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

April 18, 2005

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 2005-Apr-18 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 18 April 2005 Lundi 18 avril 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNUAL WALK FOR

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

EARTH DAY

EDUCATION IN HAMILTON AREA

ANNIVERSARY OF

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

HARRY JEROME AWARDS

NORTHERN ONTARIO COMMUNITIES

HEALTH CARE REFORM

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' AGREEMENT

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS /

ÉQUIPES DE SANTÉ FAMILIALE

ORAL QUESTIONS

OBSTETRICAL CARE

HEALTH PREMIUMS

PUBLIC SERVICES

NORTHERN ECONOMY

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' AGREEMENT

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

IMMIGRATION POLICY

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

CHEDOKE LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITY

FOOD SAFETY

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

NORTHERN ONTARIO

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILDREN'S CAR SEATS

ENERGY POLICY

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

SENIOR CITIZENS

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

STUDENT SAFETY

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND

SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES

ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS

D'ALIMENTS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNUAL WALK FOR

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Yesterday, Sunday, April 17, I had the privilege of participating in the fifth annual Super Cities Walk for

Multiple Sclerosis. It was held at the Orillia District Collegiate and Vocational Institute in Orillia. It had approximately 300 participants and dozens and dozens of volunteers. In Orillia alone,

the Super Cities Walk raised $56,000 for MS research.

I want to put on record a couple of key points: Canadians have one of the highest rates of multiple sclerosis in the world; MS is the most common neurological

disease affecting young adults in Canada; every day, three more people in Canada are diagnosed with MS; women are twice as likely as men to develop MS; MS can cause loss of balance, impaired

speech, extreme fatigue, double vision and paralysis; MS was first identified and described by a French neurologist, Dr. Jean-Martin Charcot, in 1868; we don't know what causes MS, but researchers

are closer to finding the answer.

What's important is that in communities across our country -- I believe the goal this year was 150 communities participating, and they tried to raise

approximately $11 million for MS research.

I would just like to take this opportunity to thank those folks in my riding who participated in this walk, and all the volunteers and participants across the

country who have helped find the cause of this disease.

EARTH DAY

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): As the 35th annual Earth Day fast approaches this Friday, April 22, it's important that we pause to

recognize the true challenges we face in protecting our environment.

I was shocked to read the United Nations Millennium Assessment and its stark warning against continuing in our current direction of using up our natural

resources at such an alarming rate. Among the findings: Global fish stocks are at a 30-year low; deforestation and loss of wetland is reducing our protection against pollution; the majority of

wildlife species are declining -- a 12% decline for birds and a 25% decline for mammals; 32% of amphibians are threatened with extinction in the next 100 years.

Human activity is putting too much strain on our earth. I mention this, cognizant of the fact that, right here in the GTA-Golden Horseshoe, we're expecting

another four million people to arrive in the next 30 years.

I recall my first Earth Day as an environmental science teacher in 1970. At that time, the global population was 3.7 billion; today, it's 6.5 billion. That's a

lot of garbage, a lot of water pollution for an already stretched-out ecosystem.

As I look to celebrate the environment on Earth Day this Friday, I'll be planting trees. People in my riding will be cleaning up streams. We have to keep in mind

the bigger picture and the challenges we face.

EDUCATION IN HAMILTON AREA

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I rise to share some great news about some extraordinary developments taking place

with the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board. Yesterday, I had the privilege of participating in the dedication of a new Catholic high school, appropriately named after Hamilton

bishop the Most Reverend Anthony Tonnos. Located in the community of Ancaster, this is the first new Catholic high school built in Hamilton in the past 26 years. The community gathered to give

thanks. It was indeed a joyful occasion.

In addition, this past Friday I had the opportunity to visit Cathedral high school in my beloved Hamilton. I learned about a new program designed to provide

support to this inner-city school's significant ESL student population. With funding provided by our government under the student success program, Cathedral high school has developed an innovative

program called the Canadian Language Benchmarks project. The educators involved in this project have brought together students from diverse backgrounds. In one class I met young people from 10

different countries, all being provided with full-day, intensive language classes.

The program reminded me of the good work that is also taking place at the St. Charles Centre in Hamilton. The centre runs an ESL program for adults, helping new

immigrants cope with the changes they're facing.

The ingenuity and dedication demonstrated by these educators is a joy to see. They get it, and they understand that by partnering together we can continue to

make a difference for all students involved in education in Ontario.

ANNIVERSARY OF

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Yesterday afternoon, the Canadian Armenian community of Toronto commemorated the 90th anniversary of the Armenian

genocide of 1915. I had the honour of representing the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and our leader, John Tory, at the ceremony. No one could have left that gathering without being moved

by the accounts of atrocities in which 1.5 million Armenians were massacred, and there can be no doubt about the historical fact of the Armenian genocide.

Elected officials from all levels of government attended the event and brought their traditional greetings. There was a welcomed acknowledgment of the House of

Commons's endorsement of the Senate's motion M-380, which unequivocally recognizes the Armenian genocide as a historical fact, but there was justified disappointment and indignation that,

As a member of this Legislature, I committed to take this issue beyond the annual laying of wreaths and commemorative statements. I undertook to bring a motion

Today, I'm putting my colleagues in this Legislature on notice that I will be making that request during Wednesday's sitting. On behalf of the Armenian community in Ontario, I look forward to

receiving unanimous consent from all parties in this House. It is the right thing to do.

HARRY JEROME AWARDS

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): This past weekend, not only did I go to the Armenian event, but I was also at the Harry Jerome Awards on

Saturday night, when the entire community came together in Toronto to recognize the accomplishments of the African-Canadian community.

I was there on behalf of the New Democratic Party to give greetings from our party and from our leader. But I especially went to celebrate the accomplishments of

a certain Mr. Kevin Modeste. Mr. Modeste might be known to some of you. He was a high school valedictorian in his town of Pickering. He has been active in the Black Business and Professional

Association. He is an entrepreneur. He has helped work to bring Desmond Tutu to Toronto. He has organized past Harry Jerome Awards. He has been instrumental in their scholarship fund. He is active

in his church. He is on the Urban Alliance on Race Relations.

Most importantly, Mr. Modeste is a person who toils tirelessly in my office. We are so proud of him in Beaches-East York. He is a very valued member of the team.

He keeps me on the straight and narrow. He tells me especially how to work the computer: how to turn it on, how to turn it off and how to find the many details that we as parliamentarians need

every day.

Congratulations, Kevin. You're doing a great job.

NORTHERN ONTARIO COMMUNITIES

Mr. Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Our quality of life in the north depends on the strength of our communities. The government of Ontario

is making northern communities stronger.

The government is helping to make our municipalities stronger by replacing the old, inequitable community reinvestment fund with the new Ontario municipal

partnership fund, targeting its funding to help small northern and rural communities pay for the costs of social services and policing. In my riding, that represented an 11% increase.

The government is helping to make our fire departments stronger by providing a special grant, $50,000, to all small communities to help our firefighters with

training and equipment.

The government is helping to strengthen our northern infrastructure by participating in the new Canada-Ontario rural municipal infrastructure program. The

The government is helping to strengthen the northern economy. In the past 12 months, 3,100 net new jobs have been created in northern Ontario.

The Ontario government is ensuring that the north has a strong voice at Queen's Park. Under the previous government, northern Ontario lost one third of its MPPs.

The government has introduced democratic renewal legislation that will protect the number of seats in northern Ontario. A strong northern voice at Queen's Park will help build strong communities in

northern Ontario.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): The McGuinty government's plan to reform health care is clear and transparent. After years of Tory cuts

and mismanagement, the Liberal government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that Ontarians get the health care they need when they need it. Our party is the only party that supports real

innovation within our health care system that will improve the services that the people of Ontario receive.

Consolidating cataract surgeries at Kensington Health Centre, a not-for-profit downtown Toronto clinic, makes sense. It will efficiently complete thousands of

cataract surgeries per year and will result in better patient outcomes.

Our government also optimized the medicare advantage and saved $25 million by bulk purchasing seven MRI and 26 CT scanners and other machines last fiscal year

for our hospitals.

Family health teams will have doctors, nurse practitioners, registered nurses and other health professionals working as a team to provide care to up to 52% more

people than if doctors worked solo.

These are examples of innovation within the principles and the essence of the Canada Health Act. Why is John Tory against innovation and in favour of the

unsustainable status quo? Or does he, like Mike Harris and Preston Manning, believe that innovation can only occur outside the Canada Health Act? What is Mr. Tory's hidden agenda on health

care?

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' AGREEMENT

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Last week saw the first results of the ongoing provincial dialogue between the McGuinty

government, teachers' federations and school boards in Ontario. This agreement, the first of its kind in Ontario, will lead to peace and stability in elementary schools for the next four years.

The hard work of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario and the Ontario Public School Boards' Association to conclude this agreement will mean that

teachers, students and parents will no longer have to endure the years of conflict that characterized education under the Conservative government. Elementary school teachers will have additional

time to prepare materials for class, correct assignments, and connect with teachers and parents.

Sandra Emery, who is the president of the Hamilton-Wentworth local of the elementary teachers' federation, said, "I think they will see this agreement as giving

them the prep time that they need, ultimately. We also fully expect that this will translate into additional staff in the schools -- for instance, specialist teachers -- and a general improvement

in working conditions." Teachers will now be able to focus on teaching students and not have to worry about labour unrest in their profession.

