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

April 5, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Apr-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 5 April 2004 Lundi 5 avril 2004

DEATH OF MEMBER

FOR HAMILTON EAST

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PROPERTY TAXATION

SMALL BUSINESS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

ADAMS MINE LAKE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE LAC DE LA MINE ADAMS

MEMBERS' INTEGRITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'INTÉGRITÉ DES DÉPUTÉS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WASTE DISPOSAL /

GESTION DES DÉCHETS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

SOCIAL SERVICES

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

SMALL BUSINESS

WASTE DISPOSAL

AUTISM SERVICES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

HYDRO RATES

HIGHWAY TOLLS

POLICE COMPLAINTS

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

PETITIONS

DIALYSIS

HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LANDFILL

HYDRO RATES

CHILDREN'S NUTRITION

PROPERTY TAXATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

LANDFILL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH INFORMATION

PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LA SANTÉ

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

DEATH OF MEMBER

FOR HAMILTON EAST

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that as a result of the vacancy of membership in the House for the electoral district

of Hamilton East arising from the death of Dominic Agostino Esq, I've issued my warrant to the Chief Election Officer for the issuing of a writ for a by-election.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise today to remind the Liberals in this House that they actually made some promises during the election

campaign, and when you make a promise you should keep it. They've broken so many promises in just six short months that it's really hard for anyone to keep track of them all.

For example, the Liberals did not stop development on the Oak Ridges moraine. The Liberals raised taxes. The Liberals have indicated they will not balance the

budget. The Liberals lifted the cap on hydro rates. The Liberals lifted the commercial property tax cap. The Liberals did not lower car insurance rates. The Liberals did not roll back toll

increases on Highway 407. The Liberals did not honour their de-amalgamation commitment to the city of Kawartha Lakes. The list goes on and on.

I also want to touch on the leadership style, or lack thereof, of the McGuinty government. I like to call it governing by trial balloon. Here's how it works. The

government sends a trial balloon up, and if it floats they go with it-pretty simple. The latest trial balloon was retesting Ontario drivers, but that balloon was quickly deflated. He wanted to copy

Ralph Klein, he thought for a while. Then there were other trial balloons like reinstating photo radar, restricting the drug plan for seniors, and even Highway 69 tolls.

So much for governing by keeping your promises. It becomes clearer and clearer with each passing day of the government's mandate that Dalton McGuinty said

whatever he had to say during the campaign to get elected, and decided to deal with the consequences later. I can tell you what the consequences are right now: a short-lived, one-term

government.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I am very pleased that the Minister of Education is reviewing the school closing guidelines and

the education funding formula that discriminates against small rural schools. I want to remind the minister that many communities across Ontario are anxiously awaiting the outcome of both policy

reviews.

Several school boards have designated small rural schools for possible closure because of a one-size-fits-all formula. Their communities would be significantly

damaged both economically and socially by these closures. Their students would find it difficult to participate in extracurricular activities or hold part-time jobs.

I also want to remind the minister of the educational value of these small rural schools. A research report authored by Dr Allan Lauzon and Ms Danielle Leahy of

the University of Guelph examined school consolidation and the rural community as well as the importance of school size.

In the conclusions of the report are the following statements:

"There is little empirical evidence for cost savings that can be realized through consolidations and closures."

"The alleged savings that can be realized at this point have more to do with rhetoric and ideology than it has to do with empirical realities of what we

currently know."

"This is particularly important given the preponderance of evidence supporting that small schools are more effective pedagogically than larger schools."

I urge the minister to consider these conclusions as he develops his new policies.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today on an issue which is important to many of the small businesses in my riding and,

indeed, throughout rural Ontario. The issue that I'm referring to is the tax increases placed on rural Ontario businesses by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. I noted with interest that after

much protest from these various small business owners, the Ministry of Finance issued a press release on March 10 backing away from some of the more onerous aspects of these tax increases.

I also noticed that although the Minister of Finance has given trailer park operators and maple syrup producers a reprieve for this year, they are to negotiate

with the ministry for the following years. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that MPAC has had a negative impact on many more small business owners in a variety of sectors. Fruit

and vegetable operations, grain and corn dryers, egg hatcheries, golf courses and woodlot owners are just some of the businesses which are having their taxes raised by this government.

You can be assured that our caucus and I will continue to work with small business groups and fight with this government to ensure that you will maintain lower

taxes for all hard-working Ontarians.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): Today I rise to recognize the incredible spirit of Ontario's entrepreneurs, who make our province one of the best

places in the world to live and work. For the past few weeks, I've been representing the Honourable Joseph Cordiano at the regional Ontario Global Traders Awards and at the Chinese Canadian

Entrepreneurs Awards in Markham.

In my own riding of Markham, the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and thriving. Of the 7,200 businesses, over 85% are small businesses. The growth of my community

is directly related to Markham's ability to attract and retain these businesses. One such vehicle for inspiring and encouraging small business growth is the Markham Small Business Enterprise

Centre, which provides accurate and timely assistance to aspiring and existing business entrepreneurs.

More unique is the Innovation Synergy Centre in Markham, ISCM, which assists thriving companies in realizing their growth potential in both the domestic and

international marketplace. Currently, the ISCM is the only centre in Ontario that is designed to accelerate the development of thriving enterprises with 10 to 50 employees. One of its distinctive

features is that it offers competitive intelligence and access to business expertise not generally available to growing enterprises.

By starting their own businesses and by developing their own products and services, Ontario's entrepreneurs are creating economic growth in every sector. There's

no question that the success of Ontario's entrepreneurs makes a significant contribution to the high quality of life enjoyed by all residents of Ontario.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This morning I was privileged to sponsor the release of this report, Walking on Eggshells: Abused Women's

Experiences of Ontario's Welfare System. This is the result of tireless and critically important work. We heard a devastating report this morning that demonstrates, without a doubt, what many of us

have known for some time and feared: that the social assistance provisions in the province, put in under the previous government, are simply grossly inadequate and are directly contributing to

ongoing violence against women and children.

I was deeply troubled by the report's first-hand experiences of women. I wasn't the only one reduced to tears, hearing some of those stories. What is crystal

clear is that the Liberal government needs to do more than just talk. It needs to keep its promises and even go beyond. It needs to walk the walk and commit to properly supporting abused women and

their children in this province, and now.

Social assistance benefits have to be increased for these women. Real rent controls have got to be brought in. The Liberals promised to stop the clawback from

the federal child benefits. That hasn't happened yet. We need to see the minimum wage raised even more. We need the social housing built that the government promised.

There are all kinds of things the government must move on now to help stop this wave of violence against women and children in this province.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): In the throne speech, our government committed to change. On February 26, we delivered through our

commitment to growing strong communities with $56 million given to affordable housing development.

In my riding of Mississauga East, which had not seen a single unit built under the previous government and which now faces waiting lists of five to seven years,

the news was received with fanfare and pleasure.

The community of Mississauga East, and specifically the seniors from my community and those from Peel Senior Link, would like to thank our government for its

commitment to providing seniors with crucial services they need, for on February 26 our government pledged $1 million to the Twin Pines project. The funding for this growth will bring much-needed

aid in the form of 136 units. This will allow for independent living that will open up beds in our hospitals and long-term-care facilities that may otherwise have been occupied by those who could

not take advantage of projects such as Twin Pines.

Furthermore, independence to seniors will bring benefits in that they will now be able to receive the dignity and respect they deserve, leading to greater

emotional and physical well-being.

We are committed to working together with our municipal and federal partners so as to bring strength to our communities through investment initiatives that will

ultimately be beneficial to Ontarians. I'd like to thank Minister Caplan for the pledge to those seniors in need living in Mississauga East and other areas of Ontario.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It has become increasingly clear that the Minister of Finance, Greg Sorbara, is not just the

power behind the throne; he is, for all intents and purposes, the real Premier of Ontario.

How else can we explain his refusal to inform Mr McGuinty for over two months that a company of which he was a director and audit chair responsible for

protecting shareholders' interests was under investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission, Revenue Canada and the RCMP?

How else can we explain the fact that Mr McGuinty sees nothing wrong with the Minister of Finance participating in the selection of a new vice-chair for the

securities commission, someone who could ultimately sit as his judge and jury?

How else can we explain the fact that Mr McGuinty has removed responsibility from Mr Sorbara for the securities commission, the Toronto Stock Exchange, the

Toronto Futures Exchange and the commodity futures exchange?

How else can we explain why six Liberal backbenchers broke the government's promise of openness and accountability at the standing committee on general

government? Who were they protecting?

For some time, many people have suspected that Dalton McGuinty was not up to the job, that if elected he would be an empty vessel, a mirage, a figurehead

Premier. For members of this assembly and increasingly for the people of Ontario, it is becoming patently obvious just who the real Premier of Ontario is. Stand up, Greg Sorbara.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I listened very carefully to the member who just spoke, and would I refer to our rules

of debate,

section 23:

"In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she...

"(

h) Makes allegations against another member.

"(

i) Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member."

Speaker, I think that was an inappropriate use of our time in this House.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I know that your point of order, your quote, is right, but the fact is that what he said was no allegation

itself imputing any kind of motive to this individual or false allegations.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): The very first action that Dalton McGuinty took after putting his hand on the Bible and being sworn in as

the Premier of Ontario was to increase by 800% the full ministers representing the city of Toronto. He also gave the key posts of Minister of Transportation and Minister of Finance to MPPs who

bordered the city of Toronto. Boy, was that a sign of bad things to come.

Dalton McGuinty promised no more special deals for the city of Toronto and he said that he would treat communities like Ottawa and rural Ontario fairly. This is

just another example of Dalton McGuinty breaking his promises, Dalton McGuinty not living up to his word.

