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

February 22, 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-Feb-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 22 February 2005 Mardi 22 février 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND

VOLUNTEERS

HYDRO RATES

GREENBELT LEGISLATION

HEALTH CARE

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

SPEAKER'S RULING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIPS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES UNIONS CONJUGALES

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

HYDRO RATES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GREENBELT

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

TRANSPORTATION

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS

FETAL ALCOHOL

SPECTRUM DISORDER

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

HIGHWAY 7

VISITORS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

OPTOMETRISTS

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

STUDENT SAFETY

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

HEALTH CARE

TTC RIGHT-OF-WAY

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SENIORS' TRANSIT PASS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL NUTRITION PROGRAMS

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to draw the attention of this House to concerns I have with changes that could be

taking place in the organization of Ontario's Breakfast for Learning program and a delay in the transfer of funds needed to feed children. People working on the front lines are concerned that the

government is rushing through the reorganization of the Breakfast for Learning programs. Your efforts to centralize the administration will hurt local programs. It will put children at risk.

Smaller communities frequently lose their voices when service delivery is taken away from locally driven organizations. In my riding of

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, the Train the Brain -- Include the Food program has grown from 50 children to one that now serves 5,634 breakfasts and 4,790 snacks weekly. They are succeeding because

they are able to tailor their programs to local needs. They raise money locally to help deliver their programs. A centralized service delivery model will not be able to obtain this important source

of funds, and children will go hungry.

The ministry page "Results for Ontario Families" brags that the government has "announced plans to improve school breakfast programs by $4 million, helping

children arrive in class ready to learn." It is one thing to announce money; it's another thing entirely to actually spend the money. It's time to spend the money that you have announced, so that

children don't go hungry.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I would like to speak today about an industry in my community, an industry that produces something

that every citizen in our province needs, and yet they are losing money. They're losing money because they have absolutely no control over the environment in which they must operate. They are

without the ability to influence the cost of items they must purchase in order to produce their products. The owners and operators are working or on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and

unlike most of us, they do not have sick or vacation days. They are unable to set the price of their finished product to reflect their costs but are forced to take whatever the marketplace

offers.

I'm talking about our farmers. Too often we forget where our food comes from. Too often we are not aware of the incredibly challenging and stressful lives of

farmers. Farmers are in crisis. This is not a case of too much rain or not enough rain. This is a life-and-death struggle for farmers. My neighbours are selling cattle and corn for less than their

grandparents did. There's not an easy answer to this crisis, but there's a real need for every citizen in Ontario to know the situation that our farm community faces.

I'm proud that our government made a commitment to work with farmers before it is too late. I challenge the federal government to join us at the table and bring

some of their fiscal surplus.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Over the last few weeks, I've had the opportunity to attend a number of meetings held in my

riding with respect to the possible closure of seven public schools. They are Calabogie, Alexander Reid, Ross Mineview, Horton, Keys, Laurentian and Morison. Hundreds of people have attended these

meetings to voice their views on the impact this will have on their children, their neighbours and their entire community.

The Minister of Education has made a big deal about his purported support for rural schools. The fact is that he has paid lip service, and nothing more, to the

concerns of rural school boards and parents.

It is clear that the McGuinty government has turned its back on rural Ontario. Such things as lack of support for farmers or denying rural municipalities their

fair share of the gas tax clearly sends a message that rural Ontario is not a priority for the Liberals. The attitude of this government leads to declining enrolment in our schools, which is the

number one reason rural schools are hurting badly as they struggle to meet ministry occupancy targets.

The minister must know that, for many rural families, their school is the centre of their community. I encourage him to act swiftly to amend the funding formula

for rural schools so that our local board also not have to close these schools, thereby causing much pain and suffering to rural children, families and communities.

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On February 4, the mayor of the city of greater Sudbury wrote to the Minister of Finance to express council's

concerns with the government's handling of the community reinvestment fund. The city of greater Sudbury is now carrying about $3.5 million in its 2005 budget for downloaded provincial services

which are capped or no longer reconciled by the province. This amount, added to the shortfall in CRF funding in 2003-04, now adds up to $6.1 million. The mayor urged the McGuinty Liberals to fully

reconcile the CRF in 2003, 2004 and 2005 so that taxpayers would not be stuck footing the bill.

Yesterday's announcement by the McGuinty Liberals does little to resolve our financial problem. The decision to reconcile the CRF for 2003 only means that our

city has a shortfall of $2 million in 2004 and $3.3 million in 2005. The potential total shortfall over the two years where the McGuinty Liberals have refused to do a full reconciliation is now

$5.4 million. Will this government guarantee that this shortfall will be covered under the new funding formula?

Promising us that we'll receive as much CRF funding in 2005 as we got in 2004 is of enormous concern to council. At best, we'll receive an amount that leaves us

with a $5.4-million shortfall in 2005. At worst, it means the shortfall will be $6.1 million, which will come out of the pockets of local taxpayers.

The Liberal download looks a lot like the Conservative download on to municipalities. Where is the plan to ensure that communities like Sudbury aren't left to

pick up the bills?

VOLUNTEERS

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I rise in this House today to recognize the achievement of two great Bramptonians.

Bill Burrell and George Burrows are two World War II veterans who are active volunteers in the city of Brampton. Bill and George have known each other since they

were young and have been lifelong friends ever since. In fact, they both served in the Canadian Air Force. During his service with the CAF, Bill Burrell did 32 trips overseas as an air gunner

before he was 19 years of age.

For over 30 years, these gentlemen have chosen to serve the Brampton community as members of the Royal Canadian Legion branch 15 poppy fundraising committee.

Their remembrance activity goes far beyond the two weeks leading up to November 11 of each year. Together with hard-working volunteers, they have raised more than $433,000 through their poppy

fundraising since 1997.

Their efforts have been instrumental in improving the quality of life in my community. They have not only supported veterans, but have been able to supply

medical equipment for use by all who have a need within Brampton.

They have donated significantly to our hospital and the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Just recently, they donated two defibrillators to the Peel Regional

Police Marine Unit, having previously donated two to the Brampton Fire Department.

These gentlemen chose to serve our country and risk their lives many years ago, and they've now chosen to demonstrate in a practical way their role as caretakers

of remembrance by investing in equipment which will help save lives now and long into the future.

Bill Burrell and George Burrows are here in our members' gallery. It's my honour to introduce them.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to raise the electricity price issue. In 1991, Dalton McGuinty, then-energy critic, stated

unequivocally, "Rising electricity rates are making it difficult for us to both attract new businesses and keep our existing businesses here." He said that in Hansard in 1991.

Yet, it would appear that a government that should understand the impact of higher electricity rates on the provincial economy is getting ready to raise the

rates again in an announcement in the Toronto Star today. This announcement would coincide with one of the busiest political news days of the year, the tabling of the federal Liberal budget. This

is further speculation that there's good reason for this timing. It won't be good news. You might say it's a double-header.

While the federal Liberals are taxing and spending in Ottawa, the provincial Liberals will likely be raising electricity rates, like taxes, in Ontario. Judging

from the McGuinty government's record on electricity, this scenario should come as no surprise. In fact, the worst, in my view, is yet to come.

Even today, there is confusion between the Premier and his cabinet. Minister Duncan has told reporters that people would pay the true cost of electricity and

said he'd have the details tomorrow. However, the Premier says that homeowners won't be paying the new electricity prices to be announced tomorrow. Which one is it? I'm surprised that either of

them knows the answer to that question.

GREENBELT LEGISLATION

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I'd like to take a moment to talk about an initiative of this government, one that casts its eye well

beyond the foreseeable horizon. I'm talking about the proposed greenbelt.

Bill 135, the Greenbelt Act, will soon come to a vote after third reading debate in this House. If passed, this piece of legislation will mark the boldest piece

of planning law in Ontario's history. It will provide permanent protection for 1.8 million acres, an area the size of Algonquin Park. It will curb unplanned urban sprawl, help to improve quality of

life and preserve Ontario's natural heritage for future generations.