I am pleased that Minister Kennedy has worked so hard to help educators and school boards reach this understanding, and I know he will continue the provincial

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): The McGuinty government's plan to reform health care is clear and transparent. After years of Tory cuts, the McGuinty

government is taking the necessary steps to ensure that Ontarians get the health care they need when they need it.

By establishing family health teams, we will have doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, registered nurses and other health professionals working as a team to

provide care to up to 52% more people than if doctors worked in a solo practice.

This is great news for the people of Ontario and for the people of my riding. Residents of Essex and Chatham-Kent are welcoming the announcement of family health

teams in Chatham, Harrow, Leamington and Tilbury. People have great things to say about this announcement. Brian Gray, for example, chair of the Harrow committee, was quoted in the Windsor Star as

saying that he "can't find words to describe how big it is. It's absolutely amazing. We were in a health care crisis. This is the next evolution in family doctors."

We've exceeded our goal with the first 52 family health teams and three networks of teams, and we're on track to create 150 more over the next three years that

will help more than 2.5 million Ontarians. We will continue to work with local communities to expand access to comprehensive primary care for all Ontarians. We're committed to providing all

Ontarians with the high-quality care they need where they need it, when they need it.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

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

notice regarding the standing committee on social policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent, as requested by the House leader? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated June 17, 2004, the standing committee on social policy may meet on

Friday, April 29, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding the standing committee on finance and economic

affairs.

The Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated June 17th, 2004, the standing committee on finance and economic

affairs may meet on Friday, April 22, and Friday, April 29, 2005, for the purpose of considering Bill 164,

An Act to rename and amend the Tobacco Control Act, 1994, repeal the Smoking in the

Workplace Act and make complementary amendments to other Acts.

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

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 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Monday, April 18, 2005, 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, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Barrett, Toby

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tory, John

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilson, Jim

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Murdoch, Bill

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 59; the nays are 8.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS /

ÉQUIPES DE SANTÉ FAMILIALE

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It is with very great pride that I rise in the House today to speak about what

I consider to be a great step forward in health care in this province. Last Friday in Brighton, Premier McGuinty and I announced the creation of 52 family health teams and three bigger family

health team networks in communities across Ontario. That is 55 in total, exceeding our initial commitment to create 45 family health teams this spring, and is just a down payment on the 150 we will

have created in communities across Ontario by 2007-08.

You know, when we drove into Brighton there was a sign proclaiming that the town motto is, "Where the past greets the future." I thought that was wonderfully

appropriate, because in Brighton and in other communities across Ontario the past is indeed greeting the future. We have launched the future of medicare in the form of our family health teams,

multi-disciplinary teams of nurses, doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists and other health care professionals -- working to provide the very best kind of integrated, patient-centred care; a

continuum of care, day and night.

Family health teams provide after-hours and weekend coverage, and patients will also be able to call a telephone health advisory service after hours to get

health advice from a registered nurse. This is precisely the model of primary care reform that experts like Roy Romanow have been calling for for years and that previous governments have tried,

with only limited success, to introduce.

We are enjoying an unprecedented level of success. The 55 family health teams that we announced -- and remember, this was only a first instalment -- were

selected from 213 applicants, representing 1,300 doctors and 2,600 other health care professionals from communities that want a family health team of their own -- 213 applications. It seems that

people understand instinctively that this is a great idea.

Our government shares a vision of health care with Ontarians. It is a vision of a system that helps keep people healthy, delivers good care to them when they

need it and that will be there for generations to come. Our plan to make that vision a reality operates on three fronts: healthier Ontarians, reduced wait times and better access to doctors and

nurses. Family health teams are going to help us deliver on all three.

We're going to have healthier Ontarians because family health teams will stress health promotion and disease prevention, because these are just as important as

treating minor ailments and managing serious chronic disease in the overall health care scheme of things. It is health care as opposed to illness care, and it saves lives as well as precious health

care dollars.

We're going to reduce wait times by providing comprehensive care closer to home, thereby reducing the need for emergency room visits. They will ease the strain

on our hospitals, allowing them to deliver the acute care they were designed to deliver, only faster.

Above all else, family health teams will improve access to doctors. This is of particular importance given the current shortage of doctors in this province, a

shortage over which both previous governments presided and to which they have both contributed.

I know my friends opposite will be interested to hear that 35 of the family health teams we are announcing are going into communities that are underserviced in

terms of family doctors. That means that thousands of Ontarians, so-called orphan patients, who previously did not have access to a family physician, now will. They will have access to a doctor, a

nurse, a nurse practitioner -- to a whole team of health care professionals. In the coming months, we're going to carefully track the number of orphan patients that our family health teams take in,

and we will report back to Ontarians so that the full value of health teams will be known to all.

We've scattered this first batch of family health teams across a wide and diverse number of communities in this province: from rural FHTs like the one in

Dryden, to Seaton House in downtown Toronto, which will specialize in providing services to the homeless, to the family health teams at teaching facilities like McMaster and Mount Sinai, where

young professionals will be exposed as early as possible to the family health team model.

This is a model that is attractive to doctors and other health care professionals because it allows them to share the workload, have greater flexibility and

balance their work and home lives. It leverages the benefits that doctors can provide like no other model. A doctor working in a team model can care for 52% more patients than a doctor working in a

solo practice precisely because he or she is supported by and working together in a circle of care with a dedicated team of health professionals. Not only are patients getting better care; more of

them are getting it.

This first batch of family health teams will provide care to more than a million Ontarians. In 2008, the 150 family health teams we will have built will be

serving an estimated 2.5 million Ontarians.

As I said at the outset, family health teams represent the future of health care. They are that rare example of an idea that is almost universally seen to be

great. Patients, providers, political leaders and academic experts all agree: Family health teams are a huge step on the road that is taking Ontario to a better health care system, a system that

helps keep people healthy, delivers good care to them when they need it, and will be there for generations to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I want to thank the honourable member for his statement in the House today. Like many of us, we had an

opportunity to read his press release and package of materials last Friday when he made the announcement. Today in the House, several members have referred to their plan as "clear and transparent."

Based on the number of additional announcements we are getting from the minister, I would like to add that it's not only "clear and transparent," in his words, but also repetitive.

The member opposite will know that every member of this Legislature supports the principle of family health networks, which is something the previous

government began -- the first government in Canada. I remember as if it was yesterday when a certain Dr. Neil McLeod, being one of the first teams in the province, in Thunder Bay, heralded this

wonderful model and its success in our province. Of course, Dr. Neil McLeod is no stranger to the members of the Liberal government; he was Lyn McLeod's husband. So we know that the model works,

and we know it requires a commitment.

Many of us in Ontario are asking, why, after receiving $2.4 billion of an illegal health tax, is the agenda moving as slowly as it is with this government? The

first decision you made was to delist physiotherapy, chiropractic services and ophthalmology services; you know that your ministry is discussing cuts to the Ontario drug benefit plan with

reference-based pricing, and seniors' groups have expressed concerns with that move; the hospital funding -- these are not necessarily cuts, but the limited amount of additional resources has

amounted to unprecedented high deficits. We know that your plans to date have cut nurses in this province by 757. You have been dismantling district health councils -- that wasn't done in a clear

and transparent manner; in fact it was done literally under the cover of darkness, with millions of dollars put aside for severances to some of the very people who are being rehired under your

local health integration networks, and we're still trying to figure out exactly what authority they will have.

Minister, believe me when I say that we are all anxious to drive the agenda of primary care reform in this province. To be fair, in May 2002, my colleague Tony

Clement presided over the opening of the Dorval Medical Associates family health network in Oakville. Lo and behold, imagine our surprise when in your Friday press release you announced that your

contribution was that you were going to take credit for the Dorval Medical Associates family health team. So apparently, in three years, the major change in contribution is that we are going to

change their name from a network to a team. There are many of us who are concerned that much of today's and Friday's announcements is based on public relations, but there are a substantive number

of questions that remain unanswered. We want to know, for example, what is the level of the funding commitment for these clinics? It was very clear in the OMA agreement, Minister, that you have

recognized the challenge. Unfortunately, in your first attempt at an agreement with the OMA, you got the concept correct, but you failed in terms of providing a timely compensation package to

encourage doctors to make the conversion into these family networks. In your second attempt with the doctors, the agreement has been struck, and I note that as a result of your negotiations,

fee-for-service doctors will get a 14.5% increase over the life of this agreement, and those physicians operating in an HSO or in a family health network will get a 36.5% increase over the life of

this agreement. Clearly, you are now finally putting financial incentives in place that were not spoken to in the first agreement.

I want to indicate a concern we on this side of the House have about the growing number of pressures on hospitals in high-growth areas. The number of orphaned

patients in this province is growing exponentially as our immigration grows and as people move. We realize now that there was not an attempt to match the hospital funding with those communities

that had the highest numbers of orphaned patients. We would ask you to better manage the system, and consider in the new funding formula our hospitals who patiently wait to know what budget they

will be given this year. We ask you to be sensitive to that so we can dramatically reduce the number of orphaned patients in our province.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I say to the Minister of Health, my dear friend, I'm underwhelmed by this announcement and I'll tell

you why. It's not because of the issue of family health networks or teams, or whatever you want to call them. The idea in itself is a good one; in fact, we supported that initiative when it was

first announced under the Conservative government. I'm underwhelmed because you got inside the big limo with the Premier and drive down the highway to a community in order to make this great

announcement, and you said, "We made a promise in the last election and we're going to have 110 or 120" --

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): One hundred fifty.

Mr. Bisson: Excuse me; I stand corrected by my Liberal friend -- "150 new family health teams." And what did they announce? They announced 52.