Let's just look at one area. Let's look at public transit: on November 28, $64 million for the TTC; on December 23, just about on Christmas Eve, under the cover

of darkness when no one was looking, they slipped the Toronto Transit Commission another $62.4 million; and last week more than $350 million on one day and a few hundred million dollars the next

day. At the same time, the city of Ottawa and its city council are slashing the OC Transpo budget by millions, and more than 1.5 million riders will be on the street next year with the cancellation

of several routes. Dalton McGuinty promised to do things differently. Dalton McGuinty is the Premier only of Toronto.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

PRICE FREEZE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE GEL DU PRIX

DE CERTAINS PRODUITS PÉTROLIERS

Mr Tascona moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 48,

An Act to provide for an interim freeze in the price of certain petroleum products / Projet de loi 48, Loi prévoyant le gel provisoire du prix

de certains produits pétroliers.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): The bill's intent is to bring stability to the pricing of gasoline. The bill freezes the price of

petroleum protects at the price of those products on March 31. The freeze applies from the day the bill comes into force and lasts for 90 days. If the Legislative Assembly is not sitting when the

freeze ends, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order impose a further freeze for no more than 60 days from the day of making the order.

ADAMS MINE LAKE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE LAC DE LA MINE ADAMS

Mrs Dombrowsky moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 49,

An Act to prevent the disposal of waste at the Adams Mine site and to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the disposal of waste in

lakes / Projet de loi 49, Loi visant à empêcher l'élimination de déchets à la mine Adams et à modifier la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement en ce qui

concerne l'élimination de déchets dans des lacs.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): The bill prohibits the disposal of waste at the Adams mine site, an abandoned open pit mine

located approximately 10 kilometres southeast of the town of Kirkland Lake. The bill revokes certain environmental approvals that have been issued in connection with the possible disposal of waste

at the Adams mine site. It also renders of no force or effect certain agreements that have been entered into with the crown relating to lands described in the bill that are adjacent to the Adams

mine site, as well as any letters patent that may be issued in respect of those lands. The bill extinguishes certain causes of action that may exist in respect of the Adams mine site or the

adjacent lands. The bill entitles numbered company 1532382 Ontario Inc to compensation from the crown in respect of certain expenses. The bill amends the Environmental Protection Act to prohibit a

person from operating a waste disposal site if any part of the site is located in a lake.

MEMBERS' INTEGRITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'INTÉGRITÉ DES DÉPUTÉS

Mr Runciman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 50,

An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 50, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des

députés.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This bill seeks to amend the Members' Integrity Act to make it mandatory for cabinet ministers to

declare all potential conflicts of interest to the Integrity Commissioner without delay. Essentially, the bill seeks to strengthen requirements to the members of Ontario's executive council to

report any and all potential conflicts to the Integrity Commissioner so as to avoid any question of conflict-of-interest charges while serving in cabinet. The bill also seeks to give the Members'

Integrity Act precedence over all other acts on issues of conflict of interest and integrity matters.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, April 5, 2004, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

All those against? Did I hear a nay? I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1353 to 1358.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise to be counted.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 69; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WASTE DISPOSAL /

GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): The McGuinty government is delivering real, positive change to ensure that communities

across Ontario are clean, safe and livable. Ontarians deserve a cleaner environment and cleaner communities that benefit the people who live in them. As part of our commitment to the environment,

today I am introducing the Adams Mine Lake Act. If passed, the act would stop the Adams mine landfill proposal once and for all.

The key approvals for this proposal came before the Walkerton tragedy. That sad event raised our awareness of the need to safeguard our precious water

resources. The proposed legislation would revoke all existing approvals for the Adams mine landfill and prevent the site from ever being used as a landfill. The endless proposals and challenges

around the Adams mine have for too long drained the energy and resources of local communities. For too long, it has created divisiveness. The local communities have repeatedly voiced concerns about

the Adams mine landfill. For this government, the protection of our communities is of paramount concern. We have promised to address the situation, and today we are keeping that commitment. This is

about protecting our environment and respecting our communities.

Today's legislation, if passed, would achieve the following: It would prohibit the disposal of waste at the Adams mine site. It would revoke all existing

approvals dealing with the Adams mine site and would void any decision on a permit to take water and nullify any applications for permits under consideration. It would remove the ability of any

party to take legal action against the government on these directions. It would outline a plan to provide reasonable compensation for the owner of the Adams mine site. And most notably, most

importantly, today's legislation would amend the Environmental Protection Act to disallow the use of any lake larger than one hectare in area as a landfill site. Protection of our precious water

resources is a hallmark of the McGuinty government. It would be totally inconsistent and unacceptable, given our priorities, to ever allow garbage to be dumped in a lake.

Today our government announced a new strategy to manage Ontario's waste and reduce the burden on landfills in the province. This far-reaching strategy will

help us by setting targets for waste diversion and diversion over the next four years.

Just as importantly, we are addressing the issues within the environmental assessment process that have led to so much uncertainty for so long. Ontario is

setting an ambitious new provincial goal: to divert 60% of waste from disposal by 2008. We will release a discussion paper this spring that explores options to divert 60% of waste from landfill, we

will look at ways to allow the private sector to do more recycling and we will help industry find new markets that will allow the construction and demolition sectors to recycle their waste. Other

issues to be considered in the discussion paper include increasing the diversion of organics and recyclables from disposal, the expansion of central composting facilities and the role of new

technologies to help Ontario divert more waste from landfills.

This government is also acting on the need to improve the environmental assessments and approvals process. This is of particular importance for waste

management facilities, provincial highways, transit initiatives and clean energy projects. We will set up an expert advisory panel to identify ways to improve the environmental assessment process

to provide greater certainty and timeliness while maintaining a very high standard of environmental protection.

Our goal is to increase waste diversion, help find better ways to site landfills and make changes to the environmental assessment process that will give the

public more confidence and input to the process. I will announce the membership of the panel soon. As well, we will enter into a framework agreement with the federal government to coordinate the

environmental assessment process for projects that are subject to both provincial and federal jurisdictions. A draft agreement will be posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry very soon,

for a 30-day comment period.

Last week, at the Globe 2004 conference, I saw exciting examples of the benefits Ontario's environmental companies can offer as we move forward in this area.

We want to work closely with the private sector and municipalities to achieve our goals. The action plan I have announced today is all about ensuring safe, clean, livable communities. Simply put,

we are closing the door on uncertainty and moving forward with sustainable and responsible strategies for waste diversion. This is in keeping with our commitment to protect the environment and

consistent with initiatives in other jurisdictions. The people of Ontario deserve no less.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This recent announcement, the so-called Adams Mine Lake Act, is, in my view, a power grab by this

government, retroactively eliminating a person's right to legal action. Minister, I quote from your media backgrounder: "Any related legal action that may exist on the day the legislation comes

into effect would be extinguished by this legislation." As you have just said, you would revoke all approvals, and there have been years of environmental approvals on this particular iron ore

mine-I point out that it's not a lake, it's an iron ore mine.

This certainly does not sound like a government open to democratic renewal, in my view, and it raises questions. How much is this going to cost taxpayers? I

did not hear the word "compensation." I don't hear any detailed description of compensation or reparation for this particular action. It raises a number of other questions. Who takes responsibility

for the dams that are adjacent to this mine? Will this government take responsibility for the tailings from this mine?

You've announced the Adams Mine Lake Act revoking all existing approvals. I do point out that this is not a lake. This proposal does not refer to landfill in a

lake. This is an iron ore mine, an open pit mine in Timiskaming, and does not meet any conventional definition of a lake-again, the heavy hand of government redefining what's a lake and what is not

a lake. Minister, if you were to turn around at your recent press conference-

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant is trying to respond, and I'm hearing heckling from all sides. Even his own team is

heckling. I would appreciate it if we all gave him an opportunity to complete his response.

Mr Barrett: Thank you, Speaker. I would appreciate recouping the time lost.

Again, I do want to make this point: Very simply, this is not a lake. If the minister were to turn around and take a look at the picture behind her in the

recent press conference, there was a picture of an iron ore mine. I guess it raises again the question of the use of language, and it certainly raises questions in a lot of people's minds: Where

are the future landfill sites? What happens if we get cut off in Michigan? Does it go to Nepean? Does it go to the Richmond Hill site?

I have raised the issue of compensation. It's irresponsible to not have a cost of compensation, not only for expenditures to date but also the cost of any lost

future profits. What about lost jobs and lost economic activity in that part of rural northern Ontario? What kind of a message are you sending to business in the north by changing rules

retroactively?

If I have the additional time, I wish to address the other shoe in this. Last fall, I asked the minister about the government's plan to deal with Toronto's

trash if Michigan were to cut off the province of Ontario. I did not hear a specific plan at the time; I do not hear one now. Currently, the municipalities in the GTA have no viable long-term

contingency plan. We're asking for a plan. We asked for a plan last year.

Last fall, you indicated you were "delighted to stand in this House" and talk about a "commitment to waste diversion.... to divert fully 60% of municipal solid

waste ... from landfills." You indicated last fall you had a plan to divert that waste by the year 2005. You were confident you would divert by 2005. Now we hear you're delaying to 2008. How

confident are you in your plan?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): First, let me say that I'm sure the people of Timiskaming, all of those First Nations, the small

farmers and others are very happy today about the government's decision, and we applaud that decision. You did the right thing today. It's too bad that this went on for so long and we have to end

up paying God knows how much compensation for a project that should never have been given the green light in the first place.