For decades, as a society we have talked about, debated and paid lip service to the concept of a greenbelt, to protecting agricultural lands and environmentally

sensitive lands, to protecting our water and groundwater supplies, to cleaner air and to smarter growth. The greenbelt legislation means the time for idle chatter is over. The rubber is now hitting

the road.

I've heard from so many constituents who have watched their landscape being paved over indiscriminately: no thought, no planning. We must move forward now. In

some cases, we are actually too late. In some cases, this is the 11th hour. But if we don't move now and act now, there will be no land to save, no land to farm and thus no need for a farmer. As a

government, we will work with farmers and communities to ensure that they prosper and flourish and that there is land and space to breathe, eat and live for generations to come.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I am proud of our government's key investments to transform health care in Ontario into a stable,

sustainable system. But first, as we look at the colossal mess we have inherited from two previous governments, it's understandable why it will take some time to correct. On the one hand, we had a

government whose vision it was to cut the number of seats in medical schools, and on the other hand, a government that delayed addressing the physician shortage, so much so that the number of

communities underserviced by physicians more than doubled. The past government stood by as health care costs soared to record rates because they failed to address the root causes and provide more

affordable options for Ontarians.

In the past 15 months, our government has made record investments in long-term care, home care, mental health, public health units, immunization programs and

supportive housing. The city of Sault Ste. Marie has seen over $20 million in new funding, and over 100 new community health care workers have been hired such as nurses, dietitians and

physiotherapists.

For too long, the underfunding of these services has eroded our ability to provide access to the primary care we all need. Surely even the opposition members

would have to say that this new funding is resulting in more community health services. Even the opposition members would have to say that health care costs rising in double digits at hospitals is

simply unsustainable. When was this going to change? When the system was bankrupt?

Our government is making the tough choices to ensure that we have quality health care well into the future. We are measuring our results, reducing waiting times

and ensuring that there is transparency in the process so that the citizens of this province will also see the results we all want.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): Tomorrow is budget day in Ottawa, and once again the federal government is expected to announce a hefty

surplus while we here in Ontario face significant budget pressures. Ontario continues to put far more into the federal coffers than it gives back. With this in mind, I'm asking our federal

colleagues from Ottawa to consider their constituents when they table their budget tomorrow. As the Premier has pointed out, there's a $23-billion gap between what Ontario gives to the federal

government and what it gets back. In recent years, the gap has been growing.

Let me provide some examples. For every immigrant, Quebec gets $3,806, while Ontario gets $819. For every person on EI, the rest of Canada receives $7,930;

Prince Edward Island gets $14,485, while Ontario only gets $5,060. That's a difference of almost $9,500 per person. In Ontario, our post-secondary institutions require an investment of $1.3 billion

just to bring us from 10th in spending to the national average.

All Ontario is asking for is a chance to continue to be the engine that powers this country's great economy. Tomorrow's budget is the perfect opportunity for the

federal government to start addressing some of the issues that Ontario has expressed concern over and start giving Ontario its fair share.

This Premier and this government are proud Canadians, but we're just as proud to stand up for Ontario to ensure that we remain the engine of growth that drives

Canadian prosperity and the Canadian economy.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): On February the 15, 2005, the member for Oak Ridges, Mr. Klees, rose on a question of privilege concerning

letters written to school boards and teachers' federations by the Minister of Education, Mr. Kennedy. The letters, together with a related press release, contained ministry initiatives on education

funding and on the length of collective bargaining agreements for teachers. According to the member, the documents amounted to a matter of contempt in that they anticipated the passage of

legislation and budgetary approval by the House, and they reflected adversely on the parliamentary process because they presumed that the House would pass the bill and approve a budgetary

measure.

The government House Leader, Mr. Duncan, and the Minister of Education responded to the allegations.

I have had an opportunity to review the written materials supplied by the member for Oak Ridges, the Hansard for February 15, the assembly's precedents and the

relevant parliamentary authorities. Let me say several things about the member's allegations.

First, my reading of the documents suggests that the minister was taking proactive measures dealing with matters touching on his ministry. There is a line of

Ontario rulings to the effect that civil servants can take reasonable planning measures in advance of the passage of requisite legislation. So too can the minister.

Second, the facts in a 1989 ruling by Speaker Fraser of the Canadian House of Commons, a 1994 ruling by Speaker Warner of our own House, and a 1997 ruling by

Speaker Stockwell were different than the facts raised by the member for Oak Ridges. Those three cases dealt with government advertising to a broader public audience in circumstances where there

was already a bill before the House. In the case at hand, the letters and press release were not advertising; they were primarily addressed to interested stakeholders and there was no bill before

the House.

The minister appears to have made an announcement, outside the House, that anticipates a bill and a budgetary measure. But there is nothing wrong with

anticipation per se -- it happens a lot; the issue is whether the announcement goes further and reflects adversely on the parliamentary process.

In my opinion, the wording and the tone of the documents are not dismissive of the legislative role of the House. On the contrary, they indicate that the

government had plans and proposals that require not only negotiation, but also the introduction and passage of legislation. In particular, the board letter and press release contain conditional

phrases such as "intends to introduce legislation," "we are proposing," and "legislation that, if passed."

With respect to the word "guaranteed" in the documents, I note that it is not used in the sense that passage of enabling legislation was a foregone conclusion,

but rather in reference to proposed payments to transfer partners and a proposed provision in future collective bargaining agreements.

For these reasons, I find that a prima facie case of contempt has not been established.

I want to thank the member for Oak Ridges, the government House leader and the Minister of Education for their thoughtful submissions on this matter. Each of

them has done a service to the House by reminding members of the importance of showing respect for the parliamentary process.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIPS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES UNIONS CONJUGALES

Mr. Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 171,

An Act to amend various statutes in respect of spousal relationships / Projet de loi 171, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les

unions conjugales.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): It is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it. Carried.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): The proposed

Spousal Relationships Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005, would, if passed, make amendments to 73 Ontario statutes that contain the term "spouse," "spousal," "marriage," "marital," "husband," "wife,"

"widow," and "widower." Currently, the statutes offend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The bill removes references to gender and gender-specific language from Ontario

definitions of spousal terms and uses one term, "spouse", to include opposite-sex

couples and same-sex couples who are married or who live together in conjugal relationships outside of marriage.

This bill also contains amendments to the Marriage Act and the Human Rights Code to affirm the freedom of religious officials to solemnize a marriage or not, or

to provide a venue for marriage or related events or not, in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Mr. Klees moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Education Act to remove political interference in collective bargaining and ensure flexibility at the local level / Projet

de loi 172, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation pour éliminer toute ingérence politique lors des négociations collectives et assurer une flexibilité à l'échelon

local.

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

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): In contrast to the government's bill that will be debated later on this afternoon, which proposes to amend the

Education Act to remove the right for school boards and teacher unions to negotiate three-year contracts and imposes either a two- or a four-year contract term, this bill provides for terms of two,

three or four years, thereby insuring flexibility for school boards and teacher unions to negotiate freely at the local level, and it removes the political interference in contract negotiations

that is inherent in the government's proposed legislation.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 2005, and Wednesday, February 23, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The government House leader has moved government notice of motion 307. Is it the pleasure of the House that

the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, 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 1358 to 1403.

The Speaker: The government House leader has moved government notice of motion 307. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be

recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 13.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, today we read about another

attempt by the state of Michigan to effectively close its border to trash from the greater Toronto area. You, Minister, are on record as saying you are opposed to municipalities being forced to

accept garbage from other cities or areas; you said so in this House in November 2000. However, under Ontario's Environmental Protection Act, your ministry has the power and responsibility to force

other landfills to accept garbage from places like Toronto, should the need arise.

Minister, will you guarantee Ontario municipalities they will not be forced to accept Toronto's garbage? Will you do that?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I find it interesting that a member who was part of a government that, in my opinion,

totally ignored waste management in this province has now suddenly found religion and is suggesting that this government must somehow prescribe and enforce. I believe our government has a very

effective plan to assist all municipalities in the province of Ontario. We intend to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. This is the first question put forward today in question period. The minister hasn't even had a

chance to respond. I would like some respect for those who are both asking and answering the question and, furthermore, respect for the Chair. Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: Again, I think it's very strange to receive this question from a member who was part of a government that was prepared

to pave the way for Toronto garbage to go to a lake in northern Ontario.

