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

September 26, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Sep-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 September 2006 Mardi 26 septembre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

VIJAY JEET AND NEENA KANWAR

HOSPITAL SERVICES

RIDING OF PARKDALE-HIGH PARK

SENECA COLLEGE

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

BOMBARDIER IN THUNDER BAY

RIDING OF STORMONT-DUNDAS-CHARLOTTENBURGH

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN BRANT

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TOBACCO CONTROL /

CONTRÔLE DU TABAGISME

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HYDRO RATES

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

EDUCATION FUNDING

WATER QUALITY

LANDFILL

DISABILITY BENEFITS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ENERGY POLICIES

ORGANIC WASTE

CHINESE LANTERN FESTIVAL

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

COLORECTAL CANCER

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

CELLPHONES

COLORECTAL CANCER

CHILD CUSTODY

PASSPORT OFFICE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING /

RESTRUCTURATION MUNICIPALE

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

CHILD SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

CONCERNANT LES MUNICIPALITÉS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Today Dalton McGuinty released a progress report on his government that should be classified as fiction. It's a classic example of his government's practice of

pronouncing mythical information to confuse the public, to deflect attention from the truth, the damages of the McGuinty broken promises and the mismanagement of a government in disarray.

He claims that class sizes are down in primary grades, but he hides the fact that class sizes have spiked in older grades, that there is a proliferation of portables in schoolyards and that split classes are

reaching as high as 47 students. He claims that test scores are up in grades 3 and 6, but hides the fact that tests have been watered down. He claims that more students are graduating, but hides the fact that standards have been lowered. He does

not want to be confronted with the fact that school boards across the province are facing deficits, program cuts and school closures, but that is the true state of education in this province today.

Dalton McGuinty gets a failing grade from parents of autistic children for his broken promise to them and their children. Their message to Dalton McGuinty on the lawn of this place yesterday was, "No more

excuses." We resound with those parents and with parents across this province: No more excuses for your broken promises. Come clean with the people of Ontario. Tell them the truth.

VIJAY JEET AND NEENA KANWAR

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's an honour to rise today to recognize two extraordinary Ontarians whose generous contributions have helped make Mississauga an even better place to live

and to receive health care. Last week, I attended a reception at the Credit Valley Hospital to honour two inspirational members of the western Mississauga community: Mr. Vijay Jeet and Mrs. Neena Kanwar.

Mr. Jeet and Mrs. Kanwar came to Canada in 1985 from their native India, bringing with them aspirations for business success and philanthropy. After establishing several successful medical diagnostic centres,

they strengthened their commitment to health care in western Mississauga by investing in the Credit Valley Hospital. Their $5-million pledge to support the hospital's expansion fulfills their dream of giving back to their community, and it gives

our western Mississauga community a world-class treatment centre, The Vijay Jeet and Neena Kanwar Ambulatory Care Centre.

In addition to outpatient services, the new ambulatory care centre provides additional space for other critical ambulatory care programs such as cardiopulmonary, mental health, rehabilitation, satellite

diagnostic imaging, diabetes education and our regional renal program.

I thank Mr. Jeet and Ms. Kanwar for their generous pledge to Credit Valley and for their contributions to Canada, to Ontario and to the city of Mississauga.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): Today the Premier's report included a statement on wait times, but this is the truth that he tried to hide:

First, not all the targets have been met. The Minister of Health has already admitted that he will not meet the targets for knee replacement and diagnostic scans that he himself set. We have not yet seen wait

time guarantees from this government as promised. The report says this is the first time that wait times are being tracked, yet it was our government that built a province-wide cardiac care network that tracked and reduced wait times for cardiac

surgery by half.

While the report focuses on the five priority areas, it neglects to mention the impact on the other surgical wait times and the human suffering. According to the Ottawa Citizen, there is "growing concern among

doctors that the government's strategy is creating two-tier ... care that is leaving many sick people behind." They say patients who need services like neurosurgery, psychiatry, pediatric, back and abdominal surgeries face agonizing delays and

suffering. Moreover, a news

article in the Kingston Whig-Standard states, "The province has received complaints from other Ontario hospitals that operating room resources are being `cannibalized' for ministry-selected surgeries from others not on

the ... priority list."

Yes, others in the province are waiting. This is the real story on the progress on wait times --

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

RIDING OF PARKDALE-HIGH PARK

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): I rise upon the integrity and honour of those sitting today, this assembly that represents to our provincial electorate and to our children the most

responsible and principled amongst us. I rise in awe of the generations who have served here, who have formed our laws and traditions and sacrificed their own comforts and hours so that we might all have democracy and freedom in Ontario. I pledge,

as I know we all do, to uphold the values of this institution.

I rise upon the integrity and intelligence of the Parkdale-High Park electorate. The issues they demand action on are green renewable energy, not $40 billion invested in nuclear reactors, fixing the flawed

funding formula, and accountability and ethicality in government. They voted to send the Liberal government of Ontario a message: to keep their campaign promises made in 2003. It is my honour to serve the constituency of Parkdale-High Park and

represent them in such an undertaking. Their courage gives me courage.

Finally, I rise upon the love and support of my family, my husband and my children, and my congregation at Emmanuel-Howard Park United Church, all of whom have made great personal sacrifices so that I might be

able to stand among you.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and honoured members for your attention.

SENECA COLLEGE

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): Last month, I joined Premier McGuinty and Minister Bentley at Seneca College in Willowdale, my riding, to make an historic announcement. For the first time in the

history of Ontario, our provincial government is investing in projects and programs to help young people become the first in their family to pursue higher education. Our government is on the side of Ontario families who are working hard to build

an opportunity for their children, and this is why we are investing $6 million in programs and bursaries that will help young people whose parents did not attend college or university.

I'm extremely proud that under the leadership of Seneca College and its president, Rick Miner, Seneca's Centre for Outreach Education, or SCOrE, as it's known, is a leader in breaking down barriers for at-risk

first-generation youth. This is why we are investing $750,000 in Seneca's SCOrE program this year.

Under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, the education Premier, we have invested $6.2 billion over five years in post-secondary education and training, doubled our investment in student aid, established a new

student access guarantee, and 60,000 students will receive grants this coming year.

Our government is genuinely determined to create new opportunities for youth and immigrant families in communities like Willowdale. I'm proud to be a member of a government that recognizes that an investment in

first-generation students not only strengthens our economic growth --

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

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Further to the McGuinty progress report, which many of us watched today, I rise to present, if you will, a lack-of-progress report with respect to the

Caledonia-Six Nations land dispute. As this House will know, the Douglas Creek Estates just south of Caledonia has been occupied since February 28.

I'll quote the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs on the deliberations with respect to Six Nations and Caledonia. May 9: "We feel we are making progress." May 18: "David Peterson is making very good

progress." June 5: "Great progress was made" -- again, I'm making reference to an occupation that goes back to February 28 of this year. June 14: "We're making great progress." But on June 15: "The Premier of Ontario basically called off these

negotiations a few days ago because he did not see the progress we were expecting." Then, on June 21 there's a reversal: "We're making progress." In one week, we went from progress to failure and allegedly back to progress.

BOMBARDIER IN THUNDER BAY

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I am pleased to announce that our government has helped secure more than 300 high-quality manufacturing jobs for Thunder Bay for the next five years. Last

night, over a year's worth of hard work successfully ended when Toronto city council voted in favour of supporting a sole-source agreement to contract work to Bombardier's facility in Thunder Bay. Last night's positive vote confirmed a

$710-million deal with the TTC, which means their next 234 new subway cars will be built by workers in my riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan. The TTC and Toronto city council did this because our workers at this facility deliver world-class, quality

vehicles and service at very competitive prices.

This would not have happened without the support of our government and its investments in public transit. This deal was helped by the fact that our government invested over $200 million in the TTC last year. We

have also seen this public policy position manifest itself in other ways. For example, the city of Thunder Bay will receive $4.5 million from our government over three years in support of our municipal transit system.

I'd like to thank Premier McGuinty for his help with this issue. Discussions with the Premier and his former chief of staff, Don Guy, clearly indicated that we, as a province, would not have any issue if the TTC

chose to engage in a sole-source negotiation. I can tell you that after watching most of the debate yesterday at Toronto city council, this letter was instrumental in the decision-making for many of the councillors who supported the recommendation

by the TTC.

I'd also like to give special thanks to all the people in Thunder Bay who worked so hard at making this vision a reality. Without their effort and diligence --

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

RIDING OF STORMONT-DUNDAS-CHARLOTTENBURGH

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It was under the last government that the expression "Ontario ends at Kingston" was coined. Indeed, the only time the opposition seemed to pay

attention to my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh was at election time, when they would promise everything but deliver nothing.

Under the McGuinty Liberals, eastern Ontario is back on the map. Not only have we received a great deal of support from this government, but many members of cabinet have made the effort to come down and meet my

constituents and learn what makes our part of the province so special and what makes Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh tick.

This summer was no exception. Starting in June with Premier McGuinty's visit to Cornwall, I had the privilege of hosting, among others, the Ministers of Health and Long-Term Care, Transportation, Finance, Health

Promotion, seniors, Labour, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in the riding and introducing them to my constituents. These ministers wanted to meet with the people leading the renaissance that is taking place in

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh and to see what else could be done to assist them. The benefits of these meetings have been and shall continue to be enormous, and to see the construction at this moment going on in the city with regards to the St.

Joseph's Continuing Care Centre and the early works at the Cornwall Community Hospital, these are to be certainly expressed today and thanked.

I would like to thank my colleagues for creating opportunities to dialogue with my constituents from every rank and station, and look forward to hosting them again in the years to come.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN BRANT

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I rise to talk about some wonderful news in the riding of Brant. After working with the Ministry of Agriculture, in July, I had the opportunity to announce a grant of

almost $2 million under the rural economic development program to Ferrero Canada. Thank you to the hard-working ministry staff and indeed to all of the hard-working staff of all the ministries. The McGuinty government partnered with Ferrero to

undertake a comprehensive recruitment and specialized training project to support its 900,000-square-foot manufacturing facility in my hometown of Brantford. That's right: Brantford is now home to one of the world's great confectionary makers.

