important to take this opportunity to say to the people of Ontario that with respect to the nutrient management regulations, our regulations require a certified person to assist farmers in

the establishment of their nutrient management plans. These plans are required to be updated annually, and the records of these plans must be kept on the farm. As a result of our changes in the regulations, the number of farm operations that are

now required to have nutrient management plans in place has doubled. As a result of that, our commitment of $20 million to support the agriculture industry to implement the plans -- the demand was greater than what we had set aside, so we came up

with an additional $3.7 million to assist our farmers to meet those regulations.

Mr. Hoy: It's reassuring to know that the changes made to the nutrient management regulation actually increased compliance and accountability while still recognizing the unique and challenging

realities of farming.

There have been some startling headlines and statements made in the last few days which suggest the province is not doing enough to protect drinking water. I don't believe these statements are corrects. When

this government introduced the Clean Water Act, Bruce Davidson, vice-chair of the Concerned Walkerton Citizens, stated, "The introduction of the Clean Water Act represents a crucial first step in the holistic stewardship of Ontario's drinking

water for generations to come."

Minister, would you please explain this notion of holistic stewardship of drinking water and assure Ontarians that the government continues to make the protection of drinking water, from source to tap, a

priority?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I would refer that to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): The Walkerton tragedy was a wake-up call for our province. Justice O'Connor indicated at that time that we needed this holistic approach to

the treatment of water. We need to treat, test, inspect and enforce. We need good management, and the nutrient management program is one of those mechanisms of good management. But, on top of all of it, prevention, Justice O'Connor indicated, had

to be key.

The Clean Water Act itself meets 12 recommendations of Justice O'Connor. It puts prevention and protection of the source of our drinking water as the first initiative. It is always most important to prevent

the contamination of that drinking water. As the Environmental Commissioner himself said yesterday, the best protection for our drinking water is to get source water protection in place.

I'd ask the opposition to join with us and support the Clean Water Act. Let's get water protected in Ontario.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): My question is for the Minister of Health. This past summer, I wrote to the Premier about the looming health care crisis in Ottawa. According to Ottawa's

hospital administrators, we are short 850 long-term-care beds. That's the size of one small community hospital.

Just last week all Ottawa area hospital CEOs, including our LHINs director, Dr. Robert Cushman, added their voices and signed off on a cautionary letter to your deputy minister, asking you to address this

looming crisis and find alternative care for those occupying 25% of the beds needed for patients in Ottawa's hospitals.

Minister, Ottawa area hospitals need you to act. After three years of broken promises, are you prepared to acknowledge there is a looming health care crisis in Ottawa, are you prepared to put a plan in place

that addresses the shortage of LTC beds and the fallout from this, and are you prepared to work with me, Jack Kitts, Tom Schonberg and Robert Cushman so that the people in Ottawa will get the care they need and the care they deserve?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm prepared to work with anyone who is in favour of that. But as a Conservative from Ottawa, your capability

and track record is highly in question, because the record of your party while in government with respect to Ottawa was not something to be proud of, notwithstanding your bluster today. Grace Hospital closed. Riverside hospital closed. You tried

to close the Montfort, and you tried to take away the cardiac rehab program from CHEO.

I'm pleased to say that on our watch, not only is there a construction crane on site or having just left at every hospital in Ottawa, but we've worked to enhance Ottawa's access to services. Note the

improvement we've made, as an example, with respect to MRI. Under your government, you couldn't even find one. Now these wait times have been reduced by something like 75%, not to mention the role we've given CHEO as the centre of our newborn

screening initiative.

The point is, Ottawa knows it's on the map in a way that it wasn't under your government, and as a result, we're very, very proud of the improvements we've made, acknowledging, of course, that it takes a lot

of effort to undo the eight and a half years of destruction that you sowed.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is now warned.

The member for Nepean-Carleton.

Ms. MacLeod: I touched a nerve. The Ottawa Hospital administrators have to talk to me because they're getting nothing out of you.

This minister needs to stop living in the past. This is not Mike Harris's fault. It is not Ottawa Conservatives' fault. You've had three years to address this problem, but you've failed.