But here's the problem: Over half of the ones he announced had already been created by the Tories. There was nothing new.

In Timmins, the town from which I come, a great place to live, I must say, we have a family health network that was started up under the Conservatives. In

fact, in the announcement last Friday, they didn't even change the name. They didn't call it a family health team; it's still being called a family health network. So I say to the government that

that's pretty underwhelming.

There's another point that really galls me as a northerner. We have friends here from across northeastern Ontario who come from underserviced communities, and

over half of those announced are not even in underserviced-area communities. I say, great idea, but tell me how that's going to help somebody to get health services in Kapuskasing, Hearst, Kirkland

Lake, Chapleau or Opasatika. It's not going to do a lot.

Je dis au ministre, écoutez, si vous essayez de nous impressionner avec vos belles annonces que vous avez faites vendredi, vous avez besoin de retrousser

vos manches un peu puis faire de l'ouvrage. Tout ce que vous avez fait vendredi, c'est d'annoncer -- d'abord, vous n'avez pas gardé votre promesse telle que vous l'avez faite dans la

dernière élection. Vous n'en avez pas créé 150; vous en avez créé seulement 52. Mais ce qui est vraiment difficile à accepter est que la moitié des

équipes que vous avez annoncées vendredi passé avaient déjà été annoncées par les conservateurs quand ils étaient au gouvernement et elles ont

été établies par le gouvernement conservateur. Je dis au ministre, écoutez, il n'y a rien de nouveau.

Deuxièmement, il y a des communautés à travers le nord de la province, comme dans les parties rurales de la province, qui ont besoin de ces

équipes de santé dans leur communauté pour les assister à donner des services médicaux à leurs communautés et aux citoyens qui restent là. Mais si on

regarde, la majorité des réseaux qui ont été annoncés et établis sont dans des communautés qui ne sont pas sous-desservies.

On dit au gouvernement, écoutez, il n'y a rien de nouveau ici. Si vous allez faire quelque chose, on vous demande d'au moins retrousser vos manches et

faire un peu d'ouvrage pour être capable de travailler à mettre en place ces équipes dans les communautés qui en ont besoin.

Again, I say this is an underwhelming opportunity for the government in this particular announcement. It's a bit of a sad day.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. You promised better health care closer to home -- in fact,

you used those words again today -- and that that would come, together with the Minister of Finance's illegal health tax; in fact, it belongs to the entire government, including the Premier.

However, like all of the Liberal promises, the facts just don't back up the spin.

Could you tell us today exactly which hospitals in Ontario will be forced to cut out and cancel childbirth specialists and services as a result of your "pay

more, get less" health care plan.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I know of only two situations in the course of our 18 months in government

where the provincial government has asked to address the local issue of obstetrics. In the case of Wallaceburg, on which I spoke in the House last week, I supported the move of that program because

it had a very low number of births -- perhaps 50 or 60 -- to Chatham, nearby; 22 kilometres, I believe. I think that was the appropriate thing to do.

In the case of Halton region, that the member from Halton would be well aware of, the Georgetown hospital, the site of the William Osler Health Centre, was

threatening to close their obstetrics program and transfer those volumes to the main site of William Osler. In that instance, I didn't support it.

Further to that, the government has no plan with respect to obstetrics. But I leave the member on this challenge: Do you believe, sir, as an example, that a

cataract program consolidated in downtown Toronto, into a site that's easier to access for patients, is a bad thing for health care?

Mr. Tory: With respect, I'm looking forward to the day when the member opposite will have a chance to ask me questions. That'll come soon

enough.

Doctors have told me over and over again that the more of these services like childbirth and other services the Liberal government orders cancelled, the less

likely hospitals are to be able to retain and attract the services of these people. This is particularly true, as the minister knows, in smaller communities, where the doctor shortage, as he said

himself today, is already a problem. By cancelling childbirth and other services, aren't you just making the doctor shortage worse, notwithstanding your empty promises to fix it?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: If the honourable member had quite as much courage of his convictions about the outcome of the next election, maybe he'd

agree to run in the riding where he lives, which he just conceded to me.

On the matter at hand that the honourable member raises about obstetrics programs, of course there needs to be particular sensitivity given to the needs of the

more rural and remote parts of our province. At the very same time, I can't believe that the honourable member, quoting references to doctors who go unnamed -- that they're giving him advice that

says that a program that does not sustain a certain capacity should continue, even though all of the clinical evidence is very clear that moms and babies do better in an environment where more

babies are born. We're simply operating on the advice that might be provided from the clinical community.

As I said to the honourable member in an earlier answer, there have been but two occasions where we've been involved in issues around obstetrics. Our record

remains clear, I believe we've made the right decisions, and I'd be encouraged by --

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

Mr. Tory: I did misspeak myself earlier; you're quite right. I'm looking forward to the day when other members will have a chance to ask me

questions, and that will come soon enough. The member opposite may well not be here at that time. It's a very good point.

Minister, when we talk about quotes, the only person whose quotes we're here discussing today is you. You were musing at a press scrum, where you seem to make

a number of your announcements, about how it wasn't necessarily sensible to have obstetrics services available in hospitals that have certain volumes. You are the one who's going around talking

about cutting out services and cutting out various things in health care services, while people are filling out their income tax returns and paying your government's illegal health tax.

What are the specific details of your scheme to cut out these services? Can you give us a guarantee that no other hospitals in Ontario will lose their

obstetrics services under your watch?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: It sounds interesting that the honourable member, himself the author of a commitment during his leadership campaign to

reduce health care spending by $2.4 billion, would be asking the government which, on behalf of Ontarians, has made this significant investment in health care this year. All across the breadth of

the province of Ontario we see the benefits of a $3-billion investment in health care in fiscal 2004-05. Contrast that to the circumstances that would be current if the honourable member were

bringing forward his $2.4-billion cut to health care. What would we have? A flashback to 1995-97.

I would just encourage the honourable member, if he wants to know how his plan is going to work, to talk to his former health minister, who sits in the second

row. Do you want to talk about hospitals? How about a $557-million cut to hospitals? That's what your party brought in the last time the people of Ontario gave you power and that's why they're not

doing it again any time soon.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): This minister who lives in the past continues to talk about the past and totally shirks, in the

process, his responsibilities in the present.

I'll tell you one thing --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Minister, come to order, please.

Mr. Tory: I'll tell you one thing. While the minister is mired in the past and can't talk about the present at all, there are a lot of people

who are very focused on the present as they fill out their income tax returns for this year and are paying your Liberal government's, Mr. McGuinty's, illegal health tax. Even some of the

lowest-income people in Ontario, as they fill out their income tax returns, are paying your health tax. How do you explain to someone who is paying that tax and filling out that form this week that

the physiotherapy they received for their injury or disability when they were 18, the day before their birthday, and the day after, when they turn 19, they no longer receive that coverage from you?

How do you explain that to them?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): All across the province of Ontario, as Ontarians sit down to do their taxes,

they'll recognize that important public services need important public support. The reality of the honourable member's questioning is that it's all built on this false foundation, because he is the

architect of a commitment to cut $2.4 billion from health care. I'm quite sure, for many Ontarians, seized and aware as they are of your commitment to cut health care spending by $2.4 billion, that

they'll have these very pointed questions for you.

From our standpoint, we have communities all across the province of Ontario -- in Harrow, in Tilbury; where I was, in Brighton -- where in some cases people

were brought to tears at the enthusiasm they had for finally seeing reform to primary care which involves doctors and nurses and nurse practitioners: a total $600-million investment in primary care

in the province of Ontario on top of the work that we've done to enhance home care and a multitude of others areas. Ontarians recognize that we're fulfilling our commitments to improve the quality

of public services, and within the mandate of medicare.

Mr. Tory: The people of Ontario know two things: They know I've made no such commitment whatsoever, and they know for sure that with the

McGuinty Liberal government, they are paying more and getting less.

Some of the very same people filling out their income tax returns and paying hundreds of dollars more in taxes for the pay-more, get-less system are in waiting

lines that aren't growing any shorter. The Premier couldn't tell me last week where the starting points of those waiting lists were. He said that he had commissioned a study. I attended the

radiologists' convention this weekend, and they said that they had available detailed wait times from across the province coming from front-line people who know what they're doing. Why don't you

just stop spending money on the study, stop wasting time on the study, get those numbers, tell everybody where you're starting, and then get to work getting the wait-lists down?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: In addition to the fact that we've already invested $107 million exactly to get wait times down, with investments in

cataract surgery, cardiac surgery, cancer surgery, more hips and knees and a 20% increase to MRIs and CTs, this honourable member just proposed that stakeholders write up the research on behalf of

the people of the province of Ontario. Instead, we went to ICES, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Studies, a renowned group of scientists who can help to establish these things with complete

independence and objectivity.

The honourable member stands in his place today and suggests that it's inappropriate to use ICES for this work. This is ludicrous and speaks to that honourable

member and his commitment to the status quo that stems from being so sucked in to having to support the agenda of that party that he sits with, which for eight and a half years in this province

brought turmoil and tragedy to community after community after community.

We will move forward and --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tory: The only person who's been sucked in around here is the Minister of Health, who has been sucked in by his own rhetoric. He's

actually beginning to believe it. He thinks that the louder he says it, the more likely it is to be true.