We are seeing and will continue to see a flurry of economic activity come to the riding of Brant. When it is complete, this facility will be the largest of its kind in North America. Ferrero will employ up to

1,200 skilled workers by 2009. The spinoffs in a variety of sectors include transportation, packaging suppliers, residential housing and many more, including the retail industry. The benefits are not only going to be for Brantford but the entire

surrounding communities. In other words, the McGuinty government's partnerships with companies like Ferrero help bring jobs to our communities. Ferrero is already well on its way to finding and fulfilling its employment needs, and I am confident

that this will help continue to bring prosperity to communities like mine and those around the province.

Companies like Ferrero in Brantford bring jobs and prosperity with them. This is just a renewed proof that, as Walter Gretzky says, "Brantford really is the centre of the universe."

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg the indulgence of the House to provide the pages with the opportunity to assemble for introduction. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming

this group of legislative pages serving in the second session of the 38th Parliament:

Maddy Bondy from St. Paul's; Norah Bonsteel from Mississauga South; Dominic Brisson from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell; Julia Duimovich from Ottawa Centre; Sarah Edgerley from Thornhill; Patrick Griffiths from

Waterloo-Wellington; Jasmine Ho from Oak Ridges; Annaliese Ionson from Niagara Centre; Adam Kelly from Oakville; Stephen McGuire from Lanark-Carleton; Paul Michel from Oshawa; Dominic Pizzolitto from Windsor West; Breanna Plourde from

Timmins-James Bay; Chad Richards from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound; Bryce Robson from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock; Taylor Rodrigues from Mississauga West; Shaké Sarkhanian from Don Valley East; Max Shcherbina from Etobicoke Centre; Olivia Steven from

Perth-Middlesex; and Lindsay Walker from Hamilton Mountain.

Applause.

The Speaker: Thank you, and welcome.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion respecting this afternoon's

business.

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, the order for third reading of Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better

protect the children of Ontario, shall be called as today's first order; and

That each recognized party be allotted up to five minutes to speak on the motion, following which the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill 89; and

That the order for second reading of Bill 130,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities, shall be called as the second order; and

That this afternoon's debate on Bill 130 be considered one full sessional day.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TOBACCO CONTROL /

CONTRÔLE DU TABAGISME

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): I have some good news to share with members of the Legislature and the people of Ontario. As you know, in 2003, the McGuinty government announced

details of an aggressive plan for reducing tobacco consumption in Ontario. Since then, we've increased the investment in our smoke-free strategy sixfold to $60 million to protect Ontarians from second-hand smoke, prevent young people from

starting, and help smokers to quit.

We also enacted the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, fulfilling a key platform commitment to improve the health of Ontarians. Now families and friends can enjoy a meal or go to a club without being surrounded by smoke.

All employees, regardless of the type of work that they are involved in, have equal protection under the law from second-hand smoke.

Today I'm pleased to announce that we are on the verge of fulfilling yet another commitment. Shortly after we took office, we set an ambitious target to reduce tobacco consumption levels in Ontario by 20% before

the end of 2007. We made this commitment because we understood Ontarians expected to see real, measurable results.

Earlier this year, we were able to report that tobacco consumption in Ontario had fallen by almost 10% since 2003. Today, I am very proud and pleased to report that tobacco use is already down by 18.7%,

according to Health Canada's tobacco consumption report. That's a significant achievement. It's an achievement that everyone involved in the smoke-free movement can be very proud of.

Il s'agit également d'une excellente nouvelle pour les familles ontariennes, qui ont manifesté leur appui solide à nos ambitieux objectifs de réduction du tabagisme.

Permettez-moi de vous décrire ce que représente une réduction de 18,7 % du taux de tabagisme en Ontario. Cela signifie qu'en 2005, on a fumé 2,6 milliards de cigarettes de moins qu'en

Il s'agit de la santé des gens, une question de vie ou de mort.

Every year, tobacco claims 16,000 lives in Ontario. That's about one preventable death every 30 minutes. On top of the death toll is the incalculable cost in sickness and suffering that all of those smokers

had to endure. Clearly the reduction in smoking across Ontario since our government was elected in 2003 has been significant, but we didn't do it on our own. We couldn't have gotten this far without working with the many partners in the community.

I want to thank such organizations as the Ontario Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Ontario Lung Association, the Ontario Tobacco-Free Network, the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco and the

Non-Smokers' Rights Association. These organizations, with countless volunteers, have all worked over the last 40 years to achieve this announcement we're making today.

I also want to commend the 36 public health units across this province, people like Dr. David Salisbury, who is the chief medical officer of health in my hometown of Ottawa, and his dedicated team of public

health nurses, tobacco control officers and other professionals who have been at the forefront of tobacco control for years.

Avec l'aide de ces organisations et d'autres partenariats, le gouvernement McGuinty a pu mettre en oeuvre l'une des stratégies de lutte au tabagisme les plus complètes en Amérique du Nord.

L'Ontario devient de plus en plus une province saine où il fait bon vivre, travailler et apprendre, un bon endroit où élever des enfants.

Notre santé à tous s'en trouve améliorée; une collectivité en santé attire les employeurs et accroît la prospérité.

Major businesses understand this. That's why chains like the Westin hotel and the Marriott hotel have gone completely smoke-free, a strong signal to the industry that protecting staff and patrons from

second-hand smoke is good for business. In fact, John Jarvis, the general manager of the Westin in Ottawa, tells me business is up this year over last year.

Yet there's more to be done and we face many challenges, but at the end of the day, a healthier, fitter population reduces the strain on our health care system and makes all of our work a wise investment.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Response? The member for Lanark-Carleton.

Applause.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the applause from some of the ministers.

I rise today to respond to the Minister of Health Promotion. As he knows, the opposition caucus and our leader support initiatives to decrease smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke, and I personally

support it. In December 1985, I was the first elected official in all of Canada to introduce a bill to protect smokers in the public place and in the workplace from second-hand smoke. Subsequent to that, I introduced seven other private member's

bills, eventually forcing the Peterson government in 1989 -- four long years later -- to bring forward a bill to do what I asked in 1985.

While I am glad to hear of the reduction of smokers in this province, because of this terrible addiction to nicotine, our problem relates to the callousness with which this government has implemented this

policy, and I want to talk particularly about nursing homes and long-term-care facilities.

With regard to the estimates of this year, when I questioned the minister who has just spoken about the provision for our elderly who are in these institutions to continue a habit which they have undertaken

over the whole of their lives, the minister's answer was callous and disregarded the respect our seniors deserve. We found that only 29 of some 500 long-term-care homes in the province have applied for smoking rooms. The reason: the cost of

putting these facilities there.

We have a cold winter coming upon us, and many of these residents who are addicted to nicotine and at a late stage of their lives and do not want to abandon this habit are going to be caught in a terrible

conundrum. I asked the minister about a specific case, about an 85-year-old woman, and I want to read the letter from her son:

"My mom is 85 and is a cigarette smoker since 1932. She respects all non-smokers in her life. She has always been independent and self-motivated.... In January 2005, she entered a nursing home with smoking

facilities" -- a non-profit, long-term-care facility. "She, as well as most residents, is not capable of leaving the facility on her own and she uses the smoking room daily. It is her only social interaction. Otherwise, she remains in her room

except for monthly church communion and visits from us.

"In early July, we began to hear about the enactment of a provincial law which would apparently force closing" of this smoking room, "but didn't receive any notification until the 6th of August. All this time

we felt that the provincial law would have some sensitivity to this kind of situation, but last week we were informed that the smoking room for the residents would close and she must stop." The letter goes on to say she was given all kinds of

excuses and that she should stop smoking at the age of 85. The institution could not afford the $100,000 to redesign a smoking room that would fit the new regulations.

When the minister was asked specifically about this situation, here is his response: "Mr. Sterling, the answer is no. We are not going to take scarce health dollars and subsidize a business, a non-profit

long-term-care facility, whether it's a long-term-care home or a bar, and use these dollars to construct a smoking lounge that encourages people to smoke" -- that encourages an 85-year-old woman who has smoked all of her life. It's going to

encourage her to take up the habit. What an argument. What a lack of generosity. What a lack of compassion towards our seniors who are afflicted with this terrible addiction.

We agree with the policy with regard to young people. But the way they have done this has shown such callous disregard for our seniors, the people who built our country, built our province, and is without

explanation; a terrible, terrible mistake. This could have been done with care and respect for the people who deserve that respect.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of New Democrats to the statement made by the Minister of Health Promotion. I want to make these points: It has been over 100

days since the legislation went into effect, and young people are still subjected to row upon row of cigarettes in their local retail store or local convenience store. Why is that? Because this Liberal government and the Liberal majority in

committee voted down our NDP amendment that would have banned retail displays of cigarettes in convenience stores on May 31, 2006. The Liberal majority did that despite the overwhelming evidence at the public hearings from young people who said

that retail displays made smoking normal. Retail displays enticed them to start smoking in the first place and then they got hooked.

This is what Tanya Wagner had to say: "[R]ecently I was thinking about why I smoked in the first place. I smoked du Maurier and sometimes Player's, and I noticed the other day that those two brands were the

most noticeable behind the counter of my local store. I think that I am living proof that tobacco advertising affects teens. This is why I wanted to talk to you today and ask that you ban retail displays of cigarettes, including power walls."

This is from Olivia Puckrin and Caylie Gilmore: "You probably know that tobacco companies aren't allowed to advertise their products. But still, every kid I know can name five different brands of cigarettes.

How is that?

"Well, it is no mystery. Every time we go into a store, cigarettes are there. Cigarettes are displayed on the counter, behind the counter and even in the counter.... This advertising not only tempts adults to

smoke ... it makes cigarettes look ... normal.... But no other product will kill you if you use it as the manufacturer intends....

"If the province allows cigarettes to be advertised in stores with countertop and power wall displays, well now, that would be stupid."

The NDP said that the government should ban retail displays. The government instead should replace the money that retail owners get from big tobacco to do this with promotion on healthy lifestyle, promotion on

exercise. We urged the government to give increased revenue to retail store owners from lottery ticket sales. And the government didn't want to hear any of this. The government didn't want to do any of this.

So here we are, 100 days after the legislation has been passed, and young people can still see package after package of cigarettes in their faces in their convenience stores. That will entice them to start

smoking, and these are going to be our cancer statistics 20 years from now.