I would say that, on the other part of the announcement today, the announcement on diverting our waste, this is moving in the right direction. I was at the

press conference, and I have to examine it more closely, but there are a number of concerns that came up today-there are always some concerns-one of which is that I'm not seeing a whole lot of

difference between the previous government's waste diversion plan and yours. For instance, we've got a very big crisis, as we all agree, with waste management, especially here in Toronto but all

over the province, with the diversion going to Michigan and the fact that the minister did not announce today an immediate program to stop pop bottles, liquor bottles and wine bottles from going

into the waste stream. It's long past due, and I'm surprised the minister didn't announce that today.

The other thing is electronic waste. I have a private member's bill that has been before this House-Bill 29-to take back electronic waste, and I will be asking

for unanimous consent to pass this bill later today. Those are the things that we should be doing right away.

I'm also concerned about talking about improving the Environmental Assessment Act. What does that mean? I always get nervous. The previous government so-called

improved it, and it was to the detriment, as you know, of communities. I'm concerned about the fact that there's nothing about intervener funding, which the previous government also cancelled, so

that communities can have meaningful involvement in that.

I have many more things to say about this, but I know that my colleague Gilles Bisson wants to say a few words as well. Perhaps we can have further discussions

about this later.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Merci beaucoup, monsieur le Président. Je voudrais dire que la victoire n'appartient pas au monde

ici mais à ceux dans la région du nord-est de l'Ontario qui ont travaillé si fort pour si longtemps pour assurer qu'on peut finalement mettre fin à ce projet qui, franchement,

n'avait ni l'appui du monde du nord-est de l'Ontario ni de celui de Toronto. Cela fait 14 années que le monde du nord-est, Public Concern Timiskaming, et autres ont travaillé pour

arrêter ce projet. Cela fait 14 ans qu'on travaille très fort parce que ça n'a jamais fait de bon sens, dès le début. Finalement, je pense que la victoire, il faut le dire,

appartient au monde du nord-est de l'Ontario et au monde de la ville de Toronto, qui ont lutté pour si longtemps pour assurer que ce projet est arrêté.

Si on veut revisiter l'histoire : premièrement, le projet a été accordé par le gouvernement Peterson, qui a dit que oui, on pouvait

bâtir un dépotoir à la mine de Timiskaming. Le gouvernement de M. Rae a fait une législation telle qu'on a ici aujourd'hui qui a arrêté le processus

complètement en rendant illégale la possibilité de mettre en place un tel dépotoir dans le nord de l'Ontario. Finalement, les Conservateurs ont pris le pouvoir en 1995 et ont

jeté la loi de M. Rae hors de l'Assemblée, en disant que c'était encore possible. Finalement, la ville de Toronto a voté en majorité d'arrêter le projet, dans le

sens qu'eux autres n'étaient pas pour envoyer leurs déchets au nord-est de l'Ontario. Aujourd'hui, le gouvernement libéral fait une virevolte de 180 degrés et accepte la

proposition néo-démocratique, et la proposition du nord-est de l'Ontario, que ce n'est pas un bon projet, qu'on a besoin de l'arrêter et que, quand ça vient à

l'environnement, cela ne faisait pas de bon sens du tout.

On veut applaudir ceux au gouvernement d'aujourd'hui qui ont pris la décision. On dit que c'est une bonne décision pour le monde du nord-est de

l'Ontario aussi bien que pour celui de Toronto.

La deuxième

partie de cette affaire-là est de s'assurer, à la fin de la journée, que la deuxième

partie de l'annonce fait affaire avec

ce qu'on va faire à partir de ce point-ci pour s'assurer que les déchets de la ville de Toronto et d'ailleurs n'ont pas besoin d'aller dans un dépotoir. Cela fait longtemps qu'on

aurait dû se pencher sur cette question. Ça fait longtemps que ni le gouvernement provincial ni les gouvernements municipaux, je dois dire jusqu'à un certain point, n'ont voulu

être capables de se pencher sur la question : si pas les dépotoirs, quoi? C'est là la vraie question. On va regarder au débat qui va venir et à la législation que

la ministre a amenée à l'Assemblée aujourd'hui pour voir ce qu'on pourra faire en comité pour s'assurer que, si on met en place un tel programme pour divertir des déchets

au dépotoir, ça marche et qu'on n'aura jamais besoin de retourner à un projet tel que celui de la mine Adams.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to my good friend the Acting Premier and Minister of Finance. I want to return to the

scandal involving you and Royal Group Technologies, a company under a criminal probe, which is being investigated by the Ontario Securities Commission, a company that is being investigated by the

Canada Revenue Agency, a company that you directed for 10 years.

On February 27, the Integrity Commissioner said that you should ensure you are in no way involved with the Canada Revenue Agency on this issue. Can you report

to the House specifically what you've done to avoid any involvement?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): It has now been, I guess, right from the day this House came back that the member from Nepean-Carleton

has taken up question after question on this issue. I simply say to him that his tactics are his own, but the energy he has used in character assassination and slander is similar and recalls the

same kind of attack ads that brought his party down during the last election.

In answer to his question, I'll tell my friend from Nepean-Carleton that I took every step required of me, out of an abundance of caution, to separate myself

from the inquiry that is going on with the OSC.

Mr Baird: I'll give this minister some credit. He has certainly got nerve, for the hectoring and lecturing that he gave when he sat on this

side of the House to the members of the former government. If there's anything which is linked in the questions on this issue, it's the fact that the minister and his cabinet colleagues have

refused day after day to give us some straight answers on what is a very important issue for the people of the province of Ontario.

I want to come back to it because he didn't answer the question. He talked about the OSC. I asked you very specifically what actions you have taken to separate

yourself in this issue with involvement with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. You're the tax man in Ontario, and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is the chief tax collector for the

province. How can you have any credibility day in and day out when you're negotiating on a myriad of issues with the federal government on this issue while that very same agency which you have to

deal with is investigating a company which you personally directed for 10 years? Can you tell us that, Minister?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Well, once again, the member from Nepean-Carleton has a very quaint relationship with the truth. I would invite him to look at

Hansard from 2001 until the day that this Parliament was dissolved. I suggest to him that he will not see one comment from me as a member of opposition in this Parliament, taking the tactics, using

the kind of language and making these kind of spurious allegations that he has been making in this House for the past two weeks.

I will reiterate that from the day the Ontario Securities Commission made its announcement about the investigation that it was carrying on, I took all steps

necessary to give the public every single bit of confidence of the appropriate distance between myself as minister and the Ontario Securities Commission.

Mr Baird: Anything can come from the minister's mouth except for an answer to the serious questions that we're raising. I'll concede, perhaps,

he was not the one, but he was president of a party that certainly had no inhibition about raising such issues against the previous government. Perhaps he had someone else do his dirty work for

him, like the member opposite.

At every moment during this scandal, the government has misused its power to cover up this mess. On March 1 the government used its majority-every Liberal

blocked us from reconsidering the appointment of the vice-chair of the Ontario Securities Commission. On March 24, the Liberals once again used their majority, every Liberal voting against a probe

into the Ontario Securities Commission. Then once again last week, in a very scripted, partisan manner, every single member of the Liberal party stood lock, stock and barrel in helping cover up

this scandal. Minister, if you have nothing to hide, if you have absolutely done nothing wrong, why are you so determined not to answer our questions and why are you so determined to block

inquiries on the issue each and every time they're requested?

Hon Mr Sorbara: During the election campaign, that party decided that its only hope of survival was to attack the member for Ottawa South, the

now Premier, to attack our party. That style of campaigning was utterly rejected by the people of Ontario. I'll tell you now that this style of questioning and the spurious allegations-

Mr Baird: What about an answer? You don't have the guts to give us the truth.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The language is getting a little bit wild here, and I'm going to ask the member to withdraw your comment.

Mr Baird: I ask with great interest, which comment did I say?

The Speaker: When we speak of a cover-up-and that was the remark-I think it is working toward very unparliamentary language here. I just want

you, if you like, to withdraw that comment you made.

Mr Baird: Speaker, if you are asking me whether I'd like to withdraw, I certainly would not.

The Speaker: New question.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, it's been about six months now since you've been Minister of

Finance, since you've been in government. Over that six months, you've attacked seniors. You've cancelled their property tax credit. You've attacked hard-working families retroactively. You've

taken away their tax credit for tuition. You have broken promises at breakneck speed.

I'd like to ask you a question regarding your commitment to balance the budget in your platform on page 2. Your platform clearly states, "We will balance the

budget...." Then it goes on to make another promise, and that is, "We will make sure the debt goes in one direction only: down." So you made two promises within two pages of your platform: One is

that you will balance the budget; second, that you will not add to the provincial debt.

I'm going to ask the minister if he can stand in his place and, anticipating a budget, at least keep this promise to balance the budget when he presents the

budget in this House coming up.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I can tell my friend from Oak Ridges that we are delighted to have kept our promise to cancel the

private education tax credit and to invest in public education. I can tell my friend that we were delighted to keep our promise to roll back the corporate tax cuts that were going to bankrupt this

province. I can tell my friend that we were delighted to keep our promise on auto insurance, to keep our promise on all the measures that we've taken in the short six months that we've been in

power.

Our working agenda is to bring forward a balanced budget, but I want to tell my friend from Oak Ridges that the way in which the government that he was a part

of abused the fiscal situation of this province will make that work much harder. But we are committed to working on a balanced budget and bringing a balanced budget forward when we bring forward a

budget later this month.

Mr Klees: I want to ask the Minister of Finance if at any point in time as the Minister of Finance, in cabinet or in any other meeting, he

directed his cabinet colleagues to do program reviews; and if, in order to maintain the integrity of his government and keep his fundamental promise to balance the budget, he ever gave any

directions to his ministers through a program review to come in with a balanced budget so that he could stand in this House and do what they said they were going to do, namely, to balance the

budget. Did he ever give that instruction?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Well, I think my friend from Oak Ridges knows full well that I am not about to bring to this House discussions that take place

within the confines of cabinet.