The people are just seeing the big cheques they have to write in taxes to your government and no results. Let's just review it. The hard-working taxpayers who

are filling out their income tax returns and paying you hundreds of dollars in extra taxes are seeing eye exams cancelled, chiropractors cut off, physiotherapists cut off, childbirth services shut

down, $170 million in hospital cuts approved by you, 757 nurses fired, and signalled cuts to the drug benefit program. Is that the value for money you're offering because of your illegal health

tax? Is that what you're giving people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: What we're offering is a very, very strong contrast to the role that your party played as they wreaked havoc on health

care for eight and a half years. As part of that Tory legacy, you're doing a fine job of preserving it. In your short time here, you have come to represent, on health issues, John Tory, SQ, for

status quo. You are so committed to all the things that they did and so unwilling to branch out on any innovation that you have quickly come to be summarized this way: John Tory, SQ.

We have made a $3-billion investment in health care; $1.7 billion in total for hospitals since we arrived here. That stands in sharp contrast to the work of

your health critic there, your former health minister, who in two fiscal years cut $557 million from Ontario hospitals. That, sir, is the legacy that you have embraced.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. During the last election, Dalton McGuinty promised to invest

two cents a litre of the provincial gas tax in public transit. So far into your second year of government, municipalities still haven't received the two cents a litre of the provincial gas tax. In

the federal election, Paul Martin promised to invest five cents a litre of the federal gas tax for municipal transit. Promptly after the election, he broke that promise. Today, Jack Layton and I

called upon Prime Minister Martin to keep that promise. My question for you is, with a budget forthcoming, are you going to keep the McGuinty government's promise and fulfill the two cents a litre

of provincial gas tax?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): The fact is that this is good news, and I think the leader of the third party can't

accept the good news for the municipalities. This is funding that the municipalities never had until our government decided to give it to the municipalities. I also want to tell you that

municipalities are putting this money to good use. We are increasing ridership and buying more buses, and this is helping all the municipalities across Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: I take it that municipalities are supposed to be happy that neither the McGuinty government nor the Martin government have kept

their promises on the gas tax.

I want to ask you about another promise. Prime Minister Martin promised a national child care program in the last election. I think it's about the fourth time

it was promised. Here we are a year later, with no national child care program. The McGuinty government, not to be outdone, promised $300 million of new provincial investment in child care. Here we

are into the second year of your government and no investment of $300 million of provincial money in child care. We call upon Paul Martin to keep his promise, but my question to the Acting Premier

is, in this, your second budget, will you keep your promise and put $300 million of new provincial money into the child care program, like you promised?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: The Minister of Children and Youth Services will answer this question.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I want to tell the honourable

member, in case he hasn't noticed, Best Start has already started. We've created over 4,000 new subsidized spaces. The truth is, as valued as the money will be coming from Ottawa, the province of

Ontario pays the lion's share of child care in this province and will continue to do so. We have created more than 4,000 subsidized spaces. We have developed our model and our demonstration sites

in three parts of province which will guide us in the implementation of Best Start and we have also developed expert panels that will guide us on a college for early childhood education and

educators, as well as curriculum in the JK and SK half-day child care programs. So we're well on our way in fulfilling our promise on Best Start.

Mr. Hampton: So far no one is seeing the national child care strategy promised by Paul Martin and we haven't seen the $300 million of new

money from the McGuinty government either.

But I want to ask now about the issue of child poverty. In 1989, Ed Broadbent, former leader of the NDP, succeeded in having a motion passed unanimously in the

House of Commons to eliminate child poverty. The federal government responded with a national child benefit. This morning, Jack Layton and I called for an increase in the national child benefit to

finally deal with the issue of child poverty. My question is, when will the McGuinty government stop clawing back the child benefit from the poorest families in Ontario? When will the McGuinty

government keep its promise to stop clawing back $250 million a year from the poorest children and the poorest families in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I think the member opposite is

well aware of the number of things that we've done in a brief year and a half to make up for at least 10 years of the people affiliated with community and social services being treated like a

punching bag in this province. After one and a half years, we have made significant progress helping people who live in poverty. We have said, very upfront, that we are not finished yet; we have

much more work to do. We will continue to work every day until everyone in Ontario gets a fair shake and gets every opportunity that this province can offer them.

We hope we will continue to make the same kinds of moves as we did the moment we took office, and that was to change the policy on the national child benefit

so that $7 million this year alone has travelled right straight through to families. That's our commitment to children, and we stand by it.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A new question to the Acting Premier. I guess the poorest children and families in Ontario should be

happy that the McGuinty government's only keeping 97% of the national child benefit, that you're giving them 3%. But my question now is about the northern economy.

Since the McGuinty government came to power, the northern economy has been in real trouble. Your own economic statement last December showed a net loss of

6,000 jobs in northern Ontario, and your policy of constantly raising electricity rates is killing more jobs. You're making things worse across the north.

Today, there are workers here from communities across the north to send you a message. They want to know, since you've got an investment strategy to sustain

jobs in the auto sector, an investment strategy to sustain jobs in the movie and television sector and in the casino sector, where is the McGuinty government's strategy to sustain jobs in the

forest sector in northern Ontario instead of killing them, as you have been?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): First of all, I'd like to correct the member's statistics when it comes to northern

employment. From March 2004 to March 2005, northern Ontario gained roughly 3,100 net jobs.

This is not to say that the forest industry is not undergoing some severe restructuring right now. I know it's regrettable that some of the decisions that some

companies are having to make in order to make their mills more competitive are hurting our northern towns. But I'm determined, through the minister's council, with whom I will be meeting and whose

report I will be receiving this week -- I'm working with them to make sure that we can build a sustained forest industry in northern Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: Workers from Chapleau, Kirkland Lake and Opasatika are so impressed with the McGuinty government's record that they came here 14

hours by bus today to demonstrate that you're killing their jobs.

But I want to ask you about the promise you made during the election. You said you were going to stand up for the north and northern jobs. You said you were

going to make a difference, that you had a plan. But the perspective of people across the north is that you've abandoned them. You promised to keep hydro rates at 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour. You've

raised hydro rates by 34%, and that increase in hydro rates is killing more jobs in paper mills, more jobs in pulp mills and more jobs in sawmills. Bowater said to you very clearly, "Forest

companies are cutting back in Ontario and increasing production somewhere else under the McGuinty government."

I say to you, Minister, where is your economic strategy for forest industry communities in northern Ontario, the one you boasted about before the election?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In regard to the mention of the pulp and paper operation in Thunder Bay by Bowater, the Premier is meeting with the CEO and

chairman of Bowater in Washington today. We spoke earlier about their particular challenges.

We have a plan. It's the northern prosperity plan. My colleague Rick Bartolucci, the member from Sudbury and Minister of Northern Development and Mines, has

brought forward some extensive changes to our northern heritage fund, which now addresses private sector job creation for the first time in 15 years. It was the previous government that cancelled

all of those programs. We have brought those back with the original intent that René Fontaine, who authored that plan, brought forward in the late 1980s under the David Peterson government. We

are bringing that plan forward now, and the people of the north are responding to that. I believe that with that plan we are going to start to build the sustainable jobs the member is looking

for.

Mr. Hampton: Here's the reality: Electricity rates are up by 34%; 6,000 jobs have been lost; Bowater in Thunder Bay is one of those companies

talking about shedding more jobs, as is Abitibi, as is Neenah Paper, as in St. Marys; and the list goes on. Your so-called northern prosperity plan is really a northern disparity plan.

I say again, you boast that you've got an economic strategy for the auto sector to sustain jobs, you boast that you've got an economic strategy for the movie

and television industry in Toronto to sustain jobs and that you've got an economic strategy to sustain jobs in the casino sector. What these workers, who came 14 hours by bus, want to know from you

as you close their sawmills is, where is your economic strategy? Where is the McGuinty government's economic strategy to sustain jobs in the forest sector? Raising hydro rates and doing backroom

deals with the large sawmill companies isn't sustaining jobs; it's killing jobs everywhere across the north. Where is your economic strategy?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I want to assure the member that the McGuinty government considers forestry a top priority. In fact, as the member knows,

it's the second-largest export product of this province. It's very important to all the province, north and south, where we have jobs in almost equal proportions.

I would say to the member again that I am working with the council. They are bringing in their final recommendations this week, and I will be working with them

on such a strategy.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' AGREEMENT

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Education. Last week you committed your government to a multi-billion dollar

peace bond with Ontario's teachers. Although you deny it, and the Chair of Management Board seemed not to have an answer either on the total cost of that plan, we know that the salary grid

component of that, when applied to all the panels, accounts for some $2.68 billion of additional spending by your government.

Minister, can you confirm for us today -- I would like you to be on record today -- that the deal you announced yesterday will not in any way -- not to the

extent of one dollar -- encroach on special needs or on the capital budget you have already announced in your education plans?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The critic has shown that his math is as faulty as his logic when it comes to education. The

figure he mentioned is nowhere near the cost that is involved. We offered him a briefing. He is welcome to have one, if he would like to do his homework. Come in and see what the actual costs are,

rather than throw numbers around. He obviously doesn't appreciate the teachers of this province. His government's record shows that.

We have an arrangement that is about 2.5%, which is good for teachers and good for students but also brings around specialty teachers. We've provided those

numbers publicly. I think that number is good, in the interests of education. Again, we would be very happy to assure the member opposite, and this House, that this government is prepared with a

fiscal plan to support good investments for better student performance. That's exactly what we're going to get from having the specialty teachers in place and from having the lower class sizes that

we promised to do before. This fiscal plan is going to be met within the confines of the cost of the arrangement with the elementary teachers, as we said earlier.