In the last election, the government promised as part of its anti-smoking strategy that it was going to provide $31 million a year for a youth mass media campaign. At the estimates on September 5, we found out

that the government has allocated a mere $8.8 million this year for a youth mass media campaign. That's a shortfall of $22.2 million. We also found out at the estimates that the government promised some $46.5 million in smoking cessation programs

to help people quit smoking. How much has the government is allocating this year? Ten million. That's a shortfall of $36.7 million from what the Liberals promised.

What's most interesting is that the Liberals have increased tobacco taxes three times since they've been in government. The total new revenue coming in from tobacco taxes now is $1.5 billion, and I thought

some of that $1.5 billion was supposed to go to keeping these Liberal election promises. In fact, if you go to the Liberal election platform, you see that the Liberals did promise this, and I'm going to quote this from the Liberal election

platform: "We will use increased tobacco tax revenue to make smoking cessation medications available to all smokers trying to quit." It's clear the revenue's rolling in, it's clear the promise was made, and it's also clear that the government

isn't keeping its promises.

In conclusion, some 100 days after the legislation has been passed, it would have been great to stand here today and say that young people no longer have to have row upon row of cigarette packages in their

faces at their local convenience store, enticing them to smoke, but we can't do that. It would have been great to say that young people and organizations representing them have been given the money for ad campaigns to get them to stop smoking or

not start in the first place. Regrettably, we can't do that today either.

It would have been great if we could have stood here today and said that all those people who are addicted to tobacco -- and there are thousands of them out there and they want to stop smoking. It would have

been great if they could have accessed all those cessation programs, the $46.5 million worth of them that this government promised, and we can't do that either.

VISITORS

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Economic Development and Trade, minister responsible for women's issues): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm happy to introduce two members from my riding

of Windsor West who are joining us in the gallery today, and they are Mrs. Ada Pizzolitto, who is also the grandmother of one of our pages here from Windsor West, Dominic Pizzolitto. They are joined by another gentleman from my riding, Mr. Alfeo

Masotti. The important thing is that Mrs. Pizzolitto also happens to be my mom. The good news is that that makes this particular page my nephew, who told me very clearly that he was very proud of the fact that he made his application to the page

program without reference to his aunt being in the House. So congratulations to Dominic.

Interjections.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for Premier. I should say, by the way, that young Dominic is a smart boy. He's going to go places.

Interjections.

Interjection: He's a Liberal, John.

Mr. Tory: There's still time.

My question is to the Premier. Premier, today the occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates in Caledonia enters its 210th day. That's 210 days in which you've tried your very best to play down and avoid the

issues raised by both sides in this dispute. You ignored the early warnings in the summer of 2005. You've downplayed the concerns of the residents of Caledonia whose homes back onto Douglas Creek Estates.

While you've never said so yourself, your lawyers appeared in court as recently as yesterday and said -- and I quote them -- that "the new owner," namely your government, "does not object to the protesters

being on site." This was an argument repeated from the earlier court hearing.

I asked you earlier, in a letter dated August 27, what steps have you taken, if any, to insist on a reasonable minimum number of standards --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The question has been asked. Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm always grateful to receive the question, but I think it's important for the leader of the official opposition to cast

his mind back to the fact that, 11 years later, Ipperwash Provincial Park remains occupied and unavailable to the people of Ontario. That is the result of a particular approach brought by that gentleman's government. We think it was the wrong

approach, so we're bringing a different approach.

While it's important that we remain patient, and while I can understand that there are some growing frustrations on the part of residents on both sides of this issue, I am working, hand in hand with the

federal government, together with the residents. We are at the table day in and day out, working as hard as we can to resolve this in a peaceful manner.

Mr. Tory: A very interesting answer, but not responsive at all to the question.

I'll ask you again: I think it is reasonable when someone is using your land -- in this case our land, land that belongs to the people of Ontario -- since you're giving permission for them to use it, that you

would insist there be a written agreement, as there would be in almost any other case, that would set out reasonable minimum conditions in terms of things like standards of behaviour that would be expected by you as the owner of the land and by

the public in whose hands you hold this as a trustee.

Since you're willing to have them stay there, why have you not asked and required that this kind of an agreement be entered into, one that sets out minimum standards of behaviour and sets out the terms upon

which people can stay on the land, for how long and matters like that? Why have you not done that? Why is that unreasonable?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, Ipperwash Provincial Park remains occupied after 11 years. That is the end result of the approach brought by this particular former government. If there is some kind

of written agreement binding the use of that land, I'm not aware of that and neither are the people of Ontario.

But let me tell you what we have done, working together with all of the communities affected by this. Just recently, Minister Ramsay visited the community. We have agreed to put in place a 100-foot buffer

zone, now recognized and controlled by the OPP, behind the houses and school that back on to the protested land.

I've also written to Chief MacNaughton. I've secured an agreement from him that he will work hard to eliminate noise and other nuisances that might be occurring on the land in question.

When it comes to the future use of the land, that is the subject of ongoing negotiations at the table. The federal government is present, we are present and, of course, so are the First Nations.

Mr. Tory: This is all very interesting, that you've secured an agreement with the chief. It's the first we've heard of this. He's quoted in the September 6 edition of the Turtle Island News as

saying, "The letter never made it to the chiefs." You released it to the press but never sent it to the chiefs. So now we hear there's an agreement with him, and perhaps you might make that agreement available to us and tell us what terms you have

with him.

You were quoted in the St. Catharines Standard, on August 31, 2006, as saying that if the protestors stay on the land "in some kind of permanent way, through the winter for example -- that is not acceptable to

us."

On the one hand, you had your lawyers in court yesterday saying they can stay there as long as they want and you seem unwilling to require any conditions of them or ask for anything, although we now hear

there's some kind of a secret agreement; on the other hand, you said it was unacceptable.

So my question is this: Can you clarify for us exactly what the McGuinty government policy is? Are the protestors allowed to stay as long as they want without conditions, or must they be off the land, as you

said previously, by the winter? Which is it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, 11 years later, Ipperwash Provincial Park remains occupied. It's a provincial park that is not available for use by the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm having a great deal of difficulty hearing the Premier. Order.

Premier.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, we are intent on remaining at the table, together with the representative of the federal government and representatives of the First Nations communities

affected by this. The leader of the official opposition knows that this particular issue predates Confederation. It is complex, it is fraught with challenges and it is taking everything all three parties can do by way of bringing to bear a request

that we remain peaceful and respectful of one another as we work our way through this very difficult situation. We will continue to be at the table for as long as it takes to ensure that we have a productive dialogue, and a very important

objective in all of this, of course, is the future use of that particular piece of property.

The Speaker: New question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: My second question is also for the Premier. I wonder if you can give us your best estimate of the costs of all aspects involved in the Caledonia matter to date, including policing,

land purchase costs, assistance to the affected businesses and residents, lawyers, negotiators, and that is just to name a few of the line items. I expect that as the chief trustee of the taxpayers' money, you will be able to give us some estimate

as to how much has been spent on that matter so far.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: With respect to the purchase of Douglas Creek Estates, I can inform the leader of the official opposition and the House that the total paid to the developer was $15.8

million, and there was an additional $4 million for builders who had started to build on the land in question.

Mr. Tory: I will help the Premier, who seems to be woefully ill informed about the finances of the taxpayers. I think by the calculation we can do, without access to all the tens of thousands

of public servants you have, that the number would be about $55 million so far, and counting. Policing costs: probably about $30 million to date, and that is before we count in the cost of the new 72-officer detachment in Caledonia; buyout of the

land -- your numbers are right as we have it -- about $20.9 million; Jane Stewart's contract, $330,000 without factoring in other staff; millions in costs to Hydro One for property damage and delay of the hydro transmission line; unknown costs --

perhaps millions; we can't even count -- related to the transfer of 250 acres of lands. That puts us at about $55 million so far.

Can you either confirm that number as the total cost so far or tell us what the right number is? You should be able to do that if you're looking after the taxpayers' money.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To listen to our colleague, you would think that there must be some neat, tidy and possibly elegant solution to the challenges that face all of us at Caledonia. You would

think that. But he has yet, at any place or any time, to put forward any substantive proposal that would tell us exactly what he would have us do in these challenging circumstances.

So what we have done is work hand in hand with the federal government -- and it may be that Mr. Tory has contacted the Prime Minister and registered his extreme displeasure with this peaceful approach brought

by our two governments; maybe he has done that but he hasn't owned up to it in this House -- and we will continue to work hand in hand with the federal government, together with the First Nations, to resolve this in a manner that is peaceful.

Mr. Tory: Again a very interesting answer not responsive to the question, and I'll tell you what I have said. I have said it's important that we respect the rule of law and that we don't sit

at negotiating tables with people who are not prepared to do that. I have said that, and if that puts me at odds with you and the Prime Minister of Canada, so be it.

Mr. McGuinty's government has bought out Henco. You've provided assistance to business, you've transferred 250 acres of agricultural land to the First Nations people, but there's one group of people for whom

you have done nothing. It's a very small group, but they are innocent victims of this whole sorry affair. I'm talking about the homeowners whose properties are adjacent to the disputed lands, who have been pleading with your government for some

consideration of their circumstances where their property values have plummeted and their houses, in many cases, are not saleable. Are you going to reconsider the request they have made so that you would inject some measure of fairness into a

process for people who have found themselves caught in the middle of this situation? Will you reconsider and show some consideration to these people?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: You wouldn't blame the people of Ontario for being confused. At first, Mr. Tory was saying the problem is we're spending too much money, and now he is saying the problem

actually is that we're not spending enough time to talk to more people so that we might give them more money. We're a little confused as to where he stands on this, but perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, that is to be expected.

We are proud of the way that we have managed this difficult, complex situation. The leader of the official opposition sees things differently. He is in disagreement with myself and with Prime Minister Harper

and the peaceful resolution that we are seeking to arrive at.

To be specific about his question, we are in fact dealing, on an ongoing basis, with those particular homeowners. We've been dealing with the businesses. We've been dealing with the community at large. We've

dealt with the developer. We are ensuring that people are intact in terms of their financial circumstances. We're doing whatever we can to maintain peace in this community.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. This is a news

article from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record:

"Five ER Doctors Leave Hospital; Turmoil at Cambridge Memorial.

"`There's a crisis in the emergency room,' says Dr. Paul Quinlan, one of the departing doctors. `We were in a death spiral.'

"Fewer patients are being treated. They are waiting much longer and some are leaving without being seen."