Tom Schonberg, the Queensway Carleton Hospital CEO, today called me to tell me that three surgeries yesterday were cancelled at the Queensway Carleton Hospital because the beds needed for recovery are

currently being occupied by people in acute care. He tells me that this is a weekly occurrence at the QCH and at the Ottawa Hospital.

Ministers of the crown in this government are either responsible for their departments or they're not. When is this minister going to stop fighting the ghosts of Parliaments past, take a look at himself in the

mirror and realize that he, and only he, can stop the cancellation of surgeries in my city? When is this minister going to respond to me, the CEOs of Ottawa's hospitals, our LHINs director and every other Ottawa resident with a plan that will take

the stress off of our hospitals, provide our aging population with the care it needs, and those waiting for surgery with a bed --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I know that the first phone call I'll have an opportunity to check on my voice message will be from Jack Kitts, who's saying that this honourable member had no privilege

to the use of his name in the fashion that it was used, because Jack Kitts knows very well, through the work I do very directly with him, from our mobile phones to one another, through the meeting the Premier had recently with him and Yves

Tremblay, the chair of that board, through the work that we've done, which has meant that the Ottawa Hospital and every other hospital in the province of Ontario have received more resources from our government every single year -- and in fact,

because we've done multi-year funding, they also know that they're getting more money next year and more money the year after that.

We built Roger's House to support children who are in need of hospice services. We've done at the Perley veterans' centre a new respite care facility. In Champlain, we've recently provided $3.5 million to

establish a leading Ontario mechanism to reduce wait times related to cancer surgery.

The reality is clear. Our investments, using the people's money on behalf of improved health care in Ontario, are paying results, as can be demonstrated --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

ONTARIO ARTISTS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): My question is for the Minister of Culture. According to your election platform, a report on the status of the artist in Ontario was to have been

completed within the first two years of your mandate. The report was to lay the foundation for status-of-the-artist legislation that would improve the living standards of tens of thousands of Ontario's artists. Three years into your term, the

report has still not been released. Minister, when is this long-overdue report going to be released?

Hon. Caroline Di Cocco (Minister of Culture): I'm very proud of the work the advisory committee has done in consulting with the artists in this province. It has been like no other consultation

in the province, in that over 4,000 artists, groups and organizations have been consulted. We are in the process of evaluating and taking a look at the report, and we are going to be moving forward in providing legislation that is going to deal

with valuing the artist for the very first time in the province of Ontario.

I am also very proud to say that for the very first time in a very long time, the cultural sector in this province has a great deal of hope in the work that we have done. We are providing hope to the sector,

as well as 38% more funding.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member from Renfrew has a very short memory.

Supplementary.

Ms. DiNovo: How many times in this House have we heard that they're working on it, the cheque's in the mail and there's another promise coming? Artists earn $26,800 on average. That's a

quarter less than most Ontarians. Meanwhile, the McGuinty government has slashed $88 million from the budget.

This legislation is important to improving the working lives of Ontario artists. Many are classified as independent contractors, according to the Employment Standards Act, and they're exempt from the minimum

standards that protect the rest of the workforce.

Minister, I ask again, will you immediately introduce status-of-the-artist legislation providing protection in the workplace for Ontario artists, or is this too going to be another McGuinty broken

promises?

Hon. Ms. Di Cocco: I'd like to correct the record on a couple of matters. First of all, I would like to state that the total operating and capital expenditures for 2004-05, the actuals, were

$344 million. For 2005-06, it was $475 million.

I've had the occasion to go and speak to and be with many, many of the cultural agencies in this province. I have to say they're very pleased with the support we have provided to the agencies, to the

organizations, to the Ontario Arts Council. I have to say that I continue to be proud and I thank the industry for how they're providing quality of place to the people of Ontario.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): It's a pleasure for me to attempt to bring some civility to question period and to ask some really tough questions at the same time. I have a question for

the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you know that especially in a riding like mine, transit is a conversational topic that's discussed widely. As we have great volumes of commuters and tourists, people coming in from the suburbs and outside

of the city itself, it's a major concern to us.