But I will bring to this House discussions that I've had through hours and hours of pre-budget consultations with the people of Ontario. They said with one

voice that the previous government's handling of this province's finances was an abomination. They said the $5.6-billion deficit that government left this province will be a legacy that our

government is going to have to come to grips with, and they are pleased with the work that we're doing.

The final thing that I'll say to my friend is, our working objective is to bring forward a balanced budget. But we will not do that at the risk of vital public

services in this province.

Mr Klees: As I was saying earlier, it's been six months since this government took office. In six months, no other government has ever done

more to undermine the credibility of government than this government. It doesn't matter where I go, it doesn't matter who I speak to, it doesn't matter which stakeholder it is that we speak to,

they have lost confidence in this government to keep its word on any level. I'd like to know from-

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. When I ask for order, I'd like the members to respect the Chair and also respect the individual who is speaking. I'm

having difficulty, especially with the front row of the government side keeping quiet so we can hear the member.

The member for Oak Ridges.

Mr Klees: I wonder why members of the government are so upset when we ask this very basic, fundamental question. The question is simply this:

Why is it that every stakeholder group that was counting on you to do for them what you promised during the election campaign is now at odds with you? You've alienated every one of them. It doesn't

matter if it's teachers, it doesn't matter if it's doctors, it doesn't matter if it's hospitals. Not one single promise has been kept. How can the Minister of Finance justify this continuous

breaking of promises and the branding he has brought to his government: promise breakers? That's what they'll be known for. That's what they're known for now. That's what the minister is bringing

to this government.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Honestly, I can hardly believe my ears. When you talk about energy in this province, and you talk with people who understand

that environment, the things that sector says about the previous government and its handling of the energy brief would scorch your ears; social services, the same thing; health care, the same

thing; education, the same thing; the environment, the same thing.

I tell my friend from Oak Ridges, I don't need to stand here and review the agenda of your government over its eight years. All I can say is, when it comes to

labour, we raised the minimum wage, just as we said we were going to do; in the environment, we hired water inspectors; in the north, we did what we said we were going to do with the Ontario

Northland transportation system; and I could go on and on. I just want to tell my friend from Oak Ridges that he is completely misguided in the question he just asked.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Two new reports released today say

it's time to take action against poverty.

One report says that women are forced to stay in, or return to, abusive relationships because social assistance benefits are so low that they can't survive on

their own. It points out that abusive male partners often threaten to make bogus reports of welfare fraud against women, as a means of controlling and intimidating them. The report says that the

mean-spirited treatment that women often receive from the Ontario Works offices is another form of abuse. When are you going to increase social assistance benefits so abused women don't have to

return to men who beat them?

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I appreciate the question from the

member opposite. We had not a happy day in receiving a report called Walking on Eggshells, but we have to read this. We are a government that will be responsible to women, so that we can

participate in a partnership with these women to get them out of domestic abuse at home. We're intent on doing that in a number of ways.

Today I also had a chance to meet with the group who forwarded this report to us. If we had to ask them what is the single, number one thing we can do, they

said it is to raise the rates for those who are on welfare, because economic independence and being able to see some kind of light at the end of the tunnel that they would be able to make it on

their own is what they often need to flee, and that's what they need, as well, to stay and not be convinced to go back somehow to an abusing partner. We're committed to doing that. As you know, the

McGuinty government won the election on October 2, saying we will do that, and we will.

Mr Hampton: Minister, there was another report, by the United Way of Toronto. It says Toronto now has 120 higher poverty neighbourhoods

compared to 30 in 1981. It says the biggest increase is in the suburbs: East York, North York, Scarborough, York, Etobicoke. Minister, these people are becoming poorer, and they asked us to ask you

some questions. First, where is the affordable housing you promised? Second, where are the shelter allowances you promised for low-income working families? Third, what happened to your promise to

stop the clawback of the national child benefit? Remember those promises? They remember them. What happened to those promises, Minister? Why haven't they seen any action?

Hon Ms Pupatello: As we enter our fifth month as a cabinet around the table and as a government, I can tell you that we have had some historic

changes. Probably the signature feature of the last government was the lifetime ban from welfare for fraud. This government fixed that, and we fixed that before Christmas because we knew that in

many, many circumstances fraud wasn't even being reported for fear that the penalty was so extremely severe that we just caused more problems for them and for society by going that route.

We are meeting on a regular basis with individuals who are advocates for the poor. We are partnering with the United Way of Toronto on a number of fronts as

well as United Ways across this province to say, "How can the Ontario government finally be a partner to help with solutions, not to assist in causing the problems?" We committed to the people of

Ontario that we would have a significant change in the way this government is seen in helping advocate and in helping the poor. We intend to do that and we are committed to it.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Every time Ontarians turn around, your government

is hitting them with a new fee, a new charge, a new rate increase: a 30% increase in hydro rates, a 20% increase in auto insurance rates, double-digit increases in property taxes. Now we learn you

are considering mandatory driver's licence retesting for Ontario's 8.1 million drivers. Minister, charging each driver a $100 testing fee comes out to $810 million. You told the media this is about

highway safety. I'm saying, tell the truth. It's a cash grab, isn't it?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I am not sure where this member got this information from. We have absolutely no plan to

introduce retesting of drivers.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I think you, like your colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, have realized that this isn't going to

fly, that this is a lemon, that the drivers of Ontario are not going to fall for it, that it is a cash grab, that it is unfair, that it is regressive. So I'm going to ask you to say it and say it

again: Mandatory driver retesting is not on. It's not on now; it's not on in the future. Say it so the drivers of Ontario can be clear and they won't hear you come back on your word. Say it so

people can count on your word.

Hon Mr Takhar: I don't really understand what the member does not understand about "no." I already told him that we have no plans to introduce

retesting of the drivers. If he's looking for publicity in the media, this is not the issue to do that on.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Your time in the electricity chair is only beginning to warm up. Seniors

and others on fixed incomes are angry. Reta Dutly, a vice-president of the board of directors of the Millennium condominium complex in Pickering, many of whom are seniors, presented their MPP,

Wayne Arthurs, with a petition. And how did their MPP respond? I quote: "The increased costs are unfortunate, but they are a reality."

Minister, this simply isn't fair. Can you advise the people of Ontario what assistance, if any, you have planned to resolve this crisis that you've

created?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The first thing we've done to help people with electricity is get rid of that

government's energy policy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. For him to complain-we found out just on Friday that his government gave $40 million in consultants' fees to a group of consultants

that not only didn't live up to the measure, they failed at the measure. We have been left with a huge problem. My colleague Mr Arthurs is quite correct when he says that we had to take action to

undo the mess that was caused by his government.

Interjection: Forty million dollars.

Hon Mr Duncan: That's $40 million at OPG. And let's not forget the consultants at Hydro One: Paul Rhodes, Leslie Noble, and the list goes on

and on and on. I suggest that the reason rates are going up isn't because of this government's misguided policies; it's because of that government's inability to manage the most basic of economic

files. They left it a mess; we're cleaning it up. Mr. Arthurs is right; he's wrong.

Mr O'Toole: In fairness, that's not an answer for Mrs Dutly and the other seniors of this province. It's clear you're just like the member for

Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge: You don't really care about the consequences, not just for Mrs Dutly. The $40 million you mentioned is what it's going to cost the hospitals of this province. You know the

cost could actually increase the number of MRIs. School boards are either going to have to reduce the temperature or increase class sizes. Across all sectors you have no plans, you've acted hastily

and you've broken a promise.

The people of Ontario have no confidence in your ability to solve not just the generation, but the whole issue on policy in energy. What faith should the

people of Ontario have in you as we look to the next budget? Is your Minister of Finance going to pump in more money to subsidize the price that you had promised-another broken promise?

Hon Mr Duncan: The member's party's energy policy led to no new supply. It did not fix the problems at Pickering. It did not bring on new

supply. It did not lower prices. It transferred prices from consumers back to consumers through almost $1.7 billion gross into taxes. That party's policy hired a group of people for $40 million at

OPG. It saw to it that the former leader of that party got a consulting fee of $18,000. It saw to it that Paul Rhodes billed $335,000 for strategic communications advice.

The people of Ontario voted for change-real change. We're giving them real change in the energy sector. I predict that at the end of four years, we will have

adequate supply, we will have affordable supply and we will have reliable supply. And one thing I know for certain: There will be no more abuse of the public trough by Tories, like went on under

that government for almost eight pitiful years.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Last Tuesday, an unprecedented

allocation of over $1 billion was announced in a three-way agreement between the federal, provincial and municipal governments, something that the other side never did. The next day, the McGuinty

government announced another $90 million in investment for the TTC. In light of these investments, Mr Minister, can you indicate how these investments will improve the funding for the TTC compared

to last year?

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I thank the member for the question. Last week was a landmark in this province's

history: the largest ever joint federal-provincial investment in municipal transit in the history of this province. Thanks to this historical investment by the federal, municipal and provincial

governments, the TTC will not have any fare hikes and there will be no service cuts. In fact, services will actually increase. But don't take my word for it. I'd like to read from a letter from

chief general manager Rick Ducharme of the TTC where he says:

"Last year at this time we were forced to have a fare increase. This year we have no fare increase, no service cuts and money advanced for a ridership growth

strategy, therefore, more service. In my books, that's as good as it gets." Rick Ducharme, general manager of the TTC.

I couldn't agree more. It's good news for this province and good news for the capital of our province. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario government are

delivering real, positive change.

Mr Duguid: It's great to have a Premier and a government that finally gets it when it comes to public transit. Over the weekend, I read

articles speculating on possible service cuts and service shutdowns in certain areas. Some reported doomsday scenarios of subway closures and routes being shut down. Will this $1.1-billion

investment ensure the TTC will be adequately funded?