Mr. Klees: My question to the minister was very direct. I asked a specific question; that is, could he stand in this place today and guarantee

that not one dollar of the deal he announced will be taken away from the special-needs budget already committed to schools in this province and that not one dollar will be taken away from the

capital budget already committed to? It's a very, very simple question. I would ask, on behalf of every member of the Legislature, of school boards and of teachers, who all have a vested interest

in this, that the minister simply answer that very simple question.

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: I try to ignore some of the more off-putting parts of how the member puts his questions.

Let me say what should be obvious: The answer is yes. This government has made commitments to kids with special needs that that government would never do for

six or seven years: "Let them go without." He sat in a cabinet that year over year made the schools in this province fill in paperwork and then ignored the kids. We made a commitment of $100

million, and more than that, we've delivered it. It's in the schools now helping kids.

I would say as well that after their letting the schools of this province crumble, we have provided $4 billion toward that. Every dime of that will be

delivered. More repairs will be done in Ontario schools in the next 18 months than were done in the last 10 years. That will happen, and so will the other things that are necessary to be done for

students.

I think the students of this province are seeing every day that they're very pleased that we're here and you're there.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): New question; the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): That was a pretty arrogant answer, I thought.

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. You would know, Minister, that late last year,

Domtar and Tembec came to you with a request that basically undid all the practices we had in northern Ontario regarding the reallocation of timber. Specifically, they asked to take the wood from

the mills in Opasatika, Chapleau and Kirkland Lake and divert it to other mills in their chain, creating supermills.

Up until that date, every government in the past, when approached with that kind of request, had gone through a public process in which the communities

affected had an opportunity to be part of the discussion in order to take a look at the possibilities in terms of restarting a mill under a new owner or building a new mill with timber normally

allocated to those communities. Instead, you said to Domtar and to Tembec, "Whatever you want, guys, it's yours -- no public process."

I'll ask you a very specific question: Are you prepared to reverse your decision and, at the very least, open up the process to public tender so those

communities can reorganize themselves under new ownership?

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): The short answer to the member's question is no.

I want to say to the member that what he's doing is confusing, first of all, the Opasatika closure with the reorganization between Kenogami and Elk Lake,

Chapleau and Domtar. Opasatika, as the member knows, because of the timber licence that was granted by the previous NDP government to Spruce Falls, allowed them to ship the wood to either mill. And

what happened?

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the visitor out. Let me also warn the other visitors here that

they are, of course, welcome here, but not to participate in those disruptive behaviours or they will be asked to leave.

The member from Timmins-James Bay?

Mr. Bisson: Minister, I don't think there's confusion as to what is going on. It has been the practice in this province, until your time in

office -- when Jerry Ouellette was the Minister of Natural Resources, when Howard Hampton was the Minister of Natural Resources, and when Alan Pope, under the Conservatives, was the Minister of

Natural Resources, it was always clear that there would be a public process. When companies decided to shut down a sawmill or whatever type of forestry operation, there was an opportunity for

communities to participate and to look at what was possible in terms of either restarting the existing company under new ownership or starting up again.

We're asking you directly. Workers are here from your community of Kirkland Lake, from our community of Opasatika and from Mr. Brown's community of Chapleau

and are asking one question: Are you going to commit today in this House to open up a public process by which we can determine how that wood, that these companies are trying to steal from these

communities, is going to be allocated?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member would paint the situation that it's all negative impact to these communities.

As you know, in Kenogami, Tembec and Domtar have now announced a $9-million investment that will give a value-added plant. Tembec said the other day that there

would be further announcements consolidating future investment into that plant for another product line. In the Elk Lake Domtar mill, we're going to see an expansion of jobs there. In Chapleau, the

local member, Mike Brown, and I are working with the Moose Cree to supplement the 28 jobs that were lost, to establish a cedar mill in that area that will in the end give us more jobs in Chapleau

than we had in total. So Chapleau now has a large-size, very competitive sawmill and will soon have a cedar mill that will provide more jobs than were there before.

That's the type of work we need to be doing. I want to work with the member for Opasatika. We've been able to secure the mill from the company. I ask the

member to work with me to get more jobs in Opasatika.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Today, the federal government

made an announcement with respect to their immigration policy, which included a component that will allow international students to work off-campus. I know that international students in Ottawa

have been looking for an opportunity to work in the community while in school. I've always supported their desire to work off-campus, because I believe it is an opportunity for them to better

integrate into the community, while also providing these international students with a source of income to help fund their education.

Minister, does our government support this initiative of allowing international students to work off-campus?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I'm happy to respond to the question from my colleague the

member for Ottawa-Orléans. We are really very pleased that the federal government has responded to our request for off-campus work permits for international students. This is a request that my

colleague who is responsible for citizenship and immigration here in Ontario, Minister Bountrogianni, and I have been working on for over a year now with the federal government. I also want to take

this opportunity to thank all the student associations representing college and university students here in Ontario for working alongside us in this lobbying effort.

This announcement is good for international students who are studying here, but it's also wonderful for Ontario students, who speak of the value of the

international students as part of their educational experience here. This is in fact very good news, and I'm thrilled that international students in Ontario will now have the opportunity to work

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. McNeely: Thank you, Minister, for the response. I too am pleased to have heard this news today. I know that international students in

Ottawa will greatly benefit from this.

After reading the reports of the federal government's announcement, I know that they are also planning on reducing application processing times for permanent

residents and sponsored parents and grandparents who want to be reunited with their families in Canada. This announcement of $69 million over the next two years is good news for newcomers in my

riding; however, I know that it is not enough. What Ontario immigrants need now is an immigration agreement. I know that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been working on this with

the federal government. Minister, I wonder if you could please explain why today's federal announcement does not go far enough and why an immigration agreement for this province is essential.

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: My colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is the appropriate person to respond to this.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'm encouraged that Minister

Volpe has heeded the advice of my colleague the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities with respect to international students, a very important development today. I want to thank her for

her advocacy as well.

While this is good news, and the $69 million over two years for the whole country is good news, we still don't have an immigration agreement here in Ontario.

We have been negotiating in good faith with three federal immigration ministers up to this point. The majority of immigrants still come to Ontario; 75% of those come to Toronto. We need to have an

immigration agreement that treats Ontario fairly. It's $800 per immigrant for Ontario, $3,800 for Quebec. This is simply unsustainable and unfair, and we're working in good faith to remedy

that.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade: This week, finance committee hearings commence

on a smoke-free Ontario. The Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada anticipates closure of an estimated 900 small businesses if Bill 164 proceeds without compromise. This number is conservative,

considering more than 700 establishments across the province have applied for or have already implemented designated smoking rooms to ensure a smoke-free environment not only for their customers,

but also for their employees.

Minister, do you have any idea what it costs to build a designated smoking room with a ventilation system?

Hon. Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): It's important to recognize that when it comes to this policy in terms of

banning smoking across the province, that is a priority. The health of Ontarians comes first.

In fact, when you look at the experience in a city like New York, where smoking was banned in restaurants and bars across the city, business went up for those

restaurants and bars. So I think this is good policy. It's good for Ontarians right across the province, and it will be good for small business as well.

Mr. Barrett: Well, Minister, there are statistics that fly in the face of what you've just said. As the minister responsible for small

business in the province, you should know that it can cost anywhere from $15,000 and upwards of $300,000 to install one of these designated smoking rooms. I wish you and other members present would

consult with professionals like Pubco. These small business operators have acted in good faith to comply with their own municipality --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Agriculture, come to order, please.

Mr. Barrett: Minister, the businesses you represent have complied in good faith with their own municipalities. Now we have the province of

Ontario telling them that this investment is worthless. Can you give the hospitality industry an idea of how you are fighting on their behalf around the cabinet table and how much in dollars you

are requesting your government to provide in compensation for those who have installed the rooms and those who are going to be laying people off?

Hon. Mr. Cordiano: Again, I would say to the member that the experience in other places -- not only in New York City but in Ottawa -- is that

small businesses saw an increase in business as a result of the ban on smoking. This is not only good health policy, I'd say -- with the Minister of Health sitting right next to me -- to help all

Ontarians in terms of better health, but it's also good economic policy. The evidence is very clear that these businesses would increase their activity. Businesses would see an increase in revenue

as a result of the ban on smoking. I say to the member that this ban would come into effect at the end of 2006, it gives businesses the opportunity to adjust, and this will be good for them as

well.

CHEDOKE LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Health. Some of the most vulnerable and disabled adults in Hamilton are

housed in a facility right now that's falling apart. A new home for the continuing care centre at Hamilton's Chedoke hospital was ready and set to be built two years ago. The previous government

approved $15 million in funding for a complete overhaul of this antiquated facility, but you've held it up for two years. In that time, the situation has moved from very serious to critical. Had

you not put the brakes on, three months from now Hamilton would be celebrating the opening of a new and advanced long-term-care centre providing state-of-the-art care to our most fragile citizens.

Minister, what is your plan for moving ahead with the new Chedoke facility, and when will the funding flow?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It seems a little bit like the honourable member is the only person I've met

so far in Ontario who took seriously one of those Tory plastic-cheque presentations right before the last election. Even the opposition leader was very clear, saying in Cornwall that he found that

practice, which had been carried on by the former government, to be regrettable.

The reality in the province of Ontario is that we inherited an expectation list of $6 billion on capital. We've been working very hard, alongside my colleague,

the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, on prioritizing a variety of these projects for the purposes of providing good-quality health care in the province of Ontario.

The member will well know that there are a significant number of projects exactly in her community of Hamilton, all of which cry out for investment. We will be

moving forward within the capacity that our fiscal circumstances allow, and of course we're going to be keeping the needs of St. Peter's at top of mind.