The city has gone through drought periods where for five years before we were the government, there was little, if any -- like zero -- investment in transit. We know the purpose of transit is to move people

effectively and efficiently from one place to another without destroying the environment at the same time. I would like you to help my constituents understand and to share with the House today what are some of the things you and this government

are doing to promote mass transit in the Ottawa area.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member for the question. We are going to continue to tackle the challenges of congestion. Obviously, there are multiple ways

with which to do it, but definitely transit is one of the most significant ways.

We have made a record investment in transit in Ottawa. Ottawa wishes to increase their ridership by some 30% by the year 2021, and we feel we have a responsibility in working with them to do that. We've made a

commitment since October 2003 of $322 million to the city of Ottawa. That includes the $200 million for the expansion of the O-Train along the north-south corridor from downtown Ottawa to Barrhaven. We also, by the year 2007, will have $83 million

worth of gas tax that will go to the city of Ottawa, in addition to $10 million that we have invested. We know there are things that we can do working with the city and, in addition, things we can do, such as HOV lanes, to ensure --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Minister, I am pleased to see that our province has committed $200 million to the Ottawa light rail transit and the city of Ottawa has also

fulfilled their commitment. But I'm told that the other level of government is dragging their feet on this issue. Could you inform this House, where is the federal government commitment to this project?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. First off, we have reaffirmed our own commitment for the $200 million. If you go back to May 2005, there actually was a memorandum of

understanding among the governments, the city of Ottawa, the federal government, and ourselves. We know that Prime Minister Harper's government has been the beneficiary of some fairly significant surplus, so we're very confident that he is going

to maintain his commitment to the city and the people of Ottawa, because we know that he wants, as we do, to be able to deal with the congestion issues and to serve the people of Ottawa in the best way that we possibly can.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): To the Minister of the Environment: Yesterday, the Environmental Commissioner issued a stern warning that your government is neglecting your

obligations. He stated that had there are examples of government inaction in almost every area of environmental management. Minister, during estimates you said, "If you look at the Ministry of the Environment website, there is a clear description

of Ontario's integrated approach to climate change and clean air." But in his report, the Environmental Commissioner said, after a search of government websites, that it was revealed that the policy documents "contained little or no mention of

projected climate change impacts." He then contacted your ministry staff and was told that there is no formal plan or strategy dealing with adaptation to climate change. Minister, what is your plan for climate change, or should we just assume

there is no plan, like the LCBO?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I'm pleased to have a chance to talk about Ontario's strategy with respect to climate change. Ontario's strategy with respect to climate

change, as I indicated in this House yesterday and indicated in estimates, is a multi-ministry strategy. To tackle this serious issue across the world, across the globe, we need to move beyond the silos of government. We need to look at a

different approach to tackling climate change. We need so see investments in public transit -- and we've made historic investments in public transit. We need to have investments and an examination of how we do business in the province and make

sure that we innovate and provide dollars with respect to research and innovation. That's what we're doing.

On so many fronts, so many of the ministers that sit on this side of the House understand the critical challenge that is before us as a society. Like Ontarians, we're rolling up our sleeves and we're making

decisions across multiple ministries to make sure we tackle this very serious --

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

Ms. Scott: I guess the plan is to roll up your sleeves, because the Environmental Commissioner did search other ministry websites, not just your own, and could find no plan. In fact, in your

government's own estimates, this year's budget on climate change has been reduced by more than $27 million. You also said yourself in committee on estimates that the Ministry of the Environment's operating budget has been reduced by $41.2 million.

The previous Minister of the Environment stated in 2004, "This government has placed the environment as a priority." Yet we see over and over again that you're cutting operating budgets within the ministry. You've broken your promises to the

people of Ontario for three years. Minister, why are you keeping Ontarians in the dark on protecting them from the effects of climate change?

Hon. Ms. Broten: Maybe you're looking for a piece of paper. On this side of the House, we're taking action. The Minister of Energy is making sure that we develop clean, green energy sources.

The Minister of Government Services is making sure that across government we ensure that we move forward with conservation strategies: Bill 21 and conservation -- all of those initiatives.