Premier, this sounds like a news

article from yesterday, but in fact it's from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record from a year ago, October 1, 2005, and a year later, under the McGuinty government, the situation in

the emergency room has only gotten worse. Why haven't you acted to address the emergency room crisis, since it's been going on for over a year now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm sure the leader of the NDP will now want to formally acknowledge and recognize his complicity in creating some of the

challenges faced by emergency room doctors in the province of Ontario as a result of shutting down medical school spaces. I'm sure he's going to want to recognize that at some point.

I can tell you some of the things that we are doing to help address this -- in addition to the important productive dialogue that is ongoing right now is this: We've put in place 150 family health teams. We've

put in place 49 new community health centres. We are expanding medical school spaces by 23%. We are expanding the number of our nurse practitioner spaces. We are doubling the number of spaces for our international medical graduates in our

residency programs. And, of course, we've opened the first new medical school in Canada in some 30 years. All of those have in mind to ensure that Ontarians have greater access to primary care outside an emergency room setting. It's not the only

answer, but in

part it is.

Mr. Hampton: Most of these things haven't happened, and that's why we continue to see a crisis in emergency rooms. Tomorrow, Cambridge will announce whether it will take the unprecedented step

of hiring a private, profit-driven corporation to take over its emergency room, and your Minister of Health refuses to say if he will stop that privatization. As of yesterday, he hadn't even spoken to the hospital administrators about it.

In 2003, you were very critical of the former Conservative government for hiring Med-Emerg corporation. You said, "That money could have and should have been spent to hire full-time" health workers.

Premier, you're now in your fourth year of government. Have your standards changed or will you intervene immediately to stop this health care privatization?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I think that there's no doubt we have a real issue when it comes to ensuring that our emergency rooms are as effective as they possibly can be. And the Minister of Health,

through his offices, is engaged in a very positive and constructive dialogue with our emergency room physicians. Let me just take the opportunity to say to them on behalf of the people of Ontario, we thank them for hanging in there under

challenging circumstances. We thank them for the work they do, day in and day out, night in and night out, for that matter -- for all that they do. We ask for their patience as we work together to resolve some of the challenges that are affecting

all of us.

Mr. Hampton: I'm sure all Ontarians thank our physicians. That's not the issue. The issue here is that emergency room wait times across Ontario are going up. This summer, 19 hospitals --

Belleville, Guelph, Sault Ste. Marie, Atikokan, Timmins, and the list goes on -- were at risk of closing their emergency rooms entirely.

Manitoba averted a crisis in their emergency rooms by doing some planning and taking thoughtful action. But here in Ontario, under the McGuinty government, hospitals are forced to use profit-driven private

corporations to operate their emergency rooms while you pretend health care privatization isn't happening.

Premier, if Med-Emerg corporation can find doctors to work in the emergency room, why can't the McGuinty government?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: You know what? I think one of the questions that Ontarians are entitled to ask themselves is, if the leader of the NDP is so genuinely committed to medicare, why did he vote

against our Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, a bill that was before him in this House? Why did he vote against that? I think that's an important question that would weigh heavily on the minds of Ontarians.

Again, we're pleased to be working as diligently as we can with all those involved in improving the quality of care in emergency rooms. But I think it's also important to remember something that Dr. John

Rapin, former OMA president, said: "As the OMA predicted at the time, 10 years later this decision in itself" -- he's talking about the fact that the NDP cut medical school spaces -- "bears much of the blame for the current shortage of all types

of physicians in Ontario."

So it is true that we find ourselves in circumstances where we've got to clean up a bit of a mess contributed to by the NDP government, but we will work diligently in that regard.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: 118,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have disappeared in Ontario under your watch. That's more than 10% of the manufacturing jobs in

the province. At the heart of this destruction of jobs is your government's misguided policy of driving hydroelectricity rates through the roof. Ontario's resource and manufacturing communities have told you that they need hydro rate relief

now.

Premier, you've had much to say on this in the past. Is your government going to deliver hydro rate relief before thousands more jobs are destroyed in the resource and manufacturing sector?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The leader of the NDP will know that we have been working particularly closely with the forestry sector, which is being

buffeted by more than just circumstances that prevail here in Ontario but by a decline in pricing for their product, by a Canadian dollar which rose dramatically. We've worked hand in hand with them. In fact, we put together a package of some $900

million to help ensure that we can not only help the forestry sector meet its immediate challenges, but also that we can transition them through some capital improvements to a point where they are more productive and producing more value-added

products. That's the kind of approach we've brought when dealing with the forestry sector in particular, and we will keep working with them.

Mr. Hampton: Correction, Premier: You have announced $900 million, and industries and mills in communities have hardly seen a cent of it. Twenty-five thousand direct and indirect jobs across

northern Ontario in the forest sector have been destroyed by your government in the last two years. Kenora, Thunder Bay, Opasatika, Chapleau, Smooth Rock Falls, Kirkland Lake, Dryden, Hearst, Timmins, Longlac, Red Rock are all communities that

have been devastated by your policy of driving hydro rates through the roof for an industry that has to use a lot of electricity in the manufacturing process.

Northern mayors, industry leaders and labour leaders have all come together with one simple message: Reduce the industrial hydro rate in northern Ontario to 4.5 cents inclusive per kilowatt hour immediately.

Are you going to listen to community, labour and industrial leaders in northern Ontario, Premier, or are you going to destroy thousands more jobs --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The question has been asked. Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I know the leader of the NDP would not want to leave the impression here in this House that somehow the forestry sector in British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick, for

example, has been unaffected by what's happening in an era of globalization.

I also know that he'd want to be mindful of some of the things that people in the forestry sector have said about our policies. Here is what they said from Tembec. Dennis Rounsville, the executive

vice-president and president of the Forest Products Group: "The role played by the province generally and Minister Ramsay in particular in the re-establishment of this mill has been positive and we both applaud and appreciate their

involvement."

Here's what they said over at Bowater Canadian Forest Products: "We would like to thank Minister Ramsay and the Ministry of Natural Resources for the contribution they are making to Bowater's Thunder Bay

operation.... This project will assist our facility in moving towards the manufacture of new paper grades and is a step towards an improved competitive position for the operation."

What I'd ask the leader of the NDP to do is just to be a bit more balanced and a bit more broad in terms of recognizing what is in fact happening in northern --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: Speaking of balance, Premier, is this the same Tembec that laid off everybody in the town of Smooth Rock Falls? Is this the same Bowater that said they're not going to go ahead

with a $200-million upgrading of their Thunder Bay mill because hydro rates in Ontario are so high under the McGuinty government that it would be a bad investment? You shouldn't lecture anyone about balance, Premier.

Eight months ago in Thunder Bay, you had a lot to say about reducing hydro rates. You told the mayors and other municipal leaders that the McGuinty government was going to look at reducing hydro rates in

northern Ontario, since it costs a lot less to produce electricity there. Eight months later, thousands more jobs have disappeared, yet you haven't done anything. I ask you again, when are you going to reduce industrial hydro rates in northern

Ontario and stop destroying thousands of forest sector jobs?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I'd ask the leader of the NDP to be a bit more open-minded in terms of trying to gain a basic understanding of what's happening in the forestry sector in North

America. It's not just specific to us here in Ontario.

It's true that I did have a good opportunity to chat with some of the folks in northwestern Ontario about electricity prices. I can tell you that we continue to work with that community and with others as well

to ensure they are in a competitive position and can take full advantage of some of the opportunities we are creating with our programs to help the forestry sector in particular transition itself to a point where it is more competitive and more

value-added.

I want to conclude with something said by the folks at Flakeboard in Sault Ste. Marie, who said in short, "Flakeboard will continue to do everything possible to ensure that our plants remain competitive and

continue to support our customer base. We are appreciative of the provincial government's support of these important initiatives." We will continue --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. New question.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question again is for the Premier. We noticed the campaign-style, taxpayer-financed pamphlets you put out this morning, giving yourself lavish

praise for all the things you claim to have done. I suggest you get an A+ for broken promises and an A++ for saying absolutely anything you have to say to get elected.

The book has one other little thing on it in terms of disrespect for the taxpayers' money; namely, a confirmation that you're going ahead with this misguided plan to change the government trillium logo. Can

you tell the hard-working taxpayers of Ontario how much of their money you are using to unnecessarily change the trillium logo? Can you tell them how much it's all going to cost?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I really appreciate the opportunity to speak about the progress that we've been making. This is our third annual report,

and I would encourage the leader of the official opposition to turn the page and take a look at the contents. Ontarians may want to visit our website as well if they can't get hold of one of these.

One of the things it talks about, for example, is that class sizes are down. Over 60% of all of our primary classes are expected to have 20 students or less. Test scores are up. We've gone from 54% of grades 3

and 6 students meeting the Ontario grade to 64%. High school graduation has gone from 68% to 71%.

That is just a snippet of all the good news to be found inside this document that speaks of the progress we're making together on behalf of Ontarians.

Mr. Tory: We ought to get a few of the farmers, emergency room doctors, autistic kids, and forestry industry people to write a few chapters for you and see what they have to say.

We know that the redesign costs started at $219,000, given out to your friends at Bensimon Byrne, the Liberal advertising agency, part of their $16-million McGuinty bonanza they've received so far. That

doesn't even begin to cover the cost of replacing the logo on government buildings and government cars. According to the public accounts, the government of Ontario owns 3,500 buildings, and the estimated cost of replacing signs is $1,500, so at

two signs a building, that's $10.5 million. Some 10,000 cars are owned by the government of Ontario: $50 a car just for the labour to replace the decal, so that's $500,000. That's $11 million for building signs and car decals. The fact is that if

you were not changing this logo, you wouldn't have to spend that money at all.

Why don't you cancel this boondoggle and instead spend the money on emergency rooms or helping farmers or autistic kids? Will you stand up and cancel this now?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the official opposition is just making this stuff up. What we have said is that we will replace --

Interjections.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): And it's not all that good.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: It's not even good fiction. There's good fiction and there's bad fiction. This is bad fiction.

We're replacing the logo on an ongoing basis, as and when the product in question calls for it. He knows that, and he should just stand up and admit to that.

But let's get back to the good news. If you take a look at this progress report, one of the things that is truly remarkable is that when it comes to cardiac procedures, we have a reduction in wait times by 50%

for angiography and by 25% for angioplasty; cataract surgeries are down by 20%; hip and knee joint replacements are down by, respectively, 18% and 12%. We're making real progress on behalf of Ontarians.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. I know, Minister, that my question won't reflect it, but I wish you the best and I congratulate you.