Mr. Runciman: I guess we're getting used to that kind of rhetoric and non-answer.

A report from the city of Toronto's solid waste management services clearly states that the city of Toronto has no plan B should Michigan close its border. It

shows that the city of Toronto only has the capacity to handle its own garbage for up to two days. Worse, the city received no response to a public tender for other landfills and areas in Ontario

willing to accept Toronto's garbage. Minister, your stock answers, and we've heard them a number of times -- that you're working with the city, that you're confident in their abilities -- just

don't cut it. The city's own report says there is no plan. Toronto is sending 200 trucks of trash per day to Michigan. What is your government's plan if Michigan closes its border? What is the

plan?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I find it interesting that the opposition party in Ontario now thinks it's appropriate that a government would assume

the responsibility for municipal solid waste. They didn't do it when they were in government. I am very proud, though, to talk about how this government intends to help municipalities deal with

their waste issues. We have contributed to the blue box program, something they didn't do. In the last 14 months, we have ensured that the blue box program would stay alive by going from 0% support

from that government to $60 million in support for the diversion initiative that the blue box program represents in this province. We are also working to ensure that the Environmental Assessment

Act is a much better tool that will enable all municipalities in Ontario to consider and manage their municipal solid waste better.

Mr. Runciman: It's more avoidance after avoidance. It's your government's responsibility to ensure that public health is safeguarded and that

the environment is protected. You have the responsibility, under the Environmental Protection Act, to require municipalities to submit waste management plans. Toronto's own report shows it has no

plan. Even more alarming, there's no indication you have a plan. Minister, you can't continue to stick your head in the sand on this issue. Michigan is pursuing every route to close the border to

Ontario's garbage at some point. We suspect it's just a matter of time. What will you do in case Michigan is successful in closing its border? Let's get some specifics. Take your responsibility

here.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I'd like to get very specific: You are wrong. You are wrong when you suggest that the city of Toronto does not have an

alternate plan. The city of Toronto has talked with the Ministry of the Environment. We are aware that they are confident their supplier will continue to provide the service of hauling their waste

and managing that issue. With respect to the responsibility of the province, we have a responsibility to ensure that municipalities have the tools they need to manage their waste well. That is what

our government is doing and that is what this ministry is intent on doing. I'm proud of our efforts so far, and we intend to continue to work with them so that they can achieve effective

environmental assessments for their waste management plans.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of the Environment: I've also been asking for your plan to deal with Toronto's

garbage since you were elected. You've had more than a year -- a year and a half -- to come up with a plan. Municipalities in the GTA have no viable long-term contingency plans should there be any

kind of disruption at that Michigan border. Toronto trucks 100% of its garbage to Michigan; Durham, 120,000 tonnes; York, 140,000 tonnes; Peel sent 100,000 tonnes.

I'm asking you today, will you commit to require all of these GTA municipalities to develop and implement a realistic long-term plan for their waste

disposal?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: First of all, our government respects that it is a municipal responsibility to manage their waste. I find it interesting

that the member of the opposition is very adamant that this government should have a plan for all of these municipalities. Can you tell me the file you left your plans in? None. None is what you

left when you left government.

In terms of the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment to have an emergency plan, that, of course, depends what the emergency is, where the

emergency is and for how long we anticipate the emergency to be in effect. And so, when those events happen, this ministry and this minister will step up to the plate. We will accept our

responsibility. We will come forward with our plan to meet the need of the emergency at that time.

Mr. Barrett: Minister, I can certainly tell you that Haldimand county does not want to be on your list for Toronto's garbage. Haldimand county

has declared its borders closed for outside garbage.

Last week, you approved shipping Toronto garbage to Haldimand's Edwards landfill, down near Cayuga. Last week, I met with a Napanee town councillor from your

riding. He tells me that they want to know why you have turned your back on them. In fact, they're inviting you home to explain your new position of neutrality on the Richmond landfill

expansion.

Minister, are you turning your back on the rest of Ontario like you have on your constituents in your own riding? Are you going to make all of Ontario

Toronto's own personal garbage dump?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, just a minute. I'm still having difficulty hearing the questions and the answers.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I have to say that I'm very disappointed that an environment critic would not understand that when there is an

environmental process underway it would be totally inappropriate for me to make any kind of comment, and I've certainly shared that with many people across the province who are involved in the

process. I have faith in the process. I believe that in the fullness of time there will be time for me to make a decision. But the member opposite knows full well that that question is totally

unfair.

Mr. Barrett: Minister, there is disappointment in Napanee, and there is disappointment in Haldimand. Why won't you act now and, at minimum,

review Ontario's waste management system?

There is a headline in the Napanee Beaver that shows your lack of commitment to deal with waste diversion in Ontario: "Dombrowsky downplays province's role in

finding new waste disposal technology." Will you not ensure that municipalities have the proper tools to handle their waste? Are you going to wait until the transfer stations spill over, when the

only option for you would be emergency amendments to C of As to force unwilling municipalities to take Toronto's garbage, whether they want it or not?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: The member of the opposition has all of these ideas, none of which they enacted when they were in government. Our

government is sharpening the tool that will assist municipalities as they move through the environmental assessment process. The previous government tinkered with it and made it quite ineffective.

There will be an expert panel providing me with recommendations on how we can sharpen the environmental assessment tool to ensure that, as we move forward to protect the environment, we can see

that these projects unfold in a more timely way.

The other thing that we are doing to support municipalities is actually ensuring that they get money to suppose their blue box program. You never cut the

cheque for that; we did: $60 million to municipalities to help them divert waste from landfill.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Hydro rates are an important issue in Ontario. For the

forest industry, the McGuinty government's hydro rate increases have already shut down some operations and killed thousands of jobs. A lot of low- and modest-income families have trouble paying

their hydro bill as it is. We understand that you have an important hydro rate announcement to make. The question is, why are you going to hide it on federal budget day? What is it that you are

trying to hide from Ontario workers and Ontario consumers?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): There will be a full announcement with technical briefing tomorrow, along

with press releases. I have already made myself available to a number of media outlets to respond. There is no attempt to hide anything.

What we want to make sure doesn't happen again is that prices go up 43% on electricity rates, like they did on your watch -- which is what they did. The other

thing we want to be certain of is that no future government does what that member did and cancel all conservation programs in Ontario. Finally, this government is moving responsibly, and has been

doing so for more than a year, to ensure stability and predictability in electricity prices. Last year, the member predicted the wholesale price of electricity would go up 30% or 40%, and it went

down 19%. This government is bringing stability and predictability to a sector that was rocked too often by irresponsible governments like the one that member was part of.

Mr. Hampton: It was a simple question: Why does the McGuinty government insist on trying to hide their hydro rate announcement on the day the

federal government pronounces their budget? What we got was not an answer but more mumbo-jumbo, like the mumbo-jumbo that people got this morning. The Premier was asked, "What about the hydro rate

increase?" And the Premier said, "Don't worry; it's not going to affect ordinary families." But 10 minutes later the Minister of Energy said, "Yes, hydro rates are going to go up." So I'm simply

asking for a straight answer. Whose mumbo-jumbo should the people of Ontario believe: the Premier, who said one thing, or you, who said something different 10 minutes later? Why are you trying to

hide this on budget day?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: We will be announcing the regulated rate plan as of tomorrow. We will be doing so, and I invite the member to attend the

technical briefing. That will be made available to him and the media. The decisions that this government made are consistent with Bill 4 and Bill 100. I'm surprised the member opposite didn't

understand that. He certainly had a lot to say about the bills when they were being debated, albeit that he was wrong on most of the major points.