You need to move out of the silo that you live in and get with David Suzuki and Al Gore. We need to re-examine as a society the entire way that we live. No longer can climate change be the sole responsibility

of the Ministry of the Environment; it's not. And you yourself know -- because I answered your questions at estimates -- the budget line item that you're looking at is with respect to the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol. With the current federal

government, frankly, that seems like it is a distant past. We need the federal government to participate. The ministry's budget is fluid. We look forward to engaging with our current federal government, because they need to rebuild their budget,

put that $8 billion back on this table, give the $538 million --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Premier. Premier, exactly one year before the 2007 provincial election, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario confirmed

yesterday what Ontarians have known for some time, that the environment is not a priority for the McGuinty Liberal government. I want to read from the commissioner's report -- those who scoff on the other side. He states:

"What I have realized is that inspection and enforcement targets are not being met, essential environmental standards are not being updated, important timelines are not being met, necessary guidance documents

are not being written, the problems of the Great Lakes are not being addressed, there is no strategy for climate change, information on the state of our landfills is years out of date, and our waste management program is on the edge of

crisis."

The commissioner concludes that Ontario's environment is being shortchanged by the McGuinty government.

Mr. Premier, will you begin to reverse your neglect of the environment, take the commissioner's challenge and provide a penny of every operating dollar to the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): Did we inherit a neglect in the Ministry of the Environment from the former government? No doubt about it. Have we taken historic strides

forward to reinvest in that ministry? Absolutely.

Let me tell you about some of the accomplishments we've made as a government: a greenbelt across this province -- let's talk about the greenbelt and what that will leave to future generations; $1.4 billion

over five years in gas tax funding to invest in public transit, to help people get out of their cars, get off the roads, get onto public transit; 5% ethanol in gasoline -- some 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by that

single feature alone; the Clean Water Act -- better treatment, better planning.

There's no doubt about it. There is a great deal of work to do, but every single day at the Ministry of the Environment, 64% of our budget goes to personnel and 50% of that personnel is out on the front lines,

investigating and enforcing. Is there more work to do? No doubt about it. Are we prepared to do it? You bet.

Mr. Tabuns: I'll give the minister this: She does well with a very poor hand.

The commissioner's research and its inclusions are very clear: The environment is not being protected under the McGuinty government. In fact, in some instances, such as the protection of water under the

Nutrient Management Act, the Environmental Commissioner reveals there's actually less protection than under the Harris-Eves government. He emphasizes that funding essential ministries like the environment, and I quote the Environmental

Commissioner --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order.

Mr. Tabuns: The quote is worth hearing, Mr. Speaker.

He says, "Funding essential ministries" -- like the environment -- "at such low levels that they are bound to fail is a fundamental neglect of our obligations to the natural environment, to the people of

Ontario, and to the generations yet to be born."

Minister, when will your government commit to spending one cent out of every operating dollar for the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon. Ms. Broten: Let me tell you what the Ministry of the Environment budget is accomplishing across the province: 99% of drinking water tested in this province is meeting every one of our

very high levels of standards, according to the chief drinking water inspector.

Our operations staff: We are directing our resources out to the front lines to respond to spills to make sure our drinking water is safe -- up by 54 individuals. We are directing those resources to the front

lines to make sure Ontarians can have clean, safe drinking water.

Let me also quote from the Environmental Commissioner, who himself said in response to the Clean Water Act, "Once the Clean Water Act is passed, will we be better off? Yes, there is no question. It will turn

our attention to that last important component of water protection in this province," which is a good look at the source water. That's absolutely an essential part." So join with us. Support the Clean Water Act. Let's get that protection in place

so we can ensure Ontarians have clean, safe drinking water.

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, this morning I had the pleasure of attending the announcement of the

2007 season at the Stratford Festival of Canada. This season will mark the end of the amazing 14-year tenure of artistic director Richard Monette, who has led the pre-eminent Shakespearean theatre in North America.

On September 22, I was delighted to host you when you announced $106,000 in new funding for the Stratford Festival to help develop new training programs. This announcement is important to my constituents at

the Stratford Festival as it not only attracts hundreds of thousands of theatregoers to my community each year, but it's a magnet for talent in the cultural sector. My question, sir: In today's knowledge-based economy, education and skills are the

prerequisites for growth and prosperity. Can you please explain to my constituents how this funding will further foster growth and prosperity at the Stratford Festival of Canada?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): The member for Perth-Middlesex is an excellent advocate for the Stratford Festival and for the cultural industries.