Now my question. Before your election, you were highly critical of the previous government because they forced school boards to balance budgets while admitting that the education funding formula was flawed.

Three years later, you and your government have admitted the funding formula is flawed -- and you admitted as much again this morning -- but you're still forcing boards to make cuts in the classroom to compensate for your government's inaction.

When are you and your government going to deliver on the fundamental changes to the education funding formula that you promised?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): I accept the congratulations of the honourable member and I look forward to his many questions going forward.

The fact is that this is a different government. This is not the previous government. The member opposite talks about the cuts and the disarray in the system that was the hallmark of the previous government.

We are in a completely different environment. I know that if the member went into the schools in his riding and talked to the teachers and talked to the students and talked to the superintendents, he would hear that the tone has completely

changed, because they know we have invested money in more teachers in their schools, the class sizes are down, and there are more students graduating. It's a different time.

In fact, in the supplementary, I'll talk about how we have started changing the funding formula.

as a second language; we're talking about special education in general and autism in particular; we're talking about transportation; we're talking about capital projects, where so many of our schools are not being fixed. Boards across Ontario,

trustees and teachers that I've talked to, are being forced to make cuts in the classroom. From downtown Toronto to the shores of James Bay, students are losing their educational assistants, their buses and, in some cases, their local schools.

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic school board has drawn a line in the sand and they have refused to make the cuts. Your government expert has told them to cut remedial reading and continuing education, and to defer

desperately needed maintenance. Which of these areas do you feel should go --

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

Hon. Ms. Wynne: The fundamental difference between the previous government and this government is that, first of all, we believe in publicly funded education and, secondly, we have invested in

publicly funded education. I know the member opposite knows that. There is not a school in your area or in the Toronto District School Board or in the Toronto Catholic District School Board that has not felt the result of the millions of dollars

that we have put into Good Places to Learn. There are capital projects across this province, including in the city of Toronto, including in Dufferin-Peel, where boilers are being fixed, where windows are being replaced. Maintenance that I as a

school board trustee was forced to put off and defer is being attended to. Those lists of facility concerns that I was presented as a school board trustee are being addressed because of the millions of dollars that we have put into the system. I

look forward, as we move forward --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question. I can wait.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As the MPP for a rural riding, I've been fielding questions this summer from several of my

constituents about the government's proposed Clean Water Act, Bill 43. None of the farmers or the rural property owners dispute the need to better protect the sources of municipal drinking water. However, many expressed uncertainty about the

potential implications for them, both during the planning stage and once the plans are implemented. Unfortunately, some were needlessly upset by inaccurate statements that have been made about the act. Minister, could you please describe for the

members of this assembly, and for my constituents, what actions the government undertook to ensure that the issues of relevance to farmers and rural property owners were heard.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I've had an opportunity in this House before to talk about the consultation that has taken place on the Clean Water Act since October 2003,

by way of a white paper, round table discussions, consultation across the province, expert panels, my travels across the province. But really, what's critical right now is to focus on what transpired this summer. The Clean Water Act travelled, by

way of standing committee, across the province. Hundreds of community representatives came forward and gave us their good ideas and told us how we could make a good act even better. Our colleagues on this side of the House and that side of the

House brought forward their ideas, and on September 6 this government proposed amendments that will be made to make that act even better. We travelled the province. We listened to those concerns. We are amending the legislation. It will make a

good act even better.

Mrs. Van Bommel: Minister, it's obvious that the government has taken on a lot of consultation in terms of talking to the people who will be affected by the Clean Water Act when it is

implemented.

I want to contrast this with the little effort that the previous Conservative government put into consulting Ontarians prior to the introduction of both regulation 170 and the Nutrient Management Act. Upon

taking office, the McGuinty government had to re-engage rural Ontarians in constructive dialogue and, in the end, the McGuinty government made both manageable for rural Ontarians.

Minister, can you please describe what amendments the government will make in response to the good ideas that have been brought forward by rural Ontarians during the recent standing committee hearings into the

Clean Water Act?

Hon. Ms. Broten: I want to thank Maria Van Bommel and all of my colleagues who also brought forward those good ideas into this legislation. Some of those amendments include $7 million in

2007-08 for early action to protect drinking water; $5 million to support action to protect land and water surrounding municipal water wells and surface water intake; and $2 million to support local education and outreach related to source

protection planning.

We are replacing the permit system with a risk management plan, and we're ensuring that the risk management officials have the training and qualifications that they need to develop the plans with property

owners. These and other amendments have been well received. Among others who have given us their support are Ron Bonnett, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture: "This first stage financial assistance goes a long way toward addressing

the concerns of the farming community"; and John Maaskant: "This is an encouraging announcement and indicates that agricultural concerns have been taken into account."

LANDFILL

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The city of Toronto's purchase of the Green Lane landfill just outside of London has taken on a

life of its own. What is even more shocking is the lack of representation in the area where Green Lane is situated. The member for Elgin-Middlesex-London, in whose riding Green Lane is located, has known about this expansion since it was

announced. He was copied on your June 28, 2006, approval letter, about which you stated, "The expansion of Green Lane is good news for municipalities across Ontario who are seeking disposal capacity within the province rather than sending it to

Michigan." Yet other local and municipal elected officials, including those in your own caucus, had no idea.

Minister, why were neighbouring municipalities and your local members not consulted about receiving Toronto's garbage?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): What a fantasyland the folks on the other side of the Legislature must live in: eight years of inaction; a current member and the leader of

that party has indicated himself that he would not alter this transaction one single way. Your leader on the other side of the Legislature can sit and criticize, but he brings no solutions to the table.

On this side of the House, we're rolling up our sleeves, and we are ensuring in each and every case that matters are dealt with by the Ministry of the Environment and that communities are consulted. The terms

of reference of this environmental assessment were approved by the former government, and that environmental assessment transpired over three years -- a full year of analysis, consultation and scientific review by the Ministry of the Environment

to absolutely ensure that this landfill would operate, as it always had, in an environmentally responsible manner.

Ms. Scott: Minister, the question was about being consulted about receiving Toronto's garbage. So it has become abundantly clear that the people of the London area have lost the representation

of their MPPs, and that is a shame. The hard-working citizens of London and surrounding communities are now getting a real sense of McGuinty Liberals. Dalton McGuinty Liberals have shown us that Toronto votes trump London votes and he will say

anything and reach any lows in order to get re-elected.

Yesterday, the member for London-Fanshawe said, "I will do whatever is possible to block this," followed by, "I do not know what MPPs can do to block it."

If members of your own caucus feel so helpless, how concerned should the regular, hard-working people of London and other areas such as Ottawa near the Carp landfill site be that they are going to bear the

brunt of your broken promise of 60% waste diversion and your lack of any real plan for Ontario's garbage crisis, including energy from waste?

Hon. Ms. Broten: It's always interesting to hear from those on the other side of House whose raison d'être was creating a crisis. We're very confused by the perspective that the members

opposite bring forward. Would their leader cancel the landfill? I've not heard that be said. Would their leader intervene in a private contractual relationship between the city of Toronto, who has stepped forwards to manage their waste, and a

private entrepreneur who has supported his party in the past? I don't think so.

This is a process whereby the Ministry of the Environment has the responsibility to impose conditions to ensure that a landfill operates in a safe and environmentally sound fashion. Those conditions have been

imposed. They will continue, no matter who is the owner or operator of this site. The members of their communities in London are advocating on behalf of their constituents, as they should be doing. They are bringing those concerns forward. I will

be meeting with the municipal representatives later today --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, Minister of Labour.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound will come to order.

New question.

DISABILITY BENEFITS

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): In the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services, my question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, on May 15 this year, and again on June 21, I

asked your community and social services minister why she slashed Brian Woods's special diet allowance just a few short months after the Ombudsman's office, upon our intervention, reinstated it and even made his payments retroactive?

I'd like to remind you about Mr. Woods. He is a very sick man, very ill. He has diabetes, bleeding ulcers on his feet, heart problems, congestive heart failure, osteomyelitis, and he is legally blind. His

health is deteriorating because he cannot get proper nourishment. As of today, Mr. Woods still doesn't even have a date to plead his case to the benefits tribunal.

Premier, he thinks the minister is ignoring him. Will you take charge of this file and reinstate his special diet that the Ombudsman said he is legally entitled to?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I can't speak to the specifics of the case raised by my colleague, but I will undertake to bring it to the attention of the

minister and have the minister pursue it from there. But I can say that, as a matter of general principle, the purpose of the allowance is for people who require a special diet as a result of a medical condition. The Ontario Medical Association

has helped us create a new application form that clearly lists the medical conditions that require a special diet.

I gather my colleague is telling me that, even under our criteria, this particular individual should qualify for this special allowance. I don't know whether that is in fact the case, but again, I do undertake

to take it up with the minister.

Mr. Prue: It is not under your criteria; the Ombudsman of the province of Ontario has ordered him reinstated, and you've taken him off again.

On May 15, I asked the minister this very question. She did not respond. On May 16, I wrote to her asking for an answer. She did not respond. We did get a voice mail saying she might be able to do something,

but we heard nothing. We asked again on June 21. On June 28, my executive assistant called the minister's office begging for a reply and got none. As recently as three weeks ago on the streets of Parkdale-High Park, we met the minister out

knocking on doors with her executive assistant. She promised to do something but, as of today, nothing has been done. On September 12, we e-mailed her again and, one more time, there has been no response.

Brian is watching today. He is watching from his home right now. I want you to tell him straight: Will you order the minister to seek to reinstate his badly needed money, money that the Ombudsman of Ontario

has already said he deserves?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I want to thank the member for his question. What I will undertake is this: I will raise this matter with the minister. I think that certainly the member is entitled to a

response in a timely fashion. I think that's the best I can do at this point in time.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. On December 21 of last year, you came to my riding promising capital projects

of not one, not two, but three hospital projects. The people of Cornwall and all of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh were at first skeptical. They had heard such promises before. It was during the last election that your predecessor, the current

federal Minister of Health, came to Cornwall promising that he had a cheque for the redevelopment of the Cornwall Community Hospital in his back pocket. Upon assuming office, the McGuinty Liberals found that no funding had been set aside for that

purpose and that no plan had been created.