What I can tell you is that this government is producing electricity to fuel this economy, and then the member opposite wants to pretend and make statements

that are raising false expectations about electricity price increases. I'd invite him to wait until tomorrow to hear what we have to say. It will be done here in the Legislative Building. There

will be technical briefings, and I can assure you that the rate increases, if there are rate increases, and whom they apply to, will be nothing compared to the damage that member and his party

inflicted on the energy sector in Ontario in the early 1990s.

Mr. Hampton: The question is, why is the McGuinty government once again engaging in the politics of diversion? This is an important

announcement for industry; it's an important announcement for business; it's an important announcement for workers; it's an important announcement for families who have to pay their hydro bill.

What does the McGuinty government do? They try to hide it and make the announcement on federal budget day.

Here's the reality: Last fall, in the Bill 100 hearings, you said that all of the small hydro plants, the coal plants, were going to operate according to a

deregulated price. They were going to move up and down according to what the market price was. Now you seem to be indicating that that isn't so. If you know what you are going to announce, why

don't you announce it here and now so that the people of Ontario will actually hear the news? Why are you trying to hide such an important announcement and bury it on federal budget day?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: We will be announcing tomorrow the policy that we have established, even though the member has not accurately interpreted

things I've said in the past.

Let me talk about diversion. That's a party that voted against a price cap and then voted against taking it off. That's a party that said during the election

that they would close the coal plants, and then after the election that party said, "Oh, you can't do that in that time frame." That's a party that has such an inconsistent track record and such a

bad history that we have every confidence that the people of Ontario will understand the sensibility of our policy, and that our policy is a solid policy to ensure economic development and

predictable, stable pricing on electricity and other energy so that our economy can grow in a way that it never grew when they were the government of Ontario.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Finance and I want to ask him about some other rates. We've

seen your inability to be straight with the people on hydro rates; let's try auto insurance rates.

Ontario drivers are furious. Big insurance made record profits last year. You defended them. They're making record profits again this year: 70% higher than

last year. And who is defending them? The McGuinty government. People are being ripped off, taken to the cleaners, and who is defending big insurance? The McGuinty government.

People know that those big insurance company profits came out of drivers' pockets. Are you going to force insurance companies, big insurance, to give the

drivers who have been ripped off an auto insurance rebate, or are you going to continue to defend big insurance? Which is it?

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): What we're going to continue to do is to point out the truth of this matter. My friend was in a

government for five years, during the course of which time auto insurance premiums went up by 27%. They were followed then by the great Progressive Conservative Party, and they helped the industry

raise insurance rates by some 36%. Now, we have been in government some 17 months, and based on the initiatives that we have taken, finally, auto insurance rates are going down. At this point,

they're 10.6% lower, and that trend will continue, because, on the insurance debate, I tell my friend, we cast our lot with the consumer.

Mr. Hampton: Here is the McGuinty government defence. After year upon year of double-digit increases, after you've wrestled the insurance

companies to the ceiling in terms of their profits, now you are just going to let them level out there. In other words, jack up the rate of insurance, award the companies with multi-billion-dollar

profits, and then say, "Everything is fine. Everything is wonderful."

People have been ripped off. Drivers have been taken advantage of. What they are asking the McGuinty government to do is to ensure that the insurance companies

give some of that money back to the very drivers who have been ripped off. Are you going to do that, or are you going to continue to defend big insurance and their obscene profits?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We are going to continue to do what we began the day that we were elected. You will recall that, on that very day, our first

act was to freeze insurance rates so there would be no further increases. Then we brought in a series of measures and pieces of legislation, the net result of which has been an insurance decrease

of 10.6%.

But we are not going to stop there, because the fact is there is capacity, given these very handsome profits, for insurance companies to bring down auto

insurance rates much further, and that's what we should be expecting from the auto insurance industry in this great province.

Mr. Hampton: The spokesperson for the McGuinty government says that now that profits are 12 times what they were in 2002, now that they're up

there at $4.2 billion, everything is wonderful and fine. Look, even the Toronto Star says that drivers deserve a rebate: Why should the insurers "not share the...windfall with customers who

happened to save the industry a bundle in claims?"

Simple question, Minister: Are you going to pass legislation to force big insurance to give the hard-earned drivers and accident victims of this province some

of their money back, or are you going to continue to defend a $4.2-billion obscene profit?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I'm glad my friend from Kenora-Rainy River brought up the issue of legislation. I want to remind him and the people of this

province that when we brought in a bill in this Legislature to roll back the Tory corporate tax cuts, that man and that party voted against that. Now he's complaining about high corporate

profits.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. It would be helpful if you would keep them under control.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: When we brought in legislation to freeze auto insurance rates, that party and that member voted against the bill.

I want to tell you, sir, and I want to tell my friend from Kenora-Rainy River, that the progress we've made on auto insurance rates in the first 17 months of

government reverses a trend that had gone on in this province for well over 10 years. I'm confident, sir, that if we continue down this road, we're going to see further significant reductions in

automobile insurance rates in this province.

GREENBELT

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: According to a Canadian Press story in the Niagara

Falls Review entitled, "Landowners Have Month to Appeal Greenbelt Zone," your parliamentary assistant Mr. Duguid is quoted as saying, "If they haven't brought them forward, they better do it quick,

because we're moving quickly to a decision." In committee, he suggested a March 6 deadline. Minister, that's roughly two weeks away. How can we have any faith that in such a short time frame you

will bring forward a fair and transparent appeal process for these individuals?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Let me, first of all, say on this greenbelt

bill, which we and Ontarians are extremely proud of, that we have had more consultation over the last 15 months than any other bill that has been brought to this House in the last 25 years. I'm

told that by some of the senior members of this House. We had a Greenbelt Task Force that went around the province, through this area, to find out exactly what principles the greenbelt should be

based on. We had consultations done by the ministry and by myself.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I don't think the member from Halton is listening. I would ask for order. I would ask if you could have some

respect for the decorum of the House and let us have question period without this unnecessary interruption.

Mr. Hudak: I don't think I received an answer from the minister to my particular question. Here is the reality: According to the legislation,

the only appeal mechanism is through the Minister of Municipal Affairs himself. In fact, the Liberal members of the committee voted down our amendment to bring forward a transparent, open and

science-based appeal process. People are rightly suspicious. If you go to the right Liberal fundraiser, if you've got the right contact with the Liberal Party, you may get your day in court, but

for the average property owner, it looks like they're out of luck.

Secondly, when we requested the science behind this bill through an FOI request, we were given a bill of $1,400. Clearly they're hiding the science. The LEAR

studies the minister boasts about are not available to the public; they're ghost studies. We think, and we believe we're right, that the only science behind this is political science, not

environmental science.

Will the minister please agree, before calling this bill for third and final reading in the House, to commit to a fair and transparent appeal process and put

forward publicly all the science behind this bill?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: It may come as a surprise to this particular member, but the science that was used in determining the greenbelt was

exactly the same science they used with respect to the Oak Ridges moraine. We looked at the LEAR system from the Ministry of Agriculture; we looked at the natural heritage system from the Ministry

of Natural Resources. We combined the two and found the science of the area that's proposed to be part of the greenbelt to be exactly what we thought it was going to be, and that's how we

determined where the greenbelt is going to be located.

We want to make sure this greenbelt is permanent. That's why we're saying that there are no appeal mechanisms and that the plan will be reviewed once every 10

years, in a concise way, as laid out in the act, through a full and public process at that time. That's the way we can make sure the greenbelt will be permanent for future generations.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Because of your inaction, the city of

Toronto is being forced to sell the furniture to pay the rent. You owe the city of Toronto $47 million, but you refuse to pay up. But now that Toronto is forced to sell its assets at a garage-sale

price to pay the bills, you're the first in line. You told the Toronto Star yesterday that you would absolutely, unequivocally like to have your hands on the Toronto Hydro lands and even the

Science Centre property.