Hon Mr Caplan: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I'm very thankful to my colleague from Scarborough Centre. I can understand some of the

concerns he had after reading these newspapers. I just want to assure him that the TTC is adequately funded, and I am very proud of our record for funding public transit.

Let me just read further from the same letter that my colleague read. It said, "To suggest that subway lines would really be closed is about as absurd as

suggesting we shut down water supplies in parts of the city to reduce costs." These were the comments made by Mr Ducharme in his letter to us. Thanks to the events and us putting $1.05 billion with

the assistance of three levels of government and another $90 million that we're giving to the TTC, I am really proud that the TTC is in good shape.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is to the Minister of Finance. As the minister knows, small businesses in this province

are the backbone of economic growth and job creation. In fact, they've created most of the one million jobs between 1995 and 2003. However, as Minister of Finance during the almost past six months,

you have now put those new jobs and future job creation at risk.

I have recently heard from many small businesses in the hospitality industry, including an individual who operates an East Side Mario's who writes to me,

"Policy decisions made during the first 100 days of our new government will cost employers thousands of additional dollars. Hydro increases, minimum wage increases, elimination of scheduled tax

cuts, the introduction of a new recycling tax and skyrocketing insurance costs will place small businesses at risk and cost jobs."

I would ask the minister, why are you breaking your election promise to help small businesses grow and create jobs?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I'd like to tell my friend opposite that, contrary to the tone of her question, the steps we've taken

even in our first six months have improved the environment for small businesses. Indeed, Bill 2, dealing with a number of revenue matters, expanded the exemption for small businesses so that the

level of income tax they would pay would be less.

We are also looking province-wide at a small business category possibly for realty taxes so that the burden of realty tax on small business will be lower.

Indeed, in every single policy measure we take, we look at the particular issues relating to small business because we agree with the member that small business is the backbone of this economy, and

we will do nothing to weaken that backbone.

Mrs Witmer: I've checked the minister's Web site. There is nothing on there to indicate that this government is helping small business create

jobs and help grow the economy. I would say to the minister, not only are your government's policies going to kill jobs in this province, but some possible new budget initiatives are going to

further hurt the food service industry.

I received a letter from an individual who owns some McDonalds restaurants. He has written to tell me that he is strongly opposed to your proposed elimination

of the retail sales tax exemption on meals under $4 since it will have a devastating impact on his business. As you know, in your Liberal election platform you promised to protect low taxes for

small businesses. Why are you now prepared to make the McHappy meal the McTaxMe meal and increase the tax burden on hard-working Ontarians?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to tell my friend simply this: that among all the people in this House and this province, I am the one person who is

not permitted to speculate on what might or might not be in the upcoming budget. I would simply say to her that if she would do us the courtesy of having a look at Bill 2, she will see measures in

there that raise the small business exemption from $320,000 to $400,000. Hundreds and thousands of small businesses benefit from that exemption and will pay less corporate tax as a result of

it.

All the way through she will see, if she follows along, that our interest is in creating a very strong small business sector, but without doing what that party

did in the course of its eight years in government, and that is to almost bankrupt this province.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, today your ministry announced plans to

divert 60% of the province's waste by 2008. In my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, my constituents have to deal with over 160 trucks filled with garbage from the GTA driving through our community on a

daily basis on their way to Michigan. How will this plan to divert 60% of Ontario's waste impact my community in terms of truck traffic and pollution from those trucks?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): That is a very important question, and I think the people of Ontario want to understand

the waste plan that this government will put in place.

We believe, number one, that we need to embark on a comprehensive education program to have the people of Ontario understand how important it is that we divert

as much waste as possible away from landfill sites. We also plan to assist municipalities and private sector investors as we review the environmental assessment process and identify those parts of

the process that do not enable them to look for local solutions to their municipal solid waste in a timely way. This government has recognized that we have to develop sustainable policies for

sustainable communities, and that is what the initiative that is underway and what the expert panel will bring to this Minister of the Environment and the government: an effective plan.

Ms Di Cocco: Along with today's waste diversion announcement, you have also announced the protection of the Adams mine lake. Ontario has been

plagued for years with problems in environmental assessment review processes. This has been a particular problem in my riding, as has been the case with the Adams mine proposal. Minister, what are

we doing to strengthen that environmental assessment process?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I was very proud earlier today to introduce the Adams Mine Lake Act. I think it underlines to the people of Ontario this

government's commitment to protecting source water.

But we also recognize that if we are going to assist municipalities and provide them with the tools they need to engage industry partners to ensure that our

high standard for protecting the environment is intact, we need to have a better process, one that offers a more timely means for them to address their municipal solid waste needs. That is what

we've identified. We will have an expert panel of all participants-environmentalists, scientists, industry and municipalities-to provide us with advice on how we can move forward and ensure that

our environment is protected and that we have a plan for sustainable communities in the province of Ontario.

AUTISM SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Acting Premier. Minister, on September 17, 2003, Dalton McGuinty wrote to Nancy

Morrison and said, "I also believe that the lack of government-funded IBI treatment for autistic children over age six is unfair and discriminatory. The Ontario Liberals support extending autism

treatment beyond"-

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. May I ask the member in the gallery to sit down, please, so the member can proceed with her

question?

Ms Martel: Nancy Morrison is in the gallery today, and so are Cynthia, Brad and Jordan Boufford, of London. They came here today to demand

that you live up to your promise.

You see, on May 5, five weeks from now, Jordan will turn six, and his medically necessary IBI treatment will be arbitrarily cut off and he will become another

victim of your government's discrimination against autistic children. Acting Premier, why is your government breaking its promise to Jordan and these families?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I know the Minister of Children and Youth Services will want to comment on this.

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I thank the member opposite for

her question and her commitment to children with special needs.

Just last week, I made an announcement that the McGuinty government will support children right from preschool to the end of high school with respect to their

needs, and we will be infusing $10 million more for IBI therapy for preschool children and $30 million a year more to train teachers and educational assistants on ABA. We will also be instituting a

chair, with my colleague Minister Chambers, to research autism, its determinants and better therapies and educational programs. We are committed to these children, and we showed that 10 days ago

with our announcement.

Ms Martel: Minister, the specific question was, why is your government breaking its promise to end discrimination against children who have

autism who are over the age of six? That's what this question is about. The Bouffords today brought 7,011 letters to Queen's Park, signed by Ontarians who believe that your Premier should keep the

promise he made, who believe that IBI should be provided to every autistic child who needs it. Without IBI, Jordan would never have learned to speak, to count, to read, to play with his peers, to

play with puzzles, even to play with his family as he does today. With ongoing IBI, he might be able to understand about safety and safety rules, about how to play independently, about how to

follow instructions, about how to tell his mom and dad how his day was. Your Premier made a specific promise to end the discrimination. Why are you breaking that promise?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: The McGuinty government acknowledges the use of IBI therapy for children. That is why we are infusing another $10

million a year for that therapy. As well, we are putting money into capacity building for the therapists, not only to increase the number of therapists but to improve their education from two

weeks-presently it's two weeks to train an IBI therapist-to one to two years.

When I first inherited this portfolio-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Are we going to allow the minister to respond?

Minister, would you complete your answer?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: When I first inherited this portfolio, I asked my ministry to consult, to forget everything else and to do what is

right for the kids; to forget all the politics, leave all that aside, get expert consultation and do the right thing, which is what we have done. Dr Peter Szatmari, director of the Offord Centre

for Child Studies, and the Autism Society of Ontario, representing the parents of children with autism, endorse this plan. The executive director of Surrey Place and Ron Scarfone, vice-president of

the London

chapter of the Autism Society of Ontario, say it's absolutely the right thing to do. We are moving in the right direction.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Before I ask the

question, I would like to say how pleased my wife and I were to see you, Minister, and many other elected officials at the Cecilia Zhang memorial service on Saturday. Sadly, events like these bring

into perspective the realities of life we face each day.

Minister, since your party formed the government, numerous volunteer firefighters have been forced to resign from small rural fire departments. Last Wednesday,

you mentioned in a response to the member from Simcoe-Grey a mediation process that you would like to have in place to resolve the double-hatter issue. Can you clarify exactly what you meant by

"mediation," or is this just another stalling tactic while we lose valuable volunteer firefighters in rural Ontario?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): Members will know that there has been an ongoing dispute between

the association of professional firefighters, the fire marshal's office, the fire chiefs, AMO and all others who are concerned about the fact that volunteer firemen who are also professional

firefighters are being prevented from responding to fires.

This is unacceptable. The idea that any citizen of Ontario would be put at risk because of a dispute between two factions that are in dispute is

unacceptable.

Having said that, I have been meeting with all of the parties for some time and have told them that if we can't mediate this, then I will bring in legislation.

I stand by that statement. The mediation is being scoped so that they know coming in exactly the direction we would like to go.

Mr Dunlop: Duplication mediation I don't believe is the answer. I understand that when my colleague Bob Runciman was the minister, he

appointed the Honourable George W. Adams, a renowned mediation expert, to conduct talks with fire services stakeholder groups on this very delicate issue. He couldn't find a compromise, but he

recommended a solution.

So I say to you that the answer is right before you in the form of the Adams report. I ask you, now that the safety of small-town Ontario is at risk-and

believe me, it is at risk-when will you implement recommendations of the Adams report? I'd ask you to get on with this job and stop the loss of volunteer firefighters in rural Ontario. They're very

important to our small communities, and I'd really appreciate a quick response to this.