I'm pleased to say that, unlike the last government, the McGuinty Liberals have put their words into action and the money of my constituents back in their hands in the form of these hospital projects. Could

you update this House on the current standing of these capital projects?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm privileged to do so. In fact, Cornwall was one of those communities where the Conservative rubber cheque

policy was actually acknowledged by John Tory, who questioned it as appropriate. But we're really excited about the progress that's going on there.

At the main site at Cornwall Community Hospital, we're just about to get shovels going on a new wing project. That is to complete renovations for critical care, maternal and child care, and emergency services

that will allow for a further $60-million redevelopment. We're excited about that. Over at St. Joe's, which is taking on the complex continuing care role, renovations are substantially complete. Up the road in Winchester, it won't be long now that

we'll begin to rebuild that hospital.

The reality is that if people visit Jim Brownell's Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, they will see a very, very fine piece of evidence of health care renaissance taking place. That community has the benefit of

excellent representation and will very soon have the benefit of the most modern health care facilities of any riding, I dare say, in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Brownell: One of my first acts as MPP for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh was to present you with the plans for these three hospital projects in my riding. I have since participated in the

shovel in the ground at the St. Joseph's Continuing Care Centre and was present from the start at the first stage of the redevelopment of the Cornwall Community Hospital. By themselves, these hospital projects will have a huge impact in health

care delivery in my riding. People will no longer have to travel to Ottawa or Kingston for certain advanced treatments, and wait times will continue to shrink.

The hospitals aren't the only projects that are forming the renaissance in health care in my riding. On that same day last December, you announced that a new community health centre would be built in Cornwall.

Minister, health care is more than just bricks and mortar. My question to you: Are there more health care professionals delivering more services for my constituents?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: At the heart of it, health care is about a public service delivered with a lot of love alongside. We're so proud that about a quarter of a million health care workers

every day bring that love to the front line. We're really proud of what's going on in the Champlain local health integration area as well: 11 new family health teams; 12 new community health centres and/or satellites; 350 more nurses; and 75

foreign-trained doctors, new, who are in practice in those communities.

The reality is that all across Ontario, instead of having more and more orphaned patients, we have fewer. The reality for Champlain is that because we've had a 407% increase in the number of Ontarians who are

accessing primary care through an organized model, we've been able to accomplish, at least so far, 91,000 patients, previously orphaned by that party and that party, who can identify with having a doctor and receiving the care that they need as

close to home as possible.

We're proud to stand behind our public system of medicare and to make these investments to restore confidence in health care by being confident about our public health care system and putting the people's

dollars where they're required: behind good-quality public services.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Premier. Recently, your energy minister, when questioned on how people were to cope with the policies of this government

that have resulted in thousands of dollars being taken out of the pockets of working families in this province through skyrocketing taxes and energy and hydro rates, your minister told them, basically, "Wrap yourself up in some blankets, get some

good red wine and cuddle up with someone you care about. It'll help you get through those cold nights." Premier, do you agree with this flippant and dismissive attitude and the reply to hard-working families who are finding it tough in this

province? Do you agree with the comments of your minister?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): I think I suggested about five or six different ways that people could conserve energy. I also suggested that conservation is important to the future

of this province's energy supply, and I suggested that by conserving energy in modest ways, people could in fact cut their energy bills, cut their consumption and help the environment at the same time.

We think conservation is an extremely important component of fixing the energy system. That's why we've invested in it and that's why we're going to continue to invest in conservation. It's the view of this

government that conservation can not only help the environment, it can be something done with relatively modest changes in one's lifestyle, and it can also be something that people should participate in and should try to help out with.

Mr. Yakabuski: Well, Premier, thank you for not answering. Maybe you'll answer this time.

Ontarians are feeling the weight of your government's failed energy plan. Jobs are disappearing across northern Ontario faster than Liberal caucus members are leaving. While those people are hurting, your

minister plays Marie Antoinette to people in northern Ontario. While he may be able to afford good red wine, people who have last their jobs simply cannot.

Premier, I'm asking you to tell your minister to apologize for his flippant and dismissive attitude to hard-working families. Ask him to apologize to the people of Ontario who are suffering under your

regime.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I think the Tories should say why their leader said that conservation is a misplaced priority. We think it's an important priority. He should turn to his colleague, who is

normally sitting next to him -- here's what he said about conservation: "The private sector asked us to get out of large-scale government conservation programs. Those efforts may have made the odd person feel good but they had absolutely no

effect." We don't agree with that.

I will continue to say that people can manage their electricity bills better through conservation. There are a number of things they can do in their individual lifestyles. I know members around here have done

that, members opposite have done that. It's important to do that. Conservation is an important part of the solution to the challenges facing our energy sector. People can make important changes with modest changes in their lifestyles. Those

changes, in fact, can not only be important to the environment, they should also help us educate ourselves and enjoy the fruits of all our labours.

ORGANIC WASTE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. You will recall your 2003 election platform where you promised to divert 60% of waste from landfills and implement a

ban on organic material going to waste dumps. You said then, "Organic waste is a resource, not garbage. We will phase in a ban on organic waste in our landfills, diverting it instead to environmentally friendly compost."

Premier, in your fourth year of government, where is your ban on organic material going to waste dumps?

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): It's great to be back and have a chance to talk about in this Legislature all of the steps being taken in this province to see increased

waste diversion as we move forward with waste management tools for the municipalities and industry for the 21st century.

Let me focus on one of the announcements the Premier and I made over the summer with respect to the bottle return and the fact that we will now see bottles that have clogged our blue box system returned to the

Beer Store, at the request of the municipalities, responding to a long call being made by the municipalities that they needed a change in the approach with respect to the management of the blue box program. Two new programs on their way for blue

box: household hazardous waste, special waste, electronics.

We are also seeing regulatory enforcement in the ICI sector, who to this date have not done enough work with respect to diversion. When we come back on the supplementary, I'll speak directly to the work being

done on organics.

Mr. Hampton: Once again the McGuinty government calls a photo op and a press conference a plan. The fact is, Toronto wants to divert more waste from landfill, Guelph wants to divert more waste

from landfill, London wants to divert more waste from landfill. But they need a plan from the McGuinty government and they need funding from the McGuinty government to make it happen. Here we are in the fourth year of the McGuinty government and

there's still no waste diversion plan and there is no funding for municipalities. Instead, the Minister of the Environment stands up and says to London that they should simply accept a mega-dump.

My question to you again, Premier, is this: When did your promise to ban organic waste from dump sites become cash for trash, and London being forced to take a mega-dump?

Hon. Ms. Broten: I guess as it continues, the leader of the third party never lets the facts get in the way of a good fearmongering story.

Let me tell you what's happening in this province with respect to organics. A number of communities are on their way with household organics programs, and that will divert 480,000 tonnes of household organics

each and every year. Six municipalities already have those organic recycling programs in their commitment under way, developing those programs. Another number of communities -- York, Peel region -- are expected to go region-wide this year,

2006-07, and that will divert another 135,000 tonnes of household organics. Nine more communities have trial programs across the province.

That's what's happening in organics in this province. We are not focused on a piece of paper. We're focused on results, and that's what we're going to deliver to the people of Ontario.

CHINESE LANTERN FESTIVAL

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Throughout the summer, I attended many different festivals and events in Thornhill, in the city of Vaughan, in

Markham, all over Ontario. I think that one of the greatest attributes of Ontario is that we celebrate our diversity through colourful events that excite our senses and allow us to explore many cultures. I recall you speaking in the spring about

an event that was coming to Ontario Place this summer called the Chinese Lantern Festival. Minister, can you tell us about the Chinese Lantern Festival that is taking place right now at Ontario Place?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I certainly can. I want to thank the member for an excellent question today. This

summer, the government of Ontario partnered with the People's Republic of China to bring the world's largest lantern festival outside of Asia to Ontario. With just a short time to go, the festival has attracted 33,000 more attendees than had been

expected for the entire two-and-a-half-month run. That is 163,000 attendees.

Anyone who has attended this event in the last few months has most certainly been in awe of the 30 elaborate, large-scale lantern installations and 3,000 lanterns that transform the Ontario Place middle

kingdom landscape, depicting the tales and traditions of one of the world's largest and most ancient cultures and lighting up Toronto skies. Remember, you've got till October 1 to see it. Don't miss it.

Mr. Racco: Thank you, Minister, and I will definitely be encouraging my constituents to get out to the festival this weekend.

It is great to hear about successful events such as this one happening in our province, especially in a time when China is becoming one of the world's largest sources of tourists. You mentioned that our

government has partnered with the People's Republic of China on bringing this event to Ontario. Can you explain the benefits of working together with governments such as China on these and similar events in our province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I certainly can. China, obviously, is emerging as a huge tourist market. By 2020, the number of outbound Chinese travellers is expected to reach 100 million. Promoting

Ontario in this market and creating new partnerships is vital to our tourism industry.

But we want Americans to come to see this as well, and I have some good news for the member today. I just saw a Canadian Press story that says that as we advocated, US legislators on a bipartisan committee

today agreed to extend the deadline for tough new identification measures at the Canada-US border for some 17 months. That is what the province of Ontario was fighting for, that is what we wanted to see happen and, through the efforts we have

made, we are seeing some progress that will allow American friends to come in greater numbers to visit the Chinese Lantern Festival which was so successful.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I am pleased to present a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal Income Tax Act at present has a minimum amount of medical expenses for which a taxpayer is entitled to claim a non-refundable income tax credit;

"Whereas the health and medical expenses of every citizen in the province of Ontario, great or small, affect their overall net income;

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal government moved in their 2004 budget on May 18, 2004, to delist publicly funded medical services such as chiropractic services, optometry examinations and physiotherapy

services;

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

"That the Income Tax Act remove the present minimum amount of medical expenses for which an Ontario taxpayer is entitled to claim a non-refundable income tax credit."

I'm pleased to sign and endorse this and present it to one of the new pages, Olivia.