Is this the new deal for cities: Starve them and then take the land off them? What is your new deal for cities? Nineteen Toronto Liberal MPPs are missing in

action. When are the 19 Toronto Liberal MPPs going to stand up and say that your new deal isn't a new deal; it's a raw deal?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I'm pleased to get this question from the

member opposite, because it gives me an opportunity, once again, to say that what this government is doing for the city of Toronto is $80 million more than the city of Toronto received from the

government in 2003. What do they get for a total of $217 million? They get $91 million or more in provincial gas tax funding, $74.5 million in transit capital funding, $20 million in TTC

improvements, $25 million in assistance to promote a competitive business climate and $6.3 million in public health costs uploaded to the province.

We are proud of that record. We are proud of providing them with $80 million more than two years ago. And do you want to know something? Next year, it's going

up by another $95 million to $317 million. We are proud of Toronto, and we want to make sure it will remain the economic engine of this province.

Mr. Prue: Mr. Minister, you acknowledge that Toronto needs a permanent solution, but this isn't a permanent solution. The mayor of Toronto

requested a joint review of the books by the municipal and provincial auditors, and what did we get? You didn't agree that they be audited. All there was was one-sided finger pointing by your

Minister of Community and Social Services. Toronto has nothing to hide. All we see being hidden is from your government: hide, hide, hide.

While Minister Pupatello is pointing the finger at Toronto, 19 Toronto Liberal MPPs have been missing in action. Not one of them has spoken up for our city.

Minister, are you instructing the 19 Liberal members missing in action to demand a fair deal for Toronto? Is that the reason for the great silence emanating from your benches?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: The Minister of Community and Social Services would never point the finger at Toronto. Let me also say that we are

extremely proud of the 19 MPPs from Toronto, cabinet ministers and other members, because they fight for the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario on a day-to-day basis.

Let me also say that, yes, we are going to make changes. We're working with the city of Toronto to make sure that the City of Toronto Act reflects the

realities of the 21st century, in exactly the same way we're working with the rest of the municipal world in Ontario to make sure changes to the Municipal Act will give municipalities more power

and more permissive authorities.

We're proud of our record as to how we're working with municipalities. We'll continue to work with them and the city of Toronto, hopefully, for many years to

come.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, as you well know, the Lakehead

District School Board has made what they describe as "a final decision" to close 14 schools in the Thunder Bay area, seven at the end of this school year and seven more in 2007. In that regard,

last week you announced a new policy regarding school closure guidelines that came along with substantial funds for facility renewal.

Minister, despite your public assertion that these new guidelines will have a significant impact on the board's decision, there still seems to be some

confusion as to whether these new guidelines will compel the board to make further alterations that could affect the final number of schools closed on behalf of the board and, perhaps more

particularly, those children and families affected by the potential school closures. Can you clarify precisely what impact these new guidelines will have on the public board's decision-making?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): There was provided, for first time in fact in this House, a copy of a report that changes the

world in terms of schools staying open, in terms of how we value our schools. It is a different way of looking at the assets we have. In fact, for the first time we regard our school space, first

and foremost, as an asset.

The schools that are being talked about in Thunder Bay have a value of $66 million. In the advice we've given to boards, we are telling them about how the

capital funding formula is changing, so there's about $6 million for the repairs attached to those particular schools. There's also operating direction in terms of where we're going with the

operating formula, and we've invited the board to sit down with us and address how declining enrolment areas in Lakehead and elsewhere can be dealt with.

Finally, we are going to review every one of the boards that put forward closures during the moratorium because it has to be done. We need consistency and

we're going to make sure that the spirit in the letter of what we proposed is going to be a benefit for every student, equally felt all around the province.

Mr. Gravelle: For my supplementary, I think I'd like to ask you how the process perhaps might move forward. Certainly, we know that time is

running short, particularly for those schools scheduled to close this coming June. In fact, it's my understanding that the board and trustees are meeting tonight to put more detail into their

closure plans.

My supplementary is, will the Lakehead District School Board be able to continue to move forward directly on its closure plans and, if not, what can the board

and the public expect to happen next? Perhaps more importantly, how quickly will all this unfold?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: The boards in Lakehead and elsewhere in the province can expect from us what they didn't get from the people opposite, which

is some respect in terms of what they've done, but also the need to make sure that every student benefits. We are writing to each of the boards and asking them to hold up any closures that they

have in process, any closing processes that they're doing, in consequence of a dramatic change in the resources that are available to them.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I'm going to start naming members -- first of all warning them and then naming them. I'm having a

very difficult time hearing the question and then the answer, and the heckling that goes across, back and forth, is not helpful. So from now on, I'm going to start making sure that I name these

members so we can get on with the proceedings of the day.

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: There are at least five different ways that the Thunder Bay situation has changed -- in operating funds and capital funds in

the guidelines that they have to go through and the way they assess their entire situation in terms of capital planning. All of that will have to jibe in order for those closures to continue.

We have not taken power away from boards, but the province does set the guidelines and the guidelines will have to be followed. We're going to work closely

with the Lakehead board and other boards around the province, because this is a better future for their students. There is more benefit involved if the schools that stay open or the schools that

eventually might close are done only when it's better for the students to go to those exact schools. For the first time in Ontario, that's what's possible for all students right across the

province.

TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, your government has acknowledged that clogged roads

and highways are costing the Ontario economy up to about $5 billion annually and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce says that gridlock is costing businesses across the province an additional $5

billion a year in lost time and productivity. Yet in the last couple of weeks, we have learned that GO Transit is increasing fares for commuters by an average of $6 a month for the average transit

user, and students are being hit with two fare increases, with a further 5% hike in student fares.

Instead of unlocking gridlock and encouraging ridership by reducing fares, you're spending $8.5 million to install French-language signs throughout the GO

Transit system. Minister, this is a very rigid

interpretation of the French Language Services Act. Less than 1% of people in the GTA even speak French. How can you justify spending $8.5 million on

signs when you could hire 212 new French-language teachers or build a new French-language school for $8.5 million?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): Congestion is an issue in the Toronto area; there's no question about it. That is why I

introduced the legislation yesterday that will help us improve some of the traffic flow in the Toronto area.

The other issue is that in order to relieve congestion, we have to improve service for GO Transit, and we are absolutely committed to doing it. We signed a

$1-billion agreement with the federal government and we are working closely with the municipalities to improve the service. One of those features is that we have to make transit accessible to those

who use it, and making signs visible so that people can read where to take GO Transit and other transit services is part of our plan to do that.

Mr. Wilson: By spending $8.5 million on signs that aren't needed, you are simply ignoring the facts of the makeup of the GTA and its

population. More people speak Punjabi, Chinese and Italian than speak French. It's impractical to ignore the makeup of your own riding, places like Mississauga, Brampton and Barrie.

That $8.5 million would buy 11,000 cardiac surgeries or 42,000 MRI scans, which the Premier was bragging about yesterday. It would buy you, as I said, a new

French-language school or 212 new French-language teachers. Why don't you just back off, amend the act, do what is common sense, respond to the true population out there, and don't waste $8.5

million when there are so many other priorities that your government should be looking at?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: I come from the Peel region, so I think I know what needs to be done in the Brampton or Mississauga area. I think what we

need to do is improve the service on GO Transit, and that is what we are absolutely committed to doing. We are not only going to improve the service, but we are also going to make sure that we have

a seamless and integrated service available to the users from those areas.

Part of that also is to make sure that people can read the signs. We will not only make it available in French, but we will also make sure that if other

requirements are there, we can address some of those issues as well as we go along.

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Attorney General: Over three months ago, you and the Premier promised victims in Cornwall a full

public inquiry into sexual abuse uncovered by the OPP's Project Truth investigation. The people of Cornwall haven't seen you since. You haven't appointed a commissioner. You've done nothing. You

found plenty of time to push ahead with your ban on pit bulls. When are you going to find the time to provide some justice for victims of abuse in the form of a full public inquiry, as you

promised?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): When I met with

people in Cornwall, when I met with victims in Cornwall, I heard loud and clear that they wanted a number of qualities and qualifications in a commissioner for a public inquiry. They made it loud

and clear that they did not want a commissioner from Cornwall or from that region. They made it loud and clear that they wanted to have a judge with experience particularly in criminal law. They

made it very clear that they wanted to have somebody who had never had any contact with this file. They also made it clear that they wanted to have a judge who had all these qualifications and was

also fluently bilingual.