Ms. Horwath: Regarding prioritization, Minister, it's obvious that you don't know exactly how bad the situation is for the patients. They're

suffering from severe disabilities, brain diseases and injuries requiring complex and long-term care. It's only a matter of time before the aging and totally inadequate Chedoke building closes.

Some patients will be losing the only home they've ever known, and you have no plan for them.

You delayed the new construction, so what is your plan for patients when Chedoke inevitably closes and there's no new facility ready? I'd like to pick up on a

public invitation that was extended to you recently by Andrew Dreschel and the Hamilton Spectator: Will you at least visit Chedoke this week and see for yourself the deplorable conditions that

exist for patients and staff, and then explain again why you cannot release the funding for this promised new facility?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: As I've had an opportunity to visit St. Peter's other hospital, I think it's only a matter of time before I get there. It

is, after all, my plan to visit all the fine health care institutions we have in Ontario. I want to thank the honourable member for extending that very warm invitation.

She makes the point that I couldn't have the interests of patients in mind. But in fact, I have a responsibility to have the interests of patients in mind

beyond those whom she speaks about today. Those include the patients who need the Henderson Hospital rebuilt for important provision of cancer services, the patients who want to see more progress

at the McMaster site, parts of which are in need of significant alteration, and certainly those patients who are gaining benefit even today from the multi-million-dollar investment made at

Hamilton's St. Joe's. This is evidence of the extent to which we're investing as best we are able in the important priorities that exist in the Hamilton area.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, there have been several articles and

advisories from the Ministry of Health in the last two weeks relating to a story where unpasteurized milk has been purchased or consumed, and the recipients contracted E. coli as a result. The

chief medical officer has done an excellent job of communicating the situation to the public but, Minister, I'm curious as to the role your ministry has in food safety situations such as this.

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): This is a very important public health issue, and this is why we are moving forward on

an integrated food safety system: to ensure that there is open dialogue and communication interministerially.

The sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk is prohibited under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. It's an excellent example of why we created the

position of the chief veterinarian for Ontario, because the chief veterinarian can work very closely with the chief medical officer of health. I commend the chief medical officer of health for the

leadership she has shown on this issue.

We are working very closely with other ministries. The Ministry of Natural Resources is involved with OMAF and the Ministry of Health as we try to determine

who is irresponsibly selling unpasteurized milk in this province. The Ontario Farm Animal Council and the Dairy Farmers of Ontario are playing an important role as well.

I ask any member in this House, if they're aware of unpasteurized milk being sold in this province, to report it to OMAF or Crime Stoppers. Putting public

health and safety at risk is not an appropriate thing to do.

Mr. Hoy: This ongoing integration of the food safety system shows that the McGuinty government has made food safety a top priority. We know

that we want our food to be safe, and we are instilling greater confidence in our consumers by working together to make sure the public is an informed public.

Minister, there are some concerns with government regulations. They have been viewed by some as negative. Will you please tell the assembly your thoughts on

this point?

Hon. Mr. Peters: This is a prime example of why regulations are there to support us. This is a prime example of why this government does not

support the sale of unpasteurized milk. This government does support the health and safety of our citizens.

What I find very disconcerting is that John Tory and the Tories have stood up in this House and presented petitions on behalf of organizations that support the

sale of unpasteurized milk and cider. You can read Hansard and see where John Tory and his backbenchers have presented these petitions. It's very irresponsible. The Tories are not there defending

the health and safety of our citizens. They're prepared to support organizations that support the sale of unpasteurized milk.

If anybody is aware of who is making these sales, we need it reported, because we've got four people in hospital right now. This government stands up for the

health and safety of citizens. It's obvious that John Tory and the Tories don't.

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Culture. Ontario's churches have been telling you for months that your

amendments to the Heritage Act could have a harmful effect on their ability to carry out their mission. You did not consult them before you introduced the bill, you did not consult them during its

passage through the House, and you voted down amendments that I introduced to protect the churches and require consultation. This bill was then delayed as your government finally woke up to the

concerns of our churches and started talking to them.

Our caucus has been telling you for months that you need to listen to the churches. What guarantees can you give this House that you have listened to their

concerns, and what action will you take to protect them?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I thank you for your interest in protecting the

culture-faith group. We have consulted. Under our own government, most of the groups were consulted. Because of the religious groups expressing their concern about not being consulted, we reopened

the consultations. They came, and the ministry staff had at least three meetings with them. They were consulted and we came to an agreement and, perhaps on one point, an agreement to disagree. So

they were properly consulted, and I'm pleased with what the staff has been doing.

Mrs. Munro: During the committee hearing on Bill 60, supporters of the protection of Ontario's cemeteries asked for cemeteries to be

specifically included in the bill. Your parliamentary assistant first claimed in committee that cemeteries were included, and then claimed that they could not be written into the bill because doing

so would be in conflict with other legislation. She then promised in committee that your government would work with cemetery supporters to put in place protections as part of the Cemeteries Act.

Will you tell this House what discussions you have had with cemetery supporters to bring in the protections they want?

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: The Cemeteries Act is the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. The minister and I have spoken

about it. The minister is well aware of the concerns of the people and those who are concerned about protection of the cemeteries. We know that it's very important; it's part of our heritage. Both

ministries will work together to ensure that they are protected and that these groups are satisfied that we're doing everything we can to protect the cemeteries.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education. This is the McGuinty election promise for northern

Ontario schools. On page 12 it says: "We will respond to the educational needs of northern communities.... We will protect northern schools."

The parents at Fourway school near Thunder Bay are rapidly losing faith in your government. Last week, here, Premier McGuinty said, "We have made a facilitator

available, someone who is prepared to go in and review the school closure proposal." We've spoken to the parents at Fourway school; they don't know anything about a facilitator. These parents want

action. They want to see your plan. They don't want a fictional facilitator.

You made a promise to protect northern schools. Where is that promise? Where is the plan, or is this just another McGuinty broken promise?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I say to the member opposite that the plan we have for northern and rural schools is encompassed

in a policy released on February 18. In that, for the first time ever, but particularly in contrast to what happened in the last seven or eight years, we're saying that every school should be

valued in an objective way to find out how it should contribute to the student, the school system, the local economy and to the community. What we have said to the communities -- and the member

opposite is aware that there is legal action being made in connection with the school he names. But for all the schools that are in the Lakehead system, we're saying that they have to fit the

spirit of the new policy. As the Premier indicated, we have arranged for someone to review those policies at Lakehead and elsewhere, and very shortly we'll be announcing that person and exactly how

it will be conducted.

Mr. Hampton: Your so-called new policy calls for a public six-month review, but Fourway school is scheduled to close in just two months. So

your review policy here is a whitewash. But it's not just Fourway school; it's Gorham and Ware school, Heath Park school, Oliver Road school, Rosslyn Road school, Rosslyn Village school and Fort

William Collegiate Institute. Several schools are not going to be protected by the McGuinty government; they're going to be closed. The board says you haven't provided them with any funding to keep

the schools open, so they have no choice but to close the schools.

Minister, before the election you said you had a plan. Before the election you said you were going to protect northern schools. The board doesn't have the

money; you're not prepared to give them the money. Will you come forward now with a plan so the board can have enough money to operate these schools, and will there be a real review rather than

just a whitewash?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: Again, I don't know what troubles the member opposite. We put out a plan in February advising the boards. We previously

asked for a moratorium. There were seven schools closed; as many as 50 a year closed under this member's government, many of them in the north. In fact, in the Lakehead alone they closed some 15

schools, many of them under the opposite member's watch.

I would say to him that there will be a review. It will be done to see whether the board has met -- it decided to go ahead even though we asked for the

moratorium where very few schools were actually shut down. We will gauge through an independent person whether or not they have met the spirit of our new guidelines on a capital plan and whether or

not the way they consulted the public and followed the procedures was consistent with the new procedures we are putting forward.

We believe that the people of the Lakehead want this process to be objective; it will be. They want it to be independent; it will be. They want it to take

place soon, and it will.

CHILDREN'S CAR SEATS

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Today, you and the Minister of Children

and Youth Services launched the spring seat belt campaign. As the slogan says, seat belts save lives, and our government believes it's important to get that message out there. Certainly we must

always strive to improve safety standards for Ontario's most vulnerable population; that is, our children.

Today's launch also touched upon a McGuinty government campaign initiative about upcoming changes to child car seat legislation. Minister, may I ask what Bill

73,

An Act to enhance the safety of children and youth on Ontario's roads, will do to ensure the safety and lives of Ontario's children come September 1, 2005?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I was very pleased to have my colleague the Minister of Children and Youth Services join

me at the great Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto this morning for this event.

It's a fact that most car crashes lead to injury and death of young children when they happen. It is also a known fact that car seats and booster seats save

lives. That's why our government introduced Bill 73, and it passed in this Legislature in December last year.

Under this legislation, we will do three things. Number one, booster seats will become mandatory for all children between the ages of one to eight who weigh

between 40 and 80 pounds and are below four feet, nine inches in height. These booster seats will become mandatory on September 1 this year. We will also add two demerit points and have fines in

the range of $110 --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. New question. The member for Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the minister of --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to give the member for Thunder Bay-Superior North a supplementary.

Mr. Gravelle: Certainly it's good to hear that our government is committed to keeping Ontario's children safe. As you said, statistics show

that car crashes are the number one cause of death for Canadian children. We also know that the risk of injury or death is reduced by 75% when children are in child seats or booster seats.