Because of his advocacy, this was the third year of a $300,000 total investment to train the artisans that the Stratford Festival and the cultural industry in Ontario needs to prosper. I'm looking forward to telling him more in the supplementary

about the great work that he and the Stratford Festival have been doing.

Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, Minister. Constituents in my riding will be glad to know that the McGuinty government is doing all it can to support growth and prosperity in the theatre sector.

Minister, as I noted, the $106,000 in funding for the Stratford Festival is only the first step in a new province-wide apprenticeship training program for theatre workers. My understanding is that by helping the Stratford Festival create and test

new curricula for key skills in the theatre industry, the behind-the-scenes, in-house expertise developed in Stratford may help boost the performing arts through all of Ontario. Minister, can you please explain to this House how developing

training courses at the Stratford Festival will help boost the performing arts throughout all of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: The member from Perth-Middlesex is right; there is a direct linkage between the work that's being done at the Stratford Festival, Mr. Cimolino, Mr. Monette and others, and

the needs of the cultural sector throughout the province of Ontario. So whether you're at the Shaw Festival in Niagara, the theatre district in Toronto, the Huron County Playhouse, the Blythe Festival or whether you're dealing with the movie

industry, the work that's been done at the Stratford Festival to develop the expertise for assistant directors, assistant artisans, the type of artisans who create the costumes and the sets -- this will form the basis for a theatre, a cultural

apprenticeship program. We're so grateful to the Stratford Festival for the leadership that they have been taking. They really are the graduate school of theatre expertise, not only in the province of Ontario, but in North America, and we're proud

of the work that they've been doing.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the parents of St. Paul's elementary school in Alliston have raised many issues regarding the security, cleanliness and state of repair of their school; and

"Whereas a 2003 condition assessment completed by the Ontario government identified the need for $1.8 million in repairs to St. Paul's elementary school; and

"Whereas the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board has approached the Ministry of Education with the intention of having the school deemed prohibitive to repair as they believe the school requires

$2.28 million in repairs, or 84% of the school replacement cost; and

"Whereas there are ongoing concerns with air quality, heating and ventilation, electrical, plumbing, lack of air conditioning and the overall structure of the building, including cracks from floor to ceiling,

to name a few;

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

"That the Minister of Education immediately deem St. Paul's elementary school prohibitive to repair, secure immediate funding and begin construction of a new facility so that the children of St. Paul's can be

educated in a facility that is secure and offers them the respect and dignity that they deserve."

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas improving job retention rates has a positive effect on developing valuable work skills, confidence in one's abilities and creating a greater economic foundation for the province; and

"Whereas JobsNow allows workers access to valuable resources such as job-matching services, pre-employment supports and up to 18 months of job retention and follow-up services;

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

"That the JobsNow program continues to be supported by all members of the House, and that we work together to ensure that workers on social assistance find a meaningful and long-term solution to meeting their

employment goals."

I agree with this and I will affix my signature to it.

HEALTH CARD REGISTRATION OFFICE

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition entitled "Reopen the Beamsville Health Card Registration Clinic." It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Beamsville health card registration office has helped over 4,000 local seniors, families and other local residents over the last five years renew their health cards close to home; and

"Whereas the Lincoln centre provided the room and services to the province free of charge; and

"Whereas Lincoln residents are now paying more in a new health tax but are receiving less in services;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should immediately reopen the Beamsville health card registration office, which they closed without any notice in the Lincoln community."

In support, my signature.

CHILD CUSTODY

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I have a petition on behalf of the residents of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of the province of Ontario deserve and have the right to request an amendment to the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and

their grandparents; and

"Whereas subsection 20(2.1) requires parents and others with custody of children to refrain from unreasonably placing obstacles to personal relations between the children and their grandparents; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2) contains a list of matters that a court must consider when determining the best interests of a child. The bill amends that subsection to include a specific reference to the importance

of maintaining emotional ties between children and grandparents; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2.1) requires a court that is considering custody of or access to a child to give effect to the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent and their grandparent

as is consistent with the best interests of the child; and

"Subsection 24(2.2) requires a court that is considering custody of a child to take into consideration each applicant's willingness to facilitate as much contact between the child and each parent and

grandparent as is consistent with the best interests of the child; and

"Whereas we support Bill 8, as introduced by the member from Niagara Falls;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and

grandparents."