I am working very hard and am having conversations with the chief justices of the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court and Chief Justice McMurtry. I

expect to have a decision from our potential commissioner within the next 10 days, and I hope to have an announcement within the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Kormos: These people are somewhat disappointed that you would blame them for the delay. You promised a full public inquiry.

The victims want to know this, Mr. Attorney General: Will you stop the gag orders that the provincial government has imposed upon victims who have settled with

the province of Ontario? It's imperative that those victims be allowed to speak openly about the abuse and the attacks imposed upon them. It is unconscionable for this province to gag victims who

have to live with that abuse and those assaults. Will you drop the gag orders that the provincial government imposed upon those victims, so that when your inquiry starts, those victims will have

full opportunity to speak to the inquiry and to the public?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The member knows that all of that is complete nonsense. It is unfortunate that victims would have to hear that complete

nonsense.

Contrary to a gag order, this government is the first government with the courage, in the face of years and years of allegations, to finally bring to bear a

public inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of what happened in Cornwall. That's what this government is doing.

FETAL ALCOHOL

SPECTRUM DISORDER

Ms. Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Last year this Legislature rose

unanimously and supported an amendment to the Liquor Licence Act, known as Sandy's Law, whose goal was to raise public awareness with respect to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, an unfortunately

common yet preventable disability which is estimated to affect at least one in every 100 babies or 300 Canadian children each year. This amendment came into effect on February 1 of this year. Can

you please tell us what exactly this amendment is and how public awareness will be raised in all of our communities and across the province as a result?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I want to thank the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, but in particular I'd like

to thank the member for Prince Edward-Hastings, because it was a result of his leadership and his personal commitment to this tragic situation that befell his family that we in this House passed

Bill 43 unanimously.

This is a law that's aimed at education and prevention of fetal alcohol syndrome. Sandy's Law is about choice and taking responsibility. I'm pleased that our

government, the McGuinty government, worked with Mr. Parsons to ensure that licensed establishments and beer stores and liquor stores now have to display this reminder of the consequences of

drinking while one is pregnant.

Ms. Broten: I have certainly received numerous calls of congratulations and support for this from restaurants and bars and community members

in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Who exactly is going to be required to comply with this law is the question that they're asking, and what should they be expecting to see in their community as

this law comes into full force and effect?

Hon. Mr. Watson: I had the pleasure of going to Belleville with Mr. Parsons. As of February 1, all licensed establishments in Ontario are

required to post these signs, and also beer and wine stores and brew-on premises. The sign reads, "Warning:: Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause birth defects and brain damage to your

baby." Individual operators and licensees are able to download the poster free of charge from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission Web site, which is

www.agco.on.ca . I'd encourage those businesses that have not posted the sign to please do so, because that is part of the law

that was passed unanimously by this House. Again, I congratulate the honourable member Mr. Parsons for the work he has done. It shows that when this institution works together in harmony, we can

make a difference.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question to the Acting Premier is about H5N1. Last year in the Legislature, your Minister of

Agriculture accused me of fearmongering on this subject. On April 15 last year, a day after I asked what the government's plans were for H5N1, your minister said, "I think it is very unfortunate

that we are fearmongering in this province." You know this file. Do you feel that asking questions about bird flu is fearmongering?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): What I do know on this very important subject is that the Ministry of Health

and the Ministry of Agriculture have been working very closely with a variety of interested people. We have, of course, been taking lessons that have been applied through the work of Health Canada,

and working very closely with the World Health Organization with a view to learning all the lessons that can be learned.

We've worked hard in the province of Ontario, in the time since we came into office, at enhancing our capacity to address challenges around infectious disease.

We've worked very closely, taking a look at the circumstances that occurred in British Columbia. All these things taken together do demonstrate that we take all these problems seriously. That's why

we've worked so hard over the course of the last year.

Mr. Barrett: Acting Premier, you are going to have to have a chat with your Minister of Agriculture. Dr. Julie Gerberding, the head of the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is now saying scientists expect Asian bird flu virus will change into a flu that can be transmitted between humans. She considers this "a very high

threat." Hans Wagner, of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: "At the moment, we are not on top of it."

Acting Premier, you have to explain to your Minister of Agriculture that these experts are not fearmongering. Is there no plan, for example, for landfilling

diseased birds in this province? Eighty per cent of BC's birds had to be landfilled; they had to be buried. I've asked this question before: What landfills are being targeted? What steps are being

taken to prevent an outbreak of H5N1? Is your Minister of Agriculture or your Minister of the Environment listening to their staff? Is there a plan?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Not only will I have chats with the Minister of Agriculture; I will continue to do what our ministries have been doing

together -- and rather well, I'd say -- which is working to make sure that Ontario is well prepared in the event that these circumstances unfold here.

The honourable member does seem a little prone to suggesting that there isn't being anything done; I'm not going to characterize that. But what I can tell the

people of the province is that the government of Ontario seeks to make sure that Ontario is a jurisdiction that has learned all the lessons from infectious diseases. We've taken very seriously the

responsibilities that fell to our government to make sure that Ontario's capacity was enhanced, as a result of what we learned from SARS and on matters including the one that the honourable member

raises.

I can tell him that we are involved in daily conference calls, working with the World Health Organization and with the Public Health Agency of Canada to make

sure all the lessons that can be learned in other places can be promptly applied here. We have a plan, and we work toward improving it every single day.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Last week, Szilvia

Veres was murdered by her abusive ex-boyfriend, despite court orders that he not contact her. This is one of several recent tragic deaths that show how the bail system chronically fails to protect

women from domestic violence.

Your government's strategy to combat domestic violence does not do what coroners' reports and women's advocates say is needed to protect women from bail

violators. Requiring police, crown attorneys and JPs to use standardized risk assessments in determining bail conditions is one such long-overdue measure. These many experts agree on the need to

use these risk assessments, but your government has chosen to introduce them only as a couple of pilot projects in a couple of municipalities. Will you listen to the experts and immediately require

that risk assessments be conducted in all domestic violence cases across Ontario?

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. She raises a very good

question. You know that ODARA, the Ontario domestic assault risk assessment review, is aimed at preventing these things from happening. It has been tested clinically. There's no question that it

works. It has been lauded by many psychological institutions and magazines. The problem we have -- it's not a problem, but what we're going through is that we've made a pilot project both in North

Bay and in Ottawa. The reason is that it isn't whether or not the assessment works; we're satisfied that it does. But what we have to do is make sure it is implemented properly. We have to make

sure that the crowns, the defence and the judiciary understand how it works, and we have to learn how we can make sure it's effectively implemented. The program itself is not the issue. It's the

implementation, and we can only do that through these pilot projects.

Ms. Churley: Minister, the problem is that women are dying, and some of those lives can be saved if you act now. Unfortunately, what it looks

like is that your government is more interested in saving money than in saving these women's lives. It's already in place. You can move now. Your own ministry's domestic violence death review

committee cites cases about women being killed by abusive partners who have breached bail conditions. To stop such homicides, violent abusers should be detained in custody after they breach bail,

not re-released with a new condition of bail. This is a measure that experts in the field have been calling for for years. You are responsible for administration of the bail system. You can make

this change now.

I'm asking you again, for the sake of women's safety, will you immediately mandate that if an abuser breaches bail, they are detained in custody instead of

being eligible for release after yet another bail hearing? Will you do that?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Unfortunately, the member is not correct. I do not have the ability to decide on bail hearings. That is done by the

judiciary. I do have the ability, as we have done with the OPP psychological unit, to develop this plan. It has been tested extensively. We're satisfied it's the best plan available. We are running

through the implementation process. It doesn't make any sense to have a plan if it doesn't get implemented, and we don't have the ability to implement it on our own. We have to have the

co-operation of crowns, we have to have the co-operation of the judiciary, and we have to make sure we can do it effectively so that we can in fact prevent these things from happening.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. On December 13, 2004, along with the

Premier, you announced the domestic violence action plan. I am encouraged by your determination to help and protect those women and children fleeing domestic abuse. This is the first substantive

plan put forward by a provincial government in the area of domestic violence for over eight years. Can you tell me how a woman in my riding will benefit from the initiatives brought forth in the

domestic violence action plan?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Let me take this opportunity to

congratulate the member from Huron-Bruce, a loud advocate for women, a loud advocate for the women of Huron-Bruce. I had the opportunity to speak to a number -- well, hundreds, actually -- who

piled into a town hall not too long ago in the dead of winter, as I recall, with wintry roads getting to Huron-Bruce. We had a very good conversation that night, and that was in advance of our

announcement.