COLORECTAL CANCER

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions that have been given to me by the Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada. This reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is incumbent that the Ontario government introduce a population-based screening program for colorectal cancer immediately based on the 2002 report by the National Cancer Commission on Colorectal

Cancer Screening and recommendations by Cancer Care Ontario;

"Whereas the Ontario government has not implemented a colorectal cancer screening program, and still has an extra duty to provide the standard of care that is recommended in the treatment of colorectal

cancer;

"Whereas the Ontario government has elected not to fund the medications which form the standard of care for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer; namely Oxaliplatin and Avastin;

"Whereas the government should rightly fund these medications;

"Whereas forcing patients to pay for these drugs constitutes a two-tiered health care system which is unacceptable for the standard treatment of Canada's second-biggest cancer killer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to:

"(

a) introduce and implement a population-based colorectal cancer screening program; and

"(

b) fund necessary medications for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, namely Oxaliplatin and Avastin."

I agree with the petitioners. I have affixed my signature to this.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I've got a petition here to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from a lot of our brothers and sisters in the Canadian Auto Workers from Oakville, from

Georgetown, from Brampton and from Holland Landing, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas more than 260,000 Ontarians make their living and support their families through their careers in the auto industry in Ontario, which has become the pre-eminent manufacturer of motor vehicles in North

America; and

"Whereas Canada imports more than 130,000 vehicles annually from the Republic of Korea, which imports virtually no vehicles or parts from Canada and does none of its manufacturing or assembly in Ontario or in

any other Canadian jurisdiction, even though Canadian auto workers make the best-quality, most cost-effective vehicles in the world; and

to require Korea to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to Canadian-made vehicles, auto parts and other value-added services or components;

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

country to the other's domestic markets in manufactured products such as motor vehicles and in value-added services, and ensure that Korea commits to manufacturing vehicles in Canada if Korea proposes to continue to sell vehicles in Canada."

This is an excellent petition. I wholeheartedly agree with it. I've affixed my signature to it.

I'm going to ask my Mississauga West page, Taylor, to carry it for me, and welcome him to the Legislative Assembly.

CELLPHONES

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present another petition on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Durham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the safe operation of a motor vehicle requires the driver's undivided attention; and

"Whereas research has shown that the operation of devices such as cellphones," pagers and other devices distract "from a driver's ability to respond and concentrate on the task at hand," which is driving;

"and

"Whereas approximately 40 jurisdictions around the world have already passed legislation to restrict the use of cellphones while driving;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario enact legislation to curtail the use of" cellphones and other technology, "as proposed in the private member's legislation introduced by John O'Toole, MPP for

Durham."

I'm pleased to support that and present it to my petition friend Patrick, the page from Waterloo-Wellington.

COLORECTAL CANCER

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): More petitions have been sent to me by the Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada. I want to thank them for doing that. They've been signed by thousands of

people. They read as follows:

"To the Honourable Assembly of Ontario in Legislature assembled: ...

"That based on the 2002 report by the National Commission on Colorectal Cancer Screening and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario, it is incumbent that the Ontario government introduce a population-based

screening program for colorectal cancer immediately;

"That the Ontario government has not implemented a colorectal cancer screening program, and owes an extra duty to provide the standard of care that is recommended in the treatment of colorectal cancer;

"That the Ontario government has elected not to fund the medications which form the standard of care for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer; namely Oxaliplatin and Avastin;

"That the Ontario government should rightfully fund these medications;

"That forcing patients to pay for these drugs constitutes a two-tiered health care system which is unacceptable for the standard treatment of Canada's second-biggest cancer killer;"

The undersigned request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to do the following:

"(

a) Introduce and implement a population-based colorectal cancer screening program;

"(

b) Fund the necessary medications for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, namely Oxaliplatin and Avastin."

I agree with the petitioners. I've affixed my signature to these.

CHILD CUSTODY

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to introduce the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by many customers from Scoops restaurant in Niagara Falls. The

petition reads as follows:

"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 grandparent as is

consistent with the best interests of the child.

"Subsection 24(2.2) requires that 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.

"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."

We support Bill 8, as introduced by the member from Niagara Falls.

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

PASSPORT OFFICE

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

"Whereas, at present, residents of Barrie and surrounding area must travel to Toronto to receive a passport; and

"Whereas the only service available to obtain information or make application for a passport in the city of Barrie is through the post office or through the local MP office; and

"Whereas a passport to travel is now becoming a way of life for Canadians and there is a great need for a full-service passport office in the city of Barrie; and

"Whereas, due to the growth in population and demand and necessity for a passport to travel, a full-service passport office in the city of Barrie is essential; and

"Whereas, due to the current security enforcement in place, a full-service passport office in the city of Barrie is essential; and

"Whereas a full-service passport office would be beneficial not only to residents of Simcoe county but also Parry Sound-Muskoka region;

"We, the undersigned, petition the federal government to give consideration for a full-service passport office in the city of Barrie."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING /

RESTRUCTURATION MUNICIPALE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions that have been sent to me by Mr. Claude Berthiaume, who is a councillor in ward 2 in the city of Greater Sudbury. They read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the citizens of the city of Greater Sudbury believe they are overtaxed and underserviced and feel like second-class citizens;

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

"Direct the city of Greater Sudbury council to hold a referendum. The purpose of this referendum would be to obtain the citizens' opinion as to whether they prefer to maintain the city's new structure or

return to the previous regional municipality structure.

« À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Alors que les citoyens de la ville du Grand Sudbury croient qu'ils payent trop de taxes, voient une diminution dans les services et ressentent que leur voix ne compte pas;

« Nous, les soussignés, pétitionnons l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario comme suit :

« Exiger que le conseil de la ville du Grand Sudbury tienne un référendum. Le but de ce référendum est de connaître l'opinion des citoyens : savoir s'ils

préfèrent conserver la présente structure de la ville ou de retourner à l'ancienne structure de la municipalité régionale. »

I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to this.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition today regarding fair auto trade with South Korea.

"Whereas more than 260,000 Ontarians make their living and support their families through their careers in the auto industry in Ontario, which has become the pre-eminent manufacturer of motor vehicles in North

America; and

"Whereas Canada imports more than 130,000 vehicles annually from the Republic of Korea, which imports virtually no vehicles or parts from Canada and does none of its manufacturing or assembly in Ontario or in

any other Canadian jurisdiction, even though Canadian auto workers make the best-quality, most cost-effective vehicles in the world; and

measures to require Korea to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to Canadian-made vehicles, auto parts and other value-added services or components;

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

country to the other's domestic markets in manufactured products, such as motor vehicles and value-added services, and ensure that Korea commits to manufacturing vehicles in Canada if Korea proposes to continue to sell vehicles in Canada."

I'll affix my signature to this petition, and give it to page Julia.

CHILD SAFETY

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I have today to present in the House, along with the families who have been securing 65,000 signatures, a petition to the Parliament of Ontario entitled

"Justice for Jared and Kevin."

"Whereas eight-year-old Jared Osidacz of Brantford was brutally murdered by his father on March 18, 2006, during a court-ordered unsupervised access visit; and

"Whereas two-year-old Kevin Latimer died on February 2, 2004, after falling from his father's third-floor apartment window during a court-ordered unsupervised access visit; and

"Whereas Burlington MPP Cam Jackson has introduced Bill 89, Kevin and Jared's Law,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario and mandate

an automatic coroner's inquest when a child dies while in the care of a parent who is or has been the subject of a court access order; and

"Whereas Kevin and Jared's Law will designate family members as having standing during such inquests and be eligible for financial payment of legal costs through the victims' justice fund; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario has unclear guidelines and inconsistent policies for court-ordered supervised access programs that fail to prioritize the safety and welfare of children above all else; and

"Whereas

section 22 of the Coroners Act allows the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to direct that a coroner's inquest be held into a death whose circumstances merit public scrutiny so as

to prevent other deaths and injuries; and

"Whereas on April 4, 2006, Cam Jackson, MPP, on behalf of the victims' families, formally requested the minister to direct such an inquest into the deaths of these children, which was refused without

substantive reason;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, call upon the McGuinty government to call an immediate coroner's inquest and to pass into law Bill 89 as soon as possible to give Kevin and Jared the voice

they were denied in life before any more children's lives are lost."

I won't sign all 65,000 of these petitions, but I will submit this group today and recognize the families who are here in the House to join us to see the work they've been doing.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

Mr. Jackson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario / Projet de loi 89, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et

à la famille et la

Loi sur les coroners pour mieux protéger les enfants de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Jackson has moved third reading of Bill 89. The member for Burlington.

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): At the outset, let me say to all members of the House how very pleased so many people are that the government and the three party House leaders have come

together to determine that this is an important piece of legislation that has within it the ability to further protect children in our province. I want to acknowledge the work that's gone on over the last few months in order to make this bill

become a reality. That includes the support from the government in getting it to committee this summer, and for the courage of the families who came forward under very, very difficult circumstances in order to deal with the issue of the loss of

the precious lives of Jared Osidacz and Kevin Latimer. Jared Osidacz was only eight years old when he was brutally murdered by his father, and Kevin Latimer was a few days short of his second birthday when his innocent young life was snuffed out,

under circumstances which I believe that we will determine at some point in the future could have been prevented.

I personally want to thank the members of the House who have encouraged the forward movement of this legislation, particularly because of what it purports to do. The issue of a mandatory coroner's inquest is a

sensitive issue. Governments of all stripes are reluctant to direct a coroner to do anything. But Ontario has, perhaps, one of the most rich and profound histories when it comes to the work of the chief coroner in this province. The work that they

have done has made Ontario a safe and better place. Tragically, we have seen four children die this year in Ontario under the circumstances set out in this bill. I don't believe that we're going to see a lot of mandatory coroner's inquests as a

consequence of us passing this bill today.

The second substantive issue -- and this puts Ontario again into the forefront in Canada and perhaps even in North America in its efforts to make sure that our justice system is more responsive to the victims

of crime. As you know, many years ago this House approved the victims' justice fund. Every time someone breaks the law, a little bit of money is added to a pot, and that amount of money is there to assist victims of crime in our province. This

bill will empower and enable those persons who obtain standing at a coroner's inquest to seek funding to assist them with legal counsel. After all, in one of these kinds of coroner's inquests, the children's aid society will be represented there

by a taxpayer-funded lawyer; the police will have a lawyer there representing them, paid for by the taxpayers; if there are any municipal issues, the municipality will. The only person in that inquiry who will not have that support will be the

actual victim and their family. So this is a major step forward for victims' rights and for justice in our province and something that we can all share in with great pride, knowing that we have done something very right, very important and very

noble for the citizens of our province.