Hon Mr Kwinter: There is common consensus that the Adams report was not acceptable and not the basis for any sort of resolution. As a result

of that, I have decided that if we can get the parties together and give them some ground rules and some parameters so that they know what we're trying to accomplish, we can get them back to the

table. Everybody has acknowledged that if we can get a mediated solution, that's the way to go; if we can't, then we will bring in legislation.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Recently I met with

community representatives regarding services and quality of care for people with developmental disabilities in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

Under the past Tory government, there was a band-aid solution provided to agencies serving individuals with developmental disabilities. The funding

announcement of September 2001 was disappointing and had no long-term goals.

Currently in my riding, there are 49 adults and 34 children with special needs on a waiting list for residential housing. I am told that this number is

actually closer to 100, with families who have yet to formally contact agencies due to guilt of stating that they can no longer care for the members of their family or frustrations with the

residential placement process and waiting lists.

Living spaces are much needed in my community. Can you tell me what your ministry's intentions are in rectifying the issues regarding housing placements for

developmentally disabled individuals in eastern Ontario?

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I appreciate very much the question

regarding developmental services that this government is determined to provide across the province.

I was very happy about a month ago to be at Reena's place, which is one of our agencies that does tremendous work with the developmental services being

provided in Ontario. That day, we were able to announce and actually begin work on more places to live in the community for those with developmental disabilities. On that day, we announced some $14

million for creating places in the community.

In this individual region of eastern Ontario, we believe there is some $900,000 being applied. I can certainly have a look into this member's riding

specifically.

I can tell you that this is step 1. We have a long way to go. This is the first in two years of announcements that have never actually materialized in places

to live for individuals with developmental disabilities.

Mr Brownell: I'm pleased to hear that you are taking this seriously, and I know that in my riding we are interested in hearing of your review

and the placement allotment. I know that the close to 100 family members who are coping with this will be glad to hear it, and they thank you for your comments and reassurances.

Safe and stable group homes are important for individuals with developmental difficulties, allowing them healthier and more independent living arrangements.

They're also a grave necessity for many families. Recently you announced an investment of $24 million in capital and operating funding for 44 projects in 27 communities around the province. Can you

inform this House what this funding means for Ontarians with developmental disabilities?

Hon Ms Pupatello: The member refers to the announcement that we just made, which will represent upwards of 180 places in the community for

people to live-180 across Ontario. In eastern Ontario, that represents seven places. I will acknowledge, as will most people in the House, that we will not be able to do enough fast enough because

there is such a growing demand for individuals to live independently so they can live happy, healthy lives in the community.

But the difference is this: Monies have been announced in the past, but we have gone two long years without a single space being created in the community. Let

me tell this House today that we anticipate, from an announcement that was made last month, that the individuals will begin moving this June. This government is about action.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, you have yet to announce promised funds to help

farmers implement nutrient management regulations, which of course, you would be aware, was an election promise that the Liberals put forward. Farmers have to solidify their business plans right

now to be ready for the next growing season. How are farmers supposed to make proper business decisions without all the information? Should they sell their livestock right now because of the

uncertainty you have caused or should they go forward with their plans and possibly go bankrupt because the costs of nutrient management implementation are just too high?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I thank the member for the question. Unlike the previous government, we are moving

forward with working with the agricultural community. We have the nutrient management advisory committee in place, which is currently reviewing funding opportunities and funding options. They will

soon be reporting to me. As well, we have commissioned the George Morris Centre to complete a report as to what the fiscal implications are of the nutrient management legislation. Our intent is to

use that as part of the budget planning process, and you'll hear an announcement when the budget is announced.

Mr Hardeman: I gather from that answer that at this point you have not committed to any funding for the nutrient management plan

implementation. I can see it is quickly becoming another broken promise of the Liberal government of Ontario.

Your colleague the Minister of the Environment said in the House that your government intends to implement every one of O'Connor's recommendations. How is it

that recommendation 7-"The provincial government should ensure that sufficient funds are available to complete the planning and adoption of source protection plans"-isn't one of the promises you

were going to keep? I ask again, when will our farmers get some funds, Mr Minister: when they go out of business waiting for the McGuinty government to keep one of their promises?

Hon Mr Peters: The McGuinty government is very committed to its promises and to this issue. The Premier reiterated three weeks ago at the

Ontario Cattlemen's Association that there are societal benefits to clean water and the cost of the implementation of those regulations should not be borne on the backs of farmers alone.

But we're going to keep one more promise that this government didn't keep. This government commissioned a study. They commissioned the George Morris Centre and

they had a purple-copied report done. Do you know what? They would not make that information public. They chose to hide from the farmers of Ontario the costs of their implementation. This

government is going to be straightforward with the farmers of Ontario. When that report is completed and we've had it reviewed, it is going to be made public, not hidden away like this previous

government did.

HYDRO RATES

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Energy. The restructuring of energy pricing under Bill 4 took effect

on April 1, 2004. My constituents have asked me questions on how the new pricing will affect their bill this month.

This week, I received a call from a constituent, Mrs Elaine Ellis. She has a question for you regarding pricing. She wants to ensure that she will be assessed

fairly. Given that the more reasonable price of energy took place on April 1, how are homeowners in Brampton Centre going to be assessed on their next bill, given that the change in pricing plan

happened in the middle of a billing period?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The artificial price cap of the Tories was unsustainable. The 4.3% cap just

could not work. We introduced legislation after we saw the books and saw that we had inherited a $5.6-billion deficit from a government that routinely handed out contracts to people like Paul

Rhodes and others.

With respect to the specific situation in Brampton, where April 1 falls in the middle of billing periods, we have empowered the local distribution company to

assess the new price relative to the old price. I would suggest to the member for Brampton Centre that she can relay to her constituent that she will be paying the new rates effective April 1 only

on that portion of the bill that those new rates fall into.

Mrs Jeffrey: I'll be sure to pass your response on to Mrs Ellis.

There's been a lot of talk recently about energy conservation and the introduction of energy-smart meters. My constituents have a lot of questions about the

smart meters and their cost. They want to know when they'll be available and where they can get more information. Further, my constituents want to know, what are the government's plans to assist

them in the conservation of energy?

Hon Mr Duncan: We intend to make smart meters readily available to electricity consumers throughout the province. By facilitating the shifting

of demand, smart meters will not only benefit us but they will save consumers money on their electricity bills. The Tories never understood that. Those meters will be available soon.

I'd like to point out that a number of notable organizations in this province have endorsed our energy pricing policy. Why don't we review who those are? The

Ontario Medical Association has endorsed our policy; the Ontario Public Health Association; the Clean Air Partnership has endorsed our policy; the environmental alliance has endorsed our policy;

the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance has endorsed our policy; the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association has endorsed our policy; the Ontario Clean Air Alliance has endorsed our policy;

Greenpeace Canada has endorsed our policy; the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has endorsed our policy; the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has endorsed our policy; the independent power

producers' association has endorsed our policy; the electricity-

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Hon Mr Duncan: The Electricity Distributors Association has endorsed our policy; the Sierra Club of Canada has endorsed our policy.

I'm sorry, Mr Speaker; I do have a number of others to read.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister would look at my side and speak through the Chair. Then he would see when I said, "Stop."

HIGHWAY TOLLS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. During the election campaign, Liberals told the

people of Hamilton that you're all in favour of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. What you didn't tell them is that you were also all in favour of toll roads. You didn't tell them that the Red Hill

Creek Expressway and the Lincoln Alexander Parkway might be targeted as toll roads.

The city of Hamilton is short about $19.5 million because of the download of social assistance, so they're actually considering your scheme of new toll roads.

Is this your government's answer to the hard-pressed people of Hamilton: Turn your toll roads and arterial roads into charge-every-time-you-drive?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I know that the Minister of Transportation

is anxious to answer this question.

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I'm sure that the honourable member is not going to like what I have to say. We are

absolutely committed to building safe and vital highways. We are very proud of our commitment to give $106 million for building this highway. This highway is, in fact, being constructed by the city

of Hamilton, and it is up to them to decide whether this highway is tolled or not tolled.

Mr Hampton: My question was, is this going to be a toll road? Since you and the Premier got all excited about toll roads, a consultant study

has figured out that $14 million could be pried from the pockets of Hamiltonians by turning these roads into toll roads. Once again, this is a regressive tax. It hits the hardest at people who have

the lowest incomes.

The problem is that you aren't providing hard-pressed cities with the finances they need to look after the cost of all of the services that have been

downloaded. Tell the people of Hamilton that the Lincoln Alexander Parkway won't be a toll road and that the Red Hill Creek Expressway won't be a toll road. Tell them now.

Hon Mr Takhar: I am really surprised that this member is asking us about toll roads when, in fact, they constructed Highway 407 and put the

tolls on that highway. They are actually the authors of and experts on tolls.

POLICE COMPLAINTS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is to the Acting Premier. I received a letter dated March 26 with respect to

implementing a new police complaint system. The Attorney General stated in his letter, "I'm of the view that we need to restore the trust and confidence of the members of the community and the

respect of the police." I ask the Acting Premier, why does the government feel that the confidence of the community needs to be restored? Who lost the people's confidence?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I think probably the best thing to do on this question would be to take it as notice. I'm sure that

the Attorney General, when he returns to Parliament tomorrow, will be very happy to answer it. I would just say very, very briefly, we have every single confidence in the Attorney General's ability

to restore the confidence that is so desperately needed by our police forces all across the province of Ontario.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent to pass second and third reading of

Bill 29,

An Act to ensure that the producers of electronic equipment retain responsibility when their products become waste. Can I have unanimous consent?

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I think I heard a no.

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today you indicated concern with respect to a comment made by the

member for Nepean-Carleton and some terminology he used in posing a question.