The focus is largely on four areas. One of those, of course, is prevention. The most significant shift, I believe, is in the area of prevention. Frankly, all

sides agree that this is a necessary part of getting rid of the mentality that it's okay to have abuse against women. So that's an important part. The second is community supports. The third very

important area that, again, all sides agree on, is in the area of training, not just of front-line workers but of all of us, friends and neighbours. The fourth is the area of justice.

Mrs. Mitchell: Thank you, Minister, and especially for braving our snow to come into Huron-Bruce to talk about the plan. It's very important

to hear from the rural communities. I'm confident that this plan will not only aid those fleeing abuse, but will also help in the prevention of domestic violence in our communities.

Recently there have been some questions around your initiative to provide women's shelters with funding to help them in generating increased non-government

revenues through fundraising. Can you tell us why you think this is an effective use of money?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I appreciate that opportunity. As you know, over the several months that we've been the government, we've had an

opportunity to meet with many, many shelters across the province. What is striking about this group is that they spend much of their time not only on a 24/7 kind of job in running the facilities;

in addition to that, they also spend much time actually working on various events to fundraise. We know that it's about time the government acknowledged that this group of people works very hard

and we have to offer them some kind of help. We know they're doing it already; they need help to do it. Those dollars ought not to be taken from any of the funding that is going to the direct

operating of their facilities. So we know that it's going to be a support to them and we appreciate working with them.

HIGHWAY 7

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Mr. Minister, when are you going to start

construction of the four-laning of Highway 7 between Highway 417 and Carleton Place?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. You were all doing so well, and then --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): Let me tell the member opposite that the design work for widening the first

section of

Highway 7, from Highway 417 to Jenkinson Road, was completed under our government. The design work for the second section, from Jenkinson Road to Ashton Station Road, commenced this past summer,

and that also happened under our government. The previous government really didn't do much. The property acquisition for the expanded corridor is underway and is going to take maybe another 12

months for us to do.

Mr. Sterling: We have in the audience five members of county council who asked to meet with you at the Good Roads convention to talk about

this particular item, but they weren't given an appointment.

Another tragedy occurred on this stretch of highway on January 24, when a 33-year-old man from Orléans died after being hit in a head-on accident. Only

three days later, there was another serious accident and the highway had to be closed. An air ambulance came in to take one of the people away, who was critically injured.

Since coming into power, the McGuinty government has said that they are in fact going to build this highway, yet nothing happens. Would the minister assure

these members of county council -- the mayor from Carleton Place, the reeve from Beckwith township and the reeve from Montague township -- that you will have the shovels in the ground this

spring?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: I'm so glad the member asked me this question today, when they're all here. If this delay has occurred, it has occurred under

their government. For eight and a half years they didn't do anything. Our government has been working diligently since then to actually address some of the issues that have been long outstanding,

for eight and a half years. I want to ensure that we will continue to work with the local municipal officials to move this project forward.

The Speaker: Thank you. That brings us to the end of question period.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for this House to consider an

emergency resolution about the doctor crisis in Geraldton. It's an important priority that should have been brought up by the member opposite.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Can I get some order, please.

The member from Leeds-Grenville has a point of order.

VISITORS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): It's Lanark-Carleton, Mr. Speaker, and it's kind of important to get that distinction through.

I'm sure all members of the Legislature would like to welcome Mayor Paul Dulmage of Carleton Place, along with Councillor Dennis Burn, Reeve Richard Kidd of

the township of Beckwith, Reeve Aubrey Churchill and Deputy Reeve Gordon McConnell of Drummond/North Elmsley, and the reeve from Montague, Gary Doyle.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): There are many reeves and many mayors visiting us today, and I want to welcome them all.

To the member for Lanark-Carleton, I'm sorry if I had mixed you up with the member for Leeds-Grenville.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Oak Ridges has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the

answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning enzyme replacement therapy.

PETITIONS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

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

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

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

of the inaction of the Ontario Historical Society; and

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

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

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

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

come."

I want to thank St. John's United Church, the Men's Club, and Tom Shepherd for circulating this petition and for inviting me to speak on this very important

topic of the Banting homestead this Friday.

OPTOMETRISTS

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario will be considering a private member's bill that aims to amend the Optometry Act to give

optometrists the authority to prescribe therapeutic pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of certain eye diseases; and

"Whereas optometrists are highly trained and equipped with the knowledge and specialized instrumentation needed to effectively diagnose and treat certain eye

problems; and

"Whereas extending the authority to prescribe TPAs to optometrists will help relieve the demands on ophthalmologists and physicians who currently have the

exclusive domain for prescribing TPAs to optometry patients; and

"Whereas the bill introduced by New Democrat Peter Kormos (MPP -- Niagara Centre) will ensure that patients receive prompt, timely, one-stop care where

appropriate;

"Therefore, we support the bill proposing an amendment to the Optometry Act to give optometrists the authority to prescribe therapeutic pharmaceutical agents

for the treatment of certain eye diseases, and we urge the government of Ontario to ensure speedy passage of the bill."

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

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke is the number one preventable killer in Ontario today, and there is overwhelming evidence that retail

displays of tobacco products ... in plain view of children and adults increase the use of tobacco, we have collected 549 postcards signed by persons from our school and community supporting a

smoke-free Ontario in 2005 and banning the use of power walls which promote tobacco use.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to make all public places and workplaces smoke-free

and to ban the use of power walls. The city of Ottawa has been smoke-free since August 2001. All of Ontario deserves clean air."

That's from Lester P. Pearson Catholic High School. There are signatures of seven students, and I will sign the petition as well.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This is from the folks up at the Huronia Regional Centre.

"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 economies of the local communities;

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign my name to this.

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"The Women's Health Care Centre supports raped and physically assaulted women, nursing mothers and women going through menopause. It also provides physical

exams for women and information on family planning. The closing of this facility would leave a void that is not filled by any other service in Peterborough;

"We, the undersigned, feel the Women's Health Centre of Peterborough, Ontario, is vital to our community and should not have its funding cut by the

government."

I'll give this to the page, Jason. This petition is from the citizens of the riding of Peterborough.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): "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've signed my name.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Niagara Falls.

"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;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned" request "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'm pleased to sign this petition.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas many volunteer fire departments in Ontario are strengthened by the service of double-hatter firefighters who work as professional, full-time

firefighters and also serve as volunteer firefighters on their free time and in their home communities; and

"Whereas the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association has declared their intent to `phase out' these double-hatter firefighters; and

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters are being threatened by the union leadership and forced to resign as volunteer firefighters or face losing their full-time

jobs, and this is weakening volunteer fire departments in Ontario; and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott has introduced Bill 52, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, that would uphold the right to

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

"That the provincial government express public support for MPP Ted Arnott's Bill 52 and willingness to pass it into law or introduce similar legislation that

protects the right of firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free time."

This is signed by a significant number of my constituents, most of whom reside in the township of Wellington North. I want to thank the folks at the ROMA-Good

Roads conference for also circulating my petition at their conference this week.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate this opportunity.

"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 put my name to this petition and hand it over to Ian, our page.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present my first petition, actually, in some time to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government has announced in their budget that they are delisting key health services such as routine eye exams, chiropractic and

physiotherapy services; and

"Whereas abandoning support for these services will place greater demand on other health care sectors such as physicians, emergency wards and after-hours

clinics; and

"Whereas no Ontario citizen should be denied access to necessary medical care because of lack of funds;

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

"To reverse the mean-spirited decision to delist eye exams, chiropractic and physiotherapy services and restore funding for these important and necessary

health services."