I want to pay public tribute to the courage of these two families. This has not been a journey they asked for, it's not one they wish to continue to be on, but in the memory of the loss of their beloved

children, they soldier forward in the hopes that Parliament will move things along for them.

I am touched by Kevin Latimer, who didn't achieve his second birthday, a constituent of mine, a beautiful little boy. On his headstone read the words, "Tread lightly; an angel lies here." Carved on that

headstone is a beautiful image of Bob the Builder and Thomas the Tank Engine. Why Kevin loved Bob the Builder so much is because his favourite expression was, "We can fix it," and yes, we can. That will be the legacy for Kevin Latimer: that he

will fix it for other children in this province.

To his grandmother and to his mother, who have been an inspiration when we thought there was a chance this bill may not go through -- and we're delighted that it is. She sent me this piece of short scripture

from Timothy: "At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all might

hear it. And I was delivered out of the lion's mouth."

Thank you to the families. Thank you to this House. Let's get on with the good work of helping children in our province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm proud to speak in favour of this bill on behalf of New Democrats today and want to say that I'm pleased that the government has decided to have second

thoughts and that we are in the position of debating this bill today. I look forward to the day this bill receives royal assent and comes into force in the province of Ontario.

When we went through the committee process for this bill, the final result of that discussion, after the public hearings and after the clause-by-clause debate, was that we had every member of the committee

supporting this bill, supporting it coming to third reading, supporting what it was going to be able to do to change the way things were happening currently in the province of Ontario.

Nobody could have sat in that room, particularly during the public hearings process, and shared the anguish and the pain that was shared with us by the presenters, particularly Jenny Latimer and Julie Craven,

and simply do nothing about the injustices they saw in the system that led to their children being in harm's way. It become very clear that in many ways our child protection system is still in significant disarray.

What Bill 89 provides is a way for us to learn from those tragedies -- the ones that have occurred and, God forbid, the ones that we know are likely to happen in the future. Those deaths of children -- it's

incumbent upon us to learn from those deaths. It's incumbent upon us to find out what it is that we can do to change the system to remove children from harm's way in the future.

I heard that day very obvious changes that I could see, as they took us through their experiences, needed to be put into effect in the province. One of the very basic things that needs to change is that, first

and foremost, the voices of these women need to be heard and heeded. That's one of the basic things that needs to be changed. You simply need to look through the Hansards and the remarks that were brought to the table during the hearings process,

where you could see, time and time again, that these women's voices were not heard. They were not heard by the justice system. They were not heard by the lawyers. In some cases, they were not heard by the children's aid society when they warned,

time and time again, that the fathers of their children were abusers, that the fathers of their children were not going to provide a safe environment for their children to be placed in without supervision.

In fact, in Jenny Latimer's case, there is still fear that her child whom she still is trying to protect may be put in that position yet again because the system simply is not hearing her. She does not feel

that her son is going to be safe in his father's care without supervision.

So woman abuse and family violence needs to be heard and needs to be heeded and needs to be acted upon in this province. It needs to be heard by all of those people I just described a moment ago.

Our overcrowded Family Court system needs to be dealt with. It can't handle the volumes of cases that are there, so things are hurried up; things are moved along. In hurrying up and moving along, we end up

putting children at risk, and that is unacceptable in the province of Ontario. The lack of financial resources, the fact that women in many cases are the ones who are not able to afford the better lawyer and so have to take whatever they can

afford -- because there isn't enough money, there isn't enough access to financial aid to be able to get legal assistance of a calibre that will help them ensure that the rights of themselves and their children are taken seriously by the

system.

There are a number of things that we learned during those committee hearings, and yes, Bill 89 will go a long way to help the coroner in an inquest put some real teeth behind some of the changes that need to

take place to make these children safe in the province of Ontario.

My last remark is about other changes that I believe need to be made. Those include having Ombudsman oversight over children's aid societies in the province of Ontario. That's another big step, because what

that will do is help us identify and implement systemic changes in the province of Ontario before a child is put at risk, before a child is in a situation where they're not in a safe custody situation.

There are many things we need to do. Bill 89 is one of them, and I'm proud to be here to support it. I want to thank the family members, too, for the very good work that they've done. I feel very, very badly

for the fact that you've had to go through what you've had to.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I stand before you complimenting the private members' bill process, as I've done since I was elected in 1999, to indicate that private members' bills, although they

don't become legislation all that often, provide us with the opportunity to use this place as a voice of the people. That's what we're hearing today.

It's very safe and very fair to say that everyone in this Legislature does want to ensure, to the best of their ability, that the children of Ontario are as safe as they can be. When a child dies, like Kevin

and Jared, not only do the families mourn, not only do the communities mourn, but indeed everyone mourns. No one knows the pain. No one knows the suffering of the families. When a child dies after a parent who has been ordered against them, that

death should be investigated.

I've heard about Kevin's struggle and his fight for life. I've heard Jared's mom talking about her son, talking about the incident. I've heard grandpa talk about Jared as a "special angel." These, indeed, were

special children.

During the committee hearings, I did put forward a motion that I thought was appropriate in order for us to cover and capture even more circumstances that could happen to children under care. The motion didn't

receive unanimous consent and, therefore, may have caused some people to think differently than what the bill was intended to do.

There's not one member in the House who wouldn't want to do anything that would prevent these tragedies from happening again. Indeed, the parents have made it quite clear that they do not want to have another

thing happen to another child, even though they still grieve. We as legislators have a responsibility to do our utmost to protect children. We all take that responsibility seriously. There are very few people in this province who have walked in

the shoes of the mothers of Kevin and Jared -- so few. We cannot express what they feel.

Today is a day to move forward and indeed, dare I say, at least in a small way, to celebrate that we have collectively come together to indicate to the rest of the people of Ontario that we will do our best,

we will continue to move and improve and step forward in a reasoned way, to protect the children of Ontario.

I leave us all with a challenge, and that challenge is to keep our minds open, to continue to think beyond today to ensure that we respect the legacy that has been given to us in oh, so short a time by these

children; that we respect the families; that we intend, to the best of our ability, to continue to keep children in our hearts and in our minds; and -- as I've used in the past and will continue to use -- the message of our First Nations people:

to continue to look to seven generations in front so that these types of tragedies, to the best of our ability, can be stopped once and for all.

I thank all the members in this place for putting us in the position to be true leaders in keeping our children safe.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Jackson has moved third reading of Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario.

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

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

CONCERNANT LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 25, 2006, on the motion for second reading of Bill 130,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities / Projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant diverses lois en

ce qui concerne les municipalités.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): As I started my speech yesterday by reminding people that I am usually in the unenviable position of giving bifurcated speeches, half one day and half

another, this is the continuation of what I started yesterday -- and since there are so many new people here in attendance who were not here yesterday, just to, in about 30 seconds or so, recapture where I started from yesterday. We are talking

about Bill 130 but I felt it necessary to talk about Bill 130 as being part of a very large package of bills which all deal with municipal structure. There's Bill 130, which we're dealing with today. There was the City of Toronto Act, which passed

earlier this year. There is Bill 51, which has to do with the Ontario Municipal Board and the powers of municipalities and the citizens who appear before it. There is also, as the minister said yesterday, ongoing discussion and possible changes of

policy and procedure under the guise of the municipal service review. All of that is taking place together and in conjunction with each other.

When I started off yesterday, I talked about what had transpired to date and how disappointed the members of the opposition were, and indeed I think many members of this House were disappointed, that the lofty

goals set out in the City of Toronto Act, which was to allow the city of Toronto to finally shake off those shackles of 1867, when it was determined that cities and towns would be the creatures of the province -- we all had some very high hopes

indeed that that would happen with the passage of the City of Toronto Act.

I had to remind members of the government that although we in the New Democratic Party voted for that bill, despite some of its warts and some of its problems, we were very disappointed to find that the

provisions of that act lasted all of about two weeks and that, some two weeks later in the debate at committee stage of Bill 51, what the province and the Liberal government had given to the city of Toronto, they summarily took away. They took

away the right of the city of Toronto to have any say on energy proposals located within the city, a right that they had granted them only two weeks before with the proclamation and the promulgation of that very City of Toronto Act. So within two

weeks, the very high and great-sounding words that came from the government's mouth were no longer there.

I started off yesterday by talking about the government's platform and how they said they wanted to work with governments at the municipal level, who were senior levels of government and needed to have the

right to work in their own right and showed quite, I think, fairly and honestly what had happened. Although those high-sounding words were used in the passage of the act and those same high-sounding words are used as this bill goes to second

reading, the obvious actions of the government belie those words.

During the hearing on Bill 51, we saw what I take -- and I hope it's not a word -- if it is, you will remind me, Mr. Speaker. We saw what we considered to be the hypocrisy of the government on this issue,

saying one thing and acting in quite a different way. Before the ink was dry on the City of Toronto Act, the McGuinty Liberals were back amending it to ensure that the city of Toronto did not have the ability to stop or to slow down the

government's misguided Portlands mega power plant.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I know the member to be an honourable one, and I'm sure that his use of the word that was said just a short time ago would be

withdrawn because he knows it's not acceptable language in the House.

The Acting Speaker: I appreciate the intervention of the member for Brant and would ask the member for Beaches-East York to use language that does not inflame the passions of other members of

the House.

Mr. Prue: I'm not sure what that word was, but I will be very careful in my language, Mr. Speaker, as I always attempt to do.

Instead of focusing on providing the city of Toronto with the powers to protect and develop its eastern waterfront for the benefit of its citizens, in Bill 51 the McGuinty government sought to remove council's

control. As you will recall, it is not just the city of Toronto that lost this control. If you look at Bill 51,

section 23 of that act, which was passed by a majority of Liberal members sitting on the committee -- five hands went up, as in almost

all of the contentious articles of the bill. Five hands went up to take away the self-same right of literally all 460 municipalities in the province of Ontario. As of that date -- and I'm sure it's coming back for third reading soon -- the

municipalities in Ontario no longer have control over energy projects which occur within the jurisdiction of the municipality.

The minister yesterday chided me -- I got two minutes to talk about what he had to say and raise this very point -- by saying that in Ontario there has never been a right of a municipality to do anything

against the Ontario Power Corp., against the electricity company of the province of Ontario as it existed prior to its being dismantled and rebuilt in its many guises and forms.

But what he said is correct: The municipalities have never had the power to question the site location or the need of or the ability of Ontario Hydro to provide hydroelectricity to the citiz