Minister, to ensure that this life-saving campaign is working effectively, how will the new regulations be enforced, and furthermore, how will drivers in my

riding, for example, learn how to use the child and booster seats correctly? Will there be some help for them?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: I think the most effective way of enforcement is public education. We want to make sure that parents choose the right car

seats and that children are fastened correctly into the car seats. So there are going to be seat clinics across this province. There are 25 of those happening. In Toronto it happened last week, in

Mississauga it will be next week, and in Scarborough a month after. In your particular riding, I think it's happening on April 20. Parents can go there and learn how to use the car child seats, and

it will eventually save lives for the children. We are very proud of our initiative on that front.

ENERGY POLICY

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is for the Minister of Energy, and I hope I'm given time for the supplementary, because it really is

two parts.

Everyone in Ontario, Minister, wants a safe and affordable and reliable source of power. You know that last week the grid was at risk of brownout. You, in

fact, had to reduce the voltage throughout the province.

The issue here isn't as simple as it taking longer to do my toast in the morning. The issue here is small business that runs motors. It puts these industries

at risk. You know that you're putting the industry at risk. You know that you're putting business at risk.

I think it's a larger issue here of supply adequacy. You've committed to shut down the coal plants. You know it's not achievable. You announced last week that

you were going to have more natural gas. I guess my question is, can you assure the people of Ontario that you won't put business and consumers at risk with your plan for energy replacement of coal

by 2007?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I can assure the member that we've given them that assurance by getting rid

of that government's energy policy, which failed the province miserably. Let's look at last week and let's talk about reductions and the voltage reduction -- and that member would certainly

understand low voltage.

Number one, our exports exceeded our imports four days out of five last week -- absolutely. The price last week came down from Monday to Friday. Was there, in

fact, a point reached where we needed to import? Yes. Were businesses ever at risk? Absolutely not.

I can tell the member that under his government, the reserves of the province of Ontario dropped below the safe level of 20% to 11% for a full year, and one

year at 12.5%. Under this government, reserves have consistently been at 20%. We routinely take a number of reactors off-line for maintenance. We did that last week. It's a matter of public safety

and good policy, and this government is pursuing a good policy.

Mr. O'Toole: I know the increased relationship with the US marketplace is something you're quite comfortable with, as is evidenced by the

Calpine agreement to build another gas-fired generation plant in Sarnia. I was saddened to learn just recently that the Calpine corporation has been under some question in litigation and has been

fined over a billion dollars for Enron-style negotiations.

Minister, you're putting at risk, through this investment, the transparency that you speak of all the time, the security of the taxpayers' money in the

province of Ontario. This isn't just about energy. This is about your ability to manage this file. Can you assure the taxpayers of Ontario that not one cent will be wasted on one electron that will

go to the United States of America?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I can assure the member opposite and the people of this province that there won't be the multi-million dollar backroom deals

with backroom supporters that were done under that government.

I want to address the questions that the member has raised. That party witnessed a decline in our electricity supply year over year over year. They brought no

new supply on.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): They're the party of coal.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: We've moved to bring supply on, including new renewable energy -- 395 megawatts.

My colleague is right: That's the party of coal. That's the party that wants to do things the old way. That's the party that doesn't want to address childhood

asthma. That's the party that doesn't want to address the fact that the price of coal has doubled in the last 18 months. That's the party that would not deal with Manitoba or other provinces to get

clean hydroelectric power. The Conservative electricity policy was a failure.

We're fixing the system so that people will have reliable, affordable, sustainable energy --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. That brings us to the end of oral questions.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I have a petition to the government of Ontario in support of Ontario pharmacists.

"Whereas we, the undersigned,

"Share the concern of Ontario pharmacists that the government" of Dalton McGuinty "is considering changes to the drug program that could restrict access to

some medications or force patients to pay more for their prescriptions, placing seniors, low-income families and many other Ontarians at risk;

"Recognize that these changes could affect the ability of pharmacists to continue to provide quality programs and services, decreasing Ontario's access to

essential health care services; and

"Believe that pharmacists, as advocates for quality patient care, should have a greater role to play in advising the government when it considers changes that

will affect the health of Ontarians,

"We hereby petition the government of Ontario:

"To work with Ontario pharmacists to prevent cutbacks to the drug program; and,

"To establish a process that brings pharmacists to the table to provide solutions that will protect patients and strengthen health care for all Ontarians."

Mr. Speaker, this has my signature of support as well.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to present this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

Ontario."

It's very brief and to the point. I support it wholeheartedly and have signed it as well. I give it to Jean to bring down to the Clerk's table.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I have a petition that is written to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is no established province-wide standard to deal with anaphylaxis in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylaxis in the Education Act; and

"Whereas anaphylaxis is a serious concern that can result in life-or-death situations; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario have the right to be safe and feel safe in their school community; and

"Whereas all parents of anaphylactic students need to know that safety standards exist in all schools in Ontario;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the McGuinty government support the passing of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students,

which requires that every school principal in Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I sign my signature to this petition and give it to our page Alexandra.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have petitions here, many of them, from different Canadian Legions from Hanover, Tara, Durham,

Chesley and Walkerton. They are to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the current government has proposed province-wide legislation that would ban smoking in public places; and

"Whereas the proposed legislation will also prohibit smoking in private, non-profit clubs such as Legion halls, navy clubs and related facilities as well;

and

"Whereas these organizations have elected representatives that determine the rules and regulations that affect the membership of the individual club and

facility; and

"Whereas by imposing smoke-free legislation on these clubs disregards the rights of these citizens and the original intentions of these clubs, especially with

respect to our veterans;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario exempt Legion halls, navy clubs and other non-profit, private or veterans' clubs from government smoke-free legislation."

I've also signed it.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"The unreasonable and inhumane restriction that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) is placing on wildlife rehabilitators with respect to the

release of orphaned animals will eliminate their ability to help wildlife.

"Whereas wildlife rehabilitators provide an essential public service for many thousands of people seeking help on behalf of orphaned and injured wildlife in

Ontario;

"Whereas the unreasonable release restrictions imposed on wildlife rehabilitators for animals in their care by the OMNR will prevent responsible wildlife

rehabilitation, not only compromising wildlife and frustrating the public but forcing it underground and thereby jeopardizing safety;...

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to work with wildlife rehabilitators to ensure progressive, humane and responsible regulations that reflect

the international care and release standard that states: `Orphaned wildlife should be raised with others of their own species, to learn proper conspecific behaviours, and the group should then be

released together in appropriate natural areas, with the transitional care for those species that require it, generally within the city or country of origin.'"

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has failed to ensure that students are protected from individuals whose past behaviours have directly harmed children;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has chosen to ignore the children's aid society's recommendation that certain individuals not work with children; and

"Whereas the introduction of a `volunteer' into the school system must not be solely at the discretion of the principal; and

"Whereas the Liberal government promised to ensure that school boards provide strong local accountability and decision-making;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to amend the Education Act to place restrictions on the eligibility of persons who act as volunteers in

schools, and to include as a formal requirement that volunteers be subject to the approval of the school board and parent council."

I have added my signature.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Ontario's three remaining regional centres for people with developmental

disabilities, located in Smiths Falls, Orillia and Blenheim, Ontario;

"Whereas the regional centres are home to more than 1,000 disabled adults, many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the

community;

"Whereas closing the regional centres will have a devastating impact on people with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental services

sector and the economies of the local communities; and

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of the regional centres to extend specialized services, support and professional training to

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Ontario's regional centres for people with developmental

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

It's signed by a number of residents from Berlin, Shrewsbury, Chatham and Tilbury, and I too sign this petition.

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

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

"Whereas noxious odours from the Halton recycling plant in Newmarket are adversely affecting the health and quality of life of residents and working people in

Newmarket; and

"Whereas local families have lost the enjoyment of their properties for themselves and their children, face threats to their health and well-being and risk a

decline in the value of their homes; and

"Whereas for the 300 members of the nearby main RCMP detachment, as well as other workers in the area, the odours are making their working conditions

intolerable;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, demand that the Minister of the Environment take immediate action to halt all noxious emissions and odours from the Halton

Recycling plant, and take all steps necessary to force Halton Recycling to comply with environmental rules, including closing the plant if the odour problems continue."

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

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I'm pleased to provide some assistance to my seatmate, Kim Craitor, with a petition from the Niagara

Anaphylaxis Support and Knowledge Group. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is no established province-wide standard to deal with anaphylactic shock in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylactic shock in the Education Act; and

"Whereas anaphylactic shock is a serious concern that can result in life-or-death situations; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario have the right to be safe and feel safe in their school community; and

"Whereas all parents of anaphylactic students need to know that safety standards exist in all schools in Ontario;

"Be it therefore it resolved that the government of Ontario support the passage of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students, which requires that every

school principal in Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I agree with this petition, I've affixed my signature to it, and Julie's going to carry it down for me.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and I've signed it.

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

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign that and pass it to Jessica.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Petitions? The member for Simcoe North.

Mr. Dunlop: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is a very important issue, and I like to keep reading this in.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

Again I'm pleased to sign my name to this.

The Deputy Speaker: Petitions? The member for Simcoe North.

Mr. Dunlop: I thank you for the opportunity.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to signed my name.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND

SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES

ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS

D'ALIMENTS

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 12, 2005, on the motion for second reading of Bill 155,

An Act to amend the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears

Enforcement Act, 1996 and to make consequential amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 155, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur les obligations familiales et

l'exécution des arriérés d'aliments et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la Loi de 1997 sur la protection du poisson et de la faune.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's certainly my pleasure to enter the debate on Bill 155, the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears

Enforcement Amendment Act. When I knew that I was going to have an opportunity to speak to this particular bill, I was very pleased because, unfortunately, there is certainly a lot of work that

needs to be done to clean up the FRO generally. It has been, quite frankly, a mess from the get-go, and certainly anything that can be done to attempt to clean that mess up comes in a welcome

way.