I want to advise you, Speaker, that we did a very quick search of Hansard with respect to the wording that you were concerned about. We found numerous

references and questions posed in the past by Mr Phillips, Mr Kennedy, Mr Cordiano, and Ms McLeod, just to mention a few. I will ask a page to deliver this to you and to the table.

What I'm really looking for is clarity with respect to the use of words, language, props, whatever you may describe. It's causing some confusion on this side

of the House.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I want to thank the member for raising that point. The fact is that I was ruling at the time; I wasn't ruling

on Ms McLeod or any other time that comment was made. I was ruling at the time when I heard the word and I asked with respect that the member recognize the Chair and withdraw that comment.

As I said earlier on in the Legislature, and as I have read in the Legislature, I will ask the member to withdraw comments like these, which are

unparliamentary. Failing to do that, I may name the member or decide not to see the member, feeling that when he chooses to do so, then we can proceed with his engagement and involvement in the

process today.

Mr Runciman: I very much appreciate those comments. Our concern is what is or is not parliamentary and how you reach those conclusions. We'd

like to have some better understanding-

The Speaker: I don't intend today to tell you what words are parliamentary or not. I will rule as it comes about. Thank you.

We're at petitions now.

PETITIONS

DIALYSIS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have here a petition that I have just one page of, but in fact 1,600 people signed the petition in one single

day.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital has asked for ministerial consent to make capital changes to its facility to accommodate the placement of a

satellite dialysis unit; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has already given approval for the unit and committed operational dollars to it; and

"Whereas the community has already raised the funds for the equipment needed;

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

"That the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care give his final approval of the capital request change from the Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital

immediately, so those who are in need of these life-sustaining dialysis services can receive them locally, thereby enjoying a better quality of life without further delay."

I present this on their behalf and sign it, as I totally agree with it.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition which I've signed my name to and I agree with. It's addressed to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have asked for a better health care system which is focused on the quality of care and is accountable to the people;

"Whereas this system should be publicly controlled, publicly accountable and publicly owned,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Bill 8 in order to ban two-tier health care and protect the future of medicare in

this province."

I submit this to the assembly.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition signed by a number of seniors from Dunnville, Ontario, including Jay Haidon and

Gerald Wile. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

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

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

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

seniors' drug fees."

In support, my signature is affixed.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to present to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario the following petition on behalf of my riding of

Niagara Falls.

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

raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and

managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their county of origin; and

"Whereas Ontario, its businesses, its people and its institutions badly need the professional, managerial and technical skills that many newcomers to Canada

have and want to use;

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

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the other institutions and agencies of and within the

government of Ontario, undertake specific and proactive measures to work with the bodies regulating access to Ontario's professions, trades and other occupations in order that newcomers to Canada

gain fair, timely and cost-effective access to certification and other measures that facilitate the entry or re-entry of skilled workers and professionals trained outside Canada into the Canadian

workforce."

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

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

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

follows:

"Whereas the Liberal government has said in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program for seniors and are

now considering delisting drugs and imposing user fees on seniors;

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

"To halt the consideration of imposing an income test, delisting drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit plan or putting in place user fees for

seniors, and to maintain the present drug benefit plan for seniors to cover medications."

I support this petition, and I affix my signature to about a thousand names.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas, as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations"-it's been going on since 1978, Minister-"for

improvements to the design, most of which are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

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

and

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

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

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

and

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

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

legislation;

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

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

I'm pleased to sign this, and I hope the minister will listen to this like she did on the Adams mine.

HYDRO RATES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is my distinct pleasure to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly on behalf of my constituents in the

riding of Durham.

"Whereas the province of Ontario has experienced record levels of electricity consumption this" past "summer, along with lower than expected generating

capacity to meet the demand; and

"Whereas this has resulted in higher electricity bills for Ontario consumers; and

"Whereas short-term spikes in the cost of power are a particular hardship to persons on fixed incomes and a detriment to businesses in Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario act immediately to develop a plan for protecting consumers against excessive short-term

increases in the cost of electricity. We further request that the government of Ontario review the impact of charges other than wholesale electrical rates, the goods and services tax (GST) and the

debt reduction charges appearing on electricity bill of Ontario consumers."

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

CHILDREN'S NUTRITION

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

follows:

"Whereas recent scientific research has proven there is a link between children's nutrition and academic performance; and

"Whereas less than 25% of Canadian children eat in accordance with Canada's food guidelines; and

"Whereas Breakfast for Learning, the Canadian Living Foundation, is the only national non-profit organization solely dedicated to supporting child nutrition

programs in Canada; and

"Whereas the need for nutrition programs in schools has more than doubled, resulting in grant requests that far exceed the level of funding received from the

Ontario provincial government;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit government support to child nutrition programs by increasing funding to Breakfast

for Learning, the Canadian Living Foundation, from $4.5 million to $9 million, as requested in their submitted proposal."

I affix my signature because I support it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Municipal Property Assessment Corp (MPAC) has chosen to assess sugar shacks as industrial properties; and

"Whereas sugar shacks are used for the production of maple syrup for only a small portion of the year; and

"Whereas the agriculture protection act clearly defines maple syrup as an agriculture product; and

"Whereas sugar shacks and maple syrup are an important part of the agri-tourism business in rural Ontario; and

"Whereas the province is promoting agri-tourism by small farmers; and

"Whereas, in many cases, the change in assessment will have sugar shack owners paying 10 to 20 times their former assessment rate, forcing the closure of some

operations;

"We, the undersigned, request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold assessment values at last year's levels until a fairer method of assessment can be

developed and implemented or a reclassification of sugar shack properties can be made."

I sign this on behalf of my constituents.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have also received close to 600 names on petitions from customers of maple syrup shacks in my

riding, including operations run by Marvin Chambers, who's south of Villa Nova, and Gary Watt, who's south of Waterford.

"Whereas the Municipal Property Assessment Corp (MPAC) has chosen to assess sugar shacks as industrial properties; and

"Whereas sugar shacks are used for the production of maple syrup for only a small portion of the year; and

"Whereas the agriculture protection act clearly defines maple syrup as an agriculture product; and

"Whereas sugar shacks and maple syrup are an important part of the agri-tourism business in rural Ontario; and

"Whereas the province is promoting agri-tourism by small farmers; and

"Whereas in many cases the change in assessment will have a sugar shack owner paying 10 to 20 times their former assessment rate, forcing the closure of some

operations;

"We, the undersigned, request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold assessment values at last year's levels until a fairer method of assessment can be

developed and implemented or a reclassification of sugar shack properties can be made."

I support these petitions and affix my signature.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present another petition from the folks at Black Creek Leisure Homes. This one's signed by Marian

Thompson and Mona and Thomas Mitchell, among others. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

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

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

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

seniors' drug fees."

In support, my signature.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to present a petition from one of my constituents, Julie Jordan, of Courtice.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in Ontario, adopted adults are denied a right available to all non-adoptees; that is, the unrestricted right to identify information concerning their

family of origin;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

"Whereas these rights are denied to persons affected by the secrecy provisions in the adoption sections of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts of

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas research in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that disclosure does not cause harm, that access to such information is beneficial to adult adoptees,

adoptive parents and birth parents, and that birth parents rarely requested or were promised anonymity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact revisions of the Child and Family Services Act and to other acts to:

"Permit adult adoptees unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information;

"Permit birth parents, grandparents and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate when the adopted person reaches age 18;

"Permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children;

"Allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file a contact veto restricting contact by the searching party;

"Replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

This is signed by many constituents from across Ontario. I'm pleased to present it to the House on behalf of Julie Jordan today.

LANDFILL

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

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

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

landfill at site 41; and

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

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

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

and

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

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

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

and

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

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

legislation;

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

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

I'd like to sign my name to this as well and ask that the minister support this, as she did the Adams mine report.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH INFORMATION

PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LA SANTÉ

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 30, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to enact and amend various Acts with respect to the

protection of health information / Projet de loi 31, Loi édictant et modifiant diverses lois en ce qui a trait à la protection des renseignements sur la santé.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, as I call government order number G31, I'd like to inform the

House of some urgent information. At the top of the seventh, it's Detroit Tigers, 7; Toronto Blue Jays, 0.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Further debate? Oh, way up there. The member for Don Valley West.

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I'm not going to comment on the-is that a baseball score?

I'm happy to speak to Bill 31. I had the privilege of travelling with the committee around Ontario to hear delegations on this bill, and I want to acknowledge

especially the member from Kitchener-Waterloo and the member from Nickel Belt for their comments and contributions. My experience as a new member on the committee was not so much learning from

their partisan arguments but learning from their experience and their knowledge of the area, because, as you've heard them and other speakers say, this bill has been some time in the making.

There's been a lot of time for people to-I'm just noticing the clock, Mr Speaker. I think I had to say that I was sharing my time with another member. Did I have to say that at the beginning? I

apologize.

The Deputy Speaker: You don't really have to at the beginning, but at some time during, you do then have to say who you're sharing it

with.

Ms Wynne: I am going to share my time with the member from London-Fanshawe. I apologize for not stating that up front.

The Deputy Speaker: No apology required. Just continue.

Ms Wynne: OK. We are a generous-hearted party.

As I was saying, having been a member of the committee that travelled with Bill 31 and hearing the delegations and hearing the members who have had long

experience with the development of this bill, it was clear to me that there's been time for consensus to develop on this bill. That was a really useful and edifying experience for those of us on

the committee, to listen to the refinement of a bill rather than to engage in partisan argument and rhetorical debate throughout the time on the road.

The other thing that I wanted to say about this bill right up front is that it seems to me that this legislation is about dealing with complexity. It's

necessary because we have this complex technological world; we have volumes of information that we haven't had in the past, so I think it's really necessary that we have this bill.