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

LONG-TERM CARE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): Petitions? The member from Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do respect that momentary recognition.

It's interesting that yesterday we talked about the long-term-care issue, and I have a number of petitions from my riding.

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity

that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and

sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, get dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast" -- all rushed -- "and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Minister of Health George

Smitherman to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

I'm pleased to support this on behalf of the residents of Community Nursing Home in Millbrook, where my mother-in-law is. Hello, Madge. I hope you're feeling well. I'm going to present this to Maddy.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition in support of skilled immigrants and highly qualified newcomers. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to establishing measures that will break down barriers for Ontario newcomers; and

"Whereas these measures will ensure that the 34 regulatory professions in Ontario have admissions and application practices that are fair, clear and open; and

"Whereas these measures will include the establishment of a fairness commissioner and an access centre for internationally trained individuals; and

"Whereas, through providing a fair and equitable system, newcomers will be able to apply their global experience, which will not only be beneficial to their long-term career goals but also to the Ontario

economy as a whole;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That all members of the House support the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, Bill 124, and work to ensure its prompt passage in the Ontario Legislature."

Since I agree with this petition 100%, I'm delighted to sign it.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas every Ontarian wants the best water quality possible; and

"Whereas the goal of clean water can be achieved effectively through amendments to existing legislation; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals are determined to hammer through the flawed legislation known as the Clean Water Act; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals have failed to put in place adequate, stable, long-term funding into the bill; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals have failed to effectively address the numerous problems in the bill; and

"Whereas rural Ontario stands to suffer significantly under this poorly-thought-out policy;

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

"To not pass Bill 43 (the Clean Water Act) until proper funding and amendments are in place."

As I am in agreement, I have affixed my signature.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas, in June 2003, Dalton McGuinty said, `Ontario Liberals are committed to ensuring that nursing home residents receive more personal care each day and will reinstate minimum standards, and inspectors

will be required to audit the staff-to-resident ratios; and

"Whereas Health and Long-Term Care Minister George Smitherman, in October 2004, said that the Ontario government will not set a specified number of care hours nursing home residents are to receive each day;

and

"Whereas Ontario nursing home residents still receive the lowest number of care hours in the Western world; and

"Whereas studies have indicated nursing home residents should receive at least 4.1 hours of nursing care per day; and

"Whereas a coroner's jury in April 2005 recommended the Ontario government establish a minimum number of care hours nursing home residents must receive each day;

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

"That the government of Ontario immediately enact a minimum standard of 3.5 hours of nursing care for each nursing home resident per day."

I present this petition and send it down to the table by way of Breanna, the page.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, managerial and professional talent from practising the

professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action

to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

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

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to

review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their

organizations, for their trades and professions and for their families."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I've affixed my signature to it, and I'll ask page Norah to carry it for me.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity

that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and

sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to increase operating funding to

long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

I support the petition and sign it.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough-Rouge River): I'm pleased to present the following petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the

professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action

to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

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

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to

review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their

organizations, for their trades and professions and for their families."

I truly believe in this petition, and I affix my signature.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have signatures here from a number of people from Caledonia. It's titled:

"We Demand Leadership in Land Dispute

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government was notified of this land issue over a year ago; and

"Whereas the standoff has been ongoing since February 28, 2006; and

"Whereas there has been no leadership from senior levels of government;

"We, the undersigned, demand the McGuinty Liberals start showing some real, consistent and timely leadership in dealing with the current standoff in Caledonia."

I fully agree and sign my name to it.

OPPOSITION DAY

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognize that it has been three years since the Liberals took office;

That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognize that shortly after taking office the Liberals and their Premier began breaking their promises;

That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognize that ever since the Liberals broke their first promise, they have lo