There has been, as everyone in this House knows and likely everyone across the province knows, a significant amount of criticism of the FRO through official

reports and media condemnation. The amount of criticism and concern over the FRO is legion. It's absolutely voluminous, the amount of documentation that exists around the problems with the FRO.

Does Bill 155 bring some legislative change, you might ask, that may be in some way effective? Well, maybe; it may be in some way effective.

More to the point is the fact that legislation alone will not fix the FRO, because what the legislation that's before us does is add a few tools, if you will,

add a few new ways for the government to deal with people who are not paying their support payments. But what it doesn't do is deal with the huge problems of enforcing the existing legislation,

never mind new legislation. We're talking about the fact that there are not enough people working to clear up, to enforce the support orders that are out there. We don't have enough staff at this

point in time who are dealing with our FRO problems. On top of that, we have an entirely ineffective and inefficient system in that it needs a great deal of upgrade electronically, and I'm going to

get to that in a few minutes.

I thought it would be important to bring some flavour of what's happening through citing an example of a situation in Hamilton East that has come to my

attention, and that we have been working on for many months as a matter of fact. It's an example that really speaks to the issues that I've raised around what needs to happen to fix the FRO. I am

going to give an example of a woman who ends up being out somewhere near $10,000 as a result of a system that has gone terribly wrong. Unfortunately, I don't see that Bill 155 is going to change

that in any way. I don't see two years down the road, with Bill 155 in place, that it's going to make any speck of difference in the experience of this woman in Hamilton East.

For privacy purposes, I am going to call her Jane. Her case is quite an interesting one and we're taking it into many different directions. We started dealing

with her several months ago. In fact, we had a feeling of incredulity when we read the e-mail that she first sent us and when we first talked to her on the phone. It is absolutely unbelievable what

she has had to endure for quite some time in order to get financial justice in the current system. We were extremely concerned, and therefore have been working with her to dig through a huge

bureaucratic mire of red tape and having the buck passed back and forth, in order to find out what was really happening.

She was owed over $17,000 in support arrears. The FRO placed a writ of seizure and sale against the assets of the support payer, including his house. So she's

owed the money, and part of the process is that the FRO is able to place what is more or less a lien, in laypersons' terms, on the property. In July last year, the house was sold. There's reason to

believe, through knowing what the market was like in the area, that the net proceeds of the sale were somewhere around $30,000. In late November, Jane received a notice that she was going to

receive $8,000 as a result of the sale.

If the net proceeds -- the amount of money after the mortgage was paid -- were $30,000, and Jane was owed $17,000, and the writ was on the property that was

sold, then why is it that Jane ended up with only $8,000? The FRO had placed the lien, the house was sold, $17,000 was owing and she ended up with only $8,000. That means she was shorted $9,000 in

the transaction.

What we've been trying to find out for her is exactly what the net proceeds of the sale were and whether they were properly applied. Did she, in fact, receive

the proper amount? Just to find that out has been an extremely difficult task, I can tell you. It has really been mind-boggling the way we've had to peel through the layers of bureaucracy to try to

figure out how this could have happened, or even to confirm what we all suspect, which is that this woman was shorted about $9,000. Unfortunately, to this very date, neither the FRO nor the office

of the minister has provided us with any assurances in regard to this situation. It's just one example, dealing with fairly substantial dollars, that I bring in the context of this debate.

What's needed in this whole area of the Family Responsibility Office is not more legislation -- although, again, the bill is not horrendous in terms of what it

suggests; it's got some added opportunities in it to find people who are owing their spouses in these disputes. But what it doesn't have, and what we're not seeing, is a commitment from the

government to put the tools in place -- the real tools, the actual on-the-ground tools, the people tools and the technology tools -- that will help to clean up this mess of the FRO. It's extremely

unfortunate.

My colleague from Beaches-East York -- who is not with me right now, but whom I sit beside on a regular basis during these proceedings every day -- is our

critic in this area, and he informed me as he was leaving the Legislature earlier on that he gave his leadoff speech on this issue not too long ago, only to find out a couple of days later that the

ministry has in fact laid off 120 workers. There have been layoff notices sent to 120 workers in the very department that everybody agrees is dysfunctional largely because it doesn't have enough

staff, and the staff it does have are not trained appropriately to deal with the issues because, I've discovered over the last couple of months, they really can get quite detailed and quite

specific and you need to have highly trained staff. That's one problem. We were floored when we found out that 120 layoff notices have gone out to the very staff that we're hoping are going to

clean up some of these problems.

However, that's not the end of the story. Another piece of the story that I find absolutely stunning is that the ministry is looking at a tendering process for

new technology. At least they've acknowledged that the computer systems need to be upgraded, and that's great. The problem is that the very company that once operated as Andersen Consulting and is

now called Accenture, which was scandalously sucking money out of the taxpayers of this province under the previous government in the welfare system, which at this point in time -- we've all

experienced the government's attempt to increase by a pittance the amount of Ontario disability support and social assistance. But guess what? Those people couldn't even get their 3% because of the

computer system that we, the taxpayers, have paid millions, maybe billions, for through the Accenture/Andersen Consulting group. They didn't get their money. The government had to scramble to find

a way to pay them because the computer system couldn't handle the increase. Now maybe the Conservatives thought they'd be in power forever and would never have to increase social assistance.

Nonetheless, it's a system we spent a heck of a lot money on as a province, and it was not effective for the job.

The scandal is even worse: This government has that same organization, that same company, Accenture, at the top of the list of bidders for this new FRO office.

So I ask you, how do we clean up an office that's a mess; how do we clean up a department that needs a complete overhaul by laying off 120 workers: by hiring, or at least considering hiring, one of

the worst scandals in terms of technological consulting and technology firms that this province has ever seen, and by thinking and pretending, in total normal Liberal doublespeak, that this bill is

going fix it?

I have to say it's a very disappointing day for Ontario and for all those people who are owed money in the FRO process, because this bill is not going to get

them that money.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I wish to congratulate the Minister of Community and Social Services for this undertaking. I haven't

sat in on many of the public accounts committee meetings, but I did sit in on the one for the Family Responsibility Office. What was allowed to go on there was atrocious. The assistant deputy

minister told us that we were losing about $10 million a year because we didn't have an adequate computer system -- we went through that in other opportunities to speak in this Legislature.

Our plan is to make the Family Responsibility Office work better for Ontario families. The proposed amendments are needed to strengthen enforcement, improve

fairness and enhance efficiencies. The proposed amendments will help families get the money they are owed and help them become self-sufficient, strong and healthy.

Providing the Family Responsibility Office with stronger trace-and-locate measures by expanding the number of organizations from which information can be

demanded to include trade unions, extending the maximum jail term from 90 to 180 days, suspending defaulting payers' hunting and sport fishing licences and reporting defaulting payers to

professional licensing bodies are all things to make it more effective. Obviously, it's that tracking system that hasn't been there, which is about to be chosen and which we're going to go ahead

with, that will allow the office to follow these people who aren't paying.

I had a lady come into my office on Friday. Her deadbeat partner is living in BC, and there are problems between provinces as well. But when there is such a

time lag between non-payment and tracking as there is now -- with one person handling 1,300 cases, I believe -- the system just does not work.

So we must protect our families, we must protect the children and we must protect the public purse that's losing $10 million year because these families are

going on social assistance because they don't get these dollars. So I'm very supportive of this legislation.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): The member from Hamilton East knows of what she speaks with respect to this Family Responsibility

Office legislation and the attempts to make some changes, again, through legislation. I know she does raise the question, do we need more legislation? Oftentimes, as a Conservative, I agree with

that. We do seem to be in a society that has an ever-increasing number of rules and regulations and red tape. Having said that, I think there is merit in taking a serious look at this bill, just

for the simple reason that about 40% of marriages end in divorce, and we hear figures of anywhere from $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion in arrears. Obviously, somebody is not listening to judges in

this province.

So many issues have been raised in the deliberations on this bill. On the issue of yanking someone's hunting or fishing licence, I don't know whether people

are going to pony up the money they owe under the threat of not being able to go fishing. I wonder if that makes a bit of a mockery of the seriousness of this problem that we're dealing with. It's

a problem that does require not only one solution but a number of solutions.

I am concerned. For example, with hunting and fishing, or the case now where you can lose your driver's licence, I don't hear any talk of sanctions directed

toward urban residents with respect to banning their use of public transit.

So this legislation does raise some issues.

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I'm pleased to make some comments in response to the member opposite on Bill 155.

Our government is going to take aggressive action to make parents live up to their family responsibilities. All of us who have been in this place for some time

recognize the chaos that existed at the Family Responsibility Office. It was absolute chaos. My staff were put on hold for an hour at a time some years ago, just waiting to talk to someone at the

Family Responsibility Office. Our phone bills in the local constituency office were astronomical from being placed on hold for an hour, trying to reach people.

It has improved greatly over time. Our minister wants to improve it and provide a service that responds to both the recipient -- those families, many times

including children -- and the payer.

I've had employers call my office who were equally upset with what transpired in their dealings with the Family Responsibility Office, because neither the

payer nor the recipient was pleased, and sometimes the employer was caught in the middle. They were not pleased in any way, shape or form.

We want to im