The goal of this legislation is to balance the needs of that complex technology that exists now in the health system with the needs of individuals to control

their own information. So that technologically advanced system, the plethora of caregivers that exists now to look after individuals, has to be able to do its job to diagnose and treat. But at the

same time, individuals need to be able to have control over their own health information.

I know I often make allusions to the past, but it's something about being in this historical place. When my grandfather was practising medicine in north

Toronto between 1924 and 1950, I don't think such complexity could have been imagined. I'm reminded of when you start to work out and all of a sudden you have pains where you didn't know you had

places. It's almost like this legislation has to be put in place to deal with problems that we didn't even know we had 50 years ago. I think that it's very necessary, but it's going to require

intentional procedures. It's going to require health care providers and agencies to be very intentional about how they put these procedures in place, and that's going to take some doing.

The member from Nickel Belt talked about the implementation issue. I'm going to come back to that later in my remarks because I think it's a very important

point.

The relationship between the patient and the health care provider has drastically changed over the last decades. We assume now that it's in our best interests

to be active participants in the management of our health care. In order for us to do that, we have to have rules and procedures in place that require health care providers to interact with us in

particular ways. To a large extent, that's what this bill is about. Bill 31 sets a framework in place to facilitate the responsible information management that we all require.

Why do we need this health information privacy legislation? What is it going to do? First of all, currently there is a real lack of consistent rules governing

what information can be collected and how that information can be disclosed. What this bill means is that personal health information will be protected in a clear and consistent manner. Ontarians

will have a legislated right of access to their own health information. Privacy protection for personal health information is located in different statutes and professional standards, so the rules

aren't consistent. This bill pulls that in and makes sure those are all located in one place.

There is also federal legislation in place. You've heard other speakers say this. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA,

as we called it on the committee, was not developed with health care information in mind. It's not clear on whom it applies to and when there is need for express consent for transfers of personal

health information. So we need additional legislation to put those protections in place.

This legislation also specifies rules around the destruction of personal health information, because it's not just the production; it's what do you do with

health information when it has to be destroyed? And finally, what does destruction of the information mean?

We need legislation that will allow doctors and other primary health care providers to share information with each other about an individual where that

information is necessary.

Bill 31 addresses these issues. It sets out consistent rules on collection, use and disclosure of information; it brings health information privacy protection

rules into one statute; it complements the federal legislation, which was not designed to deal with health information; it allows the flow of health information within the circle of care providers

around an individual; and it restricts the flow of health information when that's the desire of the patient. All of those things are necessary to have in place. That's what Bill 31 does.

There were a few amendments that were asked for repeatedly in our travels. I wanted to mention two of them in particular that we have responded to in the

amendments. I think they've gone a long way to making interested parties in the province feel that this is a piece of legislation that is going to work.

First of all, the change of date of enactment of the bill from July 1, 2004, as it was originally stated, to January 1, 2005: This change in the timing of the

enactment will give health care providers the time they need. It will also give the government the time it needs to implement the changes that need to be put into place.

The second amendment that was asked for repeatedly has to do with the fundraising issue. I know that other speakers have spoken to this, and I'm sure more

will, but this was an issue that was raised over and over by hospitals and hospital foundations. In the case of the need for hospital fundraising, the OHA and hospital foundations from around the

province argued that they need to be able to use and disclose limited personal health information, name and prescribed contact information only, for fundraising purposes. They need to use that with

the implied consent of patients.

The argument they made was that if they were required to get express consent from every patient, every grateful patient who left their facility, their

donations would drop dramatically. We were told that the projection was that up to 90% of the donations from that grateful patient group could be lost if they were required to get express consent

from every patient who went through their doors.

So what has been done is that the amendment has been put in place that will allow those organizations to fundraise with implied consent. Of course, patients

will always have the option to say, "I'm not interested in fundraising," they can opt out of that process, but hospitals will be allowed to act on implied consent. That amendment has gone a long

way to making stakeholders feel comfortable with this legislation.

I want to give my time to the member for London-Fanshawe, but there are a couple of other things I wanted to say about this legislation.

I spoke this morning with the Canadian Mental Health Association, because one of the areas that was the most sensitive was that of personal health information

among mental patients: how institutions can deal with that particularly sensitive issue and when and if it can be disclosed. So I wanted to follow up with the mental health association to see how

they were feeling now that the bill has had the amendments put in place.

I'm happy to report that they are very happy with the state the legislation is in at this point. They stand by their statement in their deputation that they

were particularly pleased about the inclusion of programs such as housing, employment supports and peer supports, which aren't normally defined as health care, being part of that definition because

those are the things that are needed for mental health patients. Having those as part of the definition means that the whole spectrum of care that they provide is included in this legislation.

They're ecstatic that this bill is going forward. I think that speaks volumes to the sensitivity with which the legislation has been written, but also to the amendments that have been put in place

that have dealt with people's concerns.

The lockbox issue I think really epitomizes one of the issues that highlights the tension between the need to provide good health care-good diagnosis, good

treatment-and the need for individuals to have control of their health information. What the lockbox does is it allows individuals to hold back certain information, but practitioners will know,

when they get information, that they're not getting the complete information. That's the balance that was struck. Although there were people who argued on both sides, we in the government felt that

going forward with this legislation with the lockbox in place was the responsible thing to do.

The process of refining Bill 31 has been an illuminating one for all of us who had the opportunity to travel with the committee and respond to the interested

parties who came forward to talk to us. This kind of collaborative consensus-building is not possible, I recognize, on every piece of legislation. Ideologies and philosophies will intervene. But

wherever we can work together and wherever we can put the public good, the public interest, right at the centre of the debate and write legislation that speaks to that public interest, we're going

to be serving the needs of Ontarians much better.

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): First, I would like to thank the member for Don Valley West for her details about Bill 31. I think she went

with the committee more than me, travelled the whole province and listened to the many delegates from across Ontario talking about this bill. I had the privilege of listening to many people when

the committee came to London.

I'm honoured today to support this bill, because one of the elements of the bill is that it is a true reflection of the commitment of Dalton McGuinty's

government to protect the people of this province. This bill will protect patients who visit doctors, hospitals-protect their rights and protect their information concerning health care.

I think this bill is very important in enhancing health care in this province for many reasons. First, it will allow the many facilities in this province to

share information with the consent of patients. Before, we didn't have anything in place to protect patients when they go to see doctors or go to the hospital or to any institution in this

province, because we didn't have any clear bill to regulate and facilitate this issue. And it is very important to us to-

Interjection.

Mr Ramal: I guess the comment from the member from-is it Simcoe? I know they are always on the negative side. It doesn't matter what we do,

they're always on the negative side. That's OK.

When the committee came to London, I listened to many people and I listened to their concerns. One of their concerns that got my attention was the right of

institutions to use patient information in order to fundraise. As you know, many hospitals and health institutions in this province are facing difficult times financially. They use that right to

call many people in order to generate money to keep their institution functioning. As the speaker from Don Valley stated, they amended this bill to allow some institutions to use names for

fundraising.

Another very important thing is that some people were concerned about the Minister of Health having the right to get information about patients. As a matter of

fact, the bill will never give permission to the Minister of Health to be privy to any personal information about any patient without consent from the patient.

I was pleased to participate in some of the discussions on this matter and to talk to many delegates who came to London to see if the bill reflects the beliefs

of people in this province or not. As I said, I was very pleased to listen. They were comfortable, very happy to see the government of Ontario, the Dalton McGuinty government, trying to consult

with them on anything or seek their opinion on very important matters in their lives.

Also, it is very important too, when the patient goes to the doctor, that the patient has a right not to consent to allow the doctor to use their information

for any reason unless the information would help eliminate some strange disease or protect the patient from any problem that might occur in the future.

Another important piece of this bill talks about using electronic equipment to receive information. As you know, our lives today are controlled by electronic

devices. Some concerns from some delegates were brought up, because when the information goes into a computer, they're concerned about some people who may have access to it. This bill will protect

that right. If the government or the commission feels this information is being moved or will be accessible by different sources, they'll have a right to destroy this information and protect the

patient.

As we listened to many stakeholders in this province, the government, in conjunction with the institutions of health in this province, tried to hold many

educational sessions to educate patients and educate the people in this province about their rights, about how the bill works and about how it can protect them from being exposed to many people in

this province.

I think the importance of this bill is that for the first time it will organize health care and the secrecy of health care in this province. At the same time,

it will allow the institution to share information in order to protect the patient and enhance the structure of the health care in this province. In the meantime, it will give the right to

institutions, especially hospitals, to use some information to raise funds to continue to develop and maintain their existence in this province.

As I mentioned, between 50% and 60% of health institutions in this province continue functioning on fundraising. This bill and that concern, according to the

people who went with the committee, and when I listened to my colleague from Don Valley-they added the amendment to absorb all the concerns and make it easier for all the stakeholders in this

province to function in conjunction with the government of Ontario. So I believe we are on the right track. That's why I'm speaking today in support of this bill, and I hope all members from both

sides will agree with us and move forward in order to make sure the bill will pass with the full co-operation of all the people in this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise today and make a few comments on Bill 8-I'm sorry, Bill 31.

Let me make it clear: I support Bill 31, and I believe a lot of our party will be supporting it as well. We think it's the right thing to do, and we think

there's been enough debate on this bill. You have to remember that in one way or another this bill has been around, I believe, for the third or fourth time. Quite frankly, it's time to get on with

this. I've mentioned before that I'll support it, and I will again.

Of course, Bill 8 is another story. We don't agree with that, and that's clear. I don't think anybody in our caucus will be supporting it in its present form.

However, I think there's no question, as I listened to your democratic renewal plans, that there will be further committee hearings after second reading debate is completed on that. We full