I'm pleased to sign this in support of my constituents in the riding of Durham and across Ontario.

TTC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I keep getting petitions against the TTC right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West. The petition is addressed to

the Parliament of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the city filed the ESR, the environmental assessment report, and issued the notice of completion on November 22, 2004, and initiated a 45-day public

review period;

"Whereas environmental impacts of the dedicated right-of-way significantly affect the quality of life of nearby residents" and "dramatically and detrimentally"

affects them;

"Whereas the availability of other alternatives to the project have not received careful consideration;

"Whereas the public consultation program and the opportunities for public participation have not been adequate;

"Whereas specific concerns remain unresolved, such as curb cutting, therefore reducing the sidewalks in such a way as to decimate community life;

"Whereas the city/TTC have not made their case within the parameters set out by the Environmental Assessment Act. The act defines `environment' to include `the

social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a community.' The city has not established the need for the project, nor has it adequately assessed the potential

socio-economic impacts that would result from constructing a dedicated streetcar lane on St. Clair Avenue West;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Ministry of the Environment issue a

part II order which would subject this St. Clair project to an individual

environmental assessment."

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

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "Save Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities.

"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 economies of the local communities;

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

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

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

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

I'm more than pleased to sign my name to that.

SENIORS' TRANSIT PASS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me twice in one day. That's a real record.

I have a petition. It's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and the minister responsible for seniors, and it says that we should grant free TTC passes to

seniors:

"Whereas most seniors live on fixed incomes which are eroding every year" -- and every day -- "due to inflation costs and other necessary expenses;

"Whereas most seniors have their freedom severely restricted when unable to go about their daily business, which includes public transit;

"Whereas most seniors should be encouraged to live active, healthy lives -- visiting friends, relatives, going shopping etc.;

"Whereas other jurisdictions already provide free local transit passes to seniors, namely, many cities in the USA;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, strongly urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and responsible for seniors to ensure that seniors be granted a

free TTC pass, and/or introduce legislation that will force the local Toronto Transit Commission to issue free TTC passes."

Since I agree, I am really delighted to sign this petition as well.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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" in Ontario.

I'm pleased to sign my name to that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Mr. Kennedy moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 167,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 167, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Mr. Kennedy.

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I'll be sharing my time with my very hard-working parliamentary assistant, the member from Sault

Ste. Marie, Mr. Orazietti.

I'm very pleased to rise today to bring this debate to second reading. This is a debate about a fairly straightforward bill, but it is about one of the most

important outlooks, I think, in publicly funded education; that is, the shared aspiration on the part of students and parents and teachers, and all workers in the system, and probably the public as

well, as they were touched by things in the past, to see peace and stability become a permanent part of how education takes place in this province.

I think if we were on the parliamentary feed being picked up by stations outside the province, they might be scratching their head and wondering why it would

be necessary for a government of the day to make an effort for peace and stability in the school system. Unfortunately, in this effort as in so many others, we are following the legacy of a

government that took away a lot of the very things that most people would agree we should be able to take for granted in our publicly funded and publicly delivered services.

The bill in question is one part of a plan. It's in a context of delivering peace and stability, of being able to bring the right kind of balance back into our

education system and its administration at the provincial level.

The amendments to the Education Act, very simply put, take on a prior government's decision to make all the contracts in the province due on a single date, so

that effectively the teaching agreements at least, 105 of them, came due August 31. It's the first time the province was put in that particular challenge, that particular predicament. In the

unusual nature of it, just by itself, even without the history I'm going to relate a little bit of, it would require some proactivity on the part of our government.

In assessing the situation, we have conducted long deliberations and discussions with people in the sector, as has become our way, to gather up consensus, to

find the best way forward. We arrived at the idea that a two-year or a four-year term to those collective agreements, which is essentially a variation on the three years the previous government had

put in, would be useful and purposeful in terms of helping to change relations in education to a new era of peace and stability.

We are being proactive in that respect, but also providing the flexibility we think is necessary, so that we actually do get the kind of labour agreements and

the kind of outlook on behalf of the public and the teachers that we need to be able to go forward. That outlook is really an essential part of what we've been able to accomplish so far. One aspect

of it can be basically determined as respect for teachers. We fundamentally have found it necessary to put that proposition forward. The people who work in that profession need to get a very strong

and consistent signal from this Legislature, from the government of the day, from the administration of the Ministry of Education, that we are conferring respect, that we do regard them as

professionals and that we do see huge opportunities for them to help advance the system exactly the way they want to and have been frustrated in in the last number of years.

The era we're leaving behind was stricken with 25 million lost school days -- 25 million days taken away from students by mismanagement at the provincial level

by the previous government. They were taken away by an era of conflict -- a conflict that was really conjured up, I believe, in some of the political calculations that the last government made. It

is sad to think that those calculations, which were never protested by any of the backbench members who serve that party here today as members of the opposition, never found public claim, in terms

of saying, "Enough is enough. Our kids should not be subject to these political manipulations and mechanisms." But instead, it was gone along with and supported. That has put all subsequent

governments in a position of having to compensate, of having to bring back to the system the kind of non-partisan environment that it requires to go forward.

We are working through this bill. What it simply does is require that the terms of the agreements move from three years to two and four years. Those are the

kinds of agreements that are most likely. I can tell you what our bias is, as we encourage the local collective bargaining to find agreements: It certainly is toward the longer term. We certainly

believe that there needs to be a respite and that it is in everyone's interest to not have to worry about how arrangements will be. It is obviously important that if those longer arrangements are

to be arrived at, they contain, as well, respect for the system and respect for teachers that we think is the hallmark of our efforts so far in terms of bringing positive change within publicly

funded education.

We have put forward, in addition to the legislation that we have in the House today, a general framework to assist boards and teacher federations in arriving

at the kind of agreements we know they want, goodwill agreements that are good for teachers, good for the school system and good, ultimately, for students. We know that aspiration is captured in

this bill, but it is also captured in some of the related actions of the government.

We have provided, for the first time, a dialogue at the provincial level to acknowledge that some of the things that influence the success of those local

negotiating tables need to be resolved, or at least a significant effort needs to be made to resolve them, at the provincial level. Why? Because, like the bill we're debating today, there are

things that have been put into the Education Act that are outside the reach of local bargaining and which need to be solved in order for local bargaining to be successful. An example of that would

be some of the provisions around secondary workload, around some of the aspects of how preparation time is defined in elementary and a range of other things having to do with workload.

I'm very pleased to report to the House that all of the federations representing teachers in this province and making sure that their interests are looked

after have agreed to take

part in a form of dialogue, as have the representatives of the public school boards, the Catholic school boards and the French school boards. In effect, all of the people

in education who are participant to those local negotiations are participating in a provincial dialogue about other things. But these other things often can get in the way of what happens locally.

We want to assure everyone that what we're doing is simply to try and create the conditions under which local bargaining will be successful and under which both parties will choose the best, most

stable situation for their boards and for their students. It is a bit of a change of channel for everyone involved in education, and it takes some time to effect that. That's why it is so important

that this bill be supported by this House.

I think, for every member in this House, this is an opportunity to send a signal in support of the efforts within education to normalize things so that they

can get on with the business of learning. Too much of education has been about conflict inspired from this room, that has come from measures, unnecessary interference, on the part of the provincial

government in the past, setting terms and stipulations that don't necessarily add up to the right kind of education in the schools, in the different situations we find across the province. We have

approached our role in this very carefully, listening very hard, talking to all the participants and making sure that what we have on offer is generally going to improve the situation. I think the

participation that we're getting in the provincial dialogues is proof in itself that there is an acceptance, that there is an important role to play.

I think that with the gift, if you like, of the last government to put all the contracts due on a certain date, it means that we haven't arrived at all of the

positive changes that we want in education, and this gives us a chance to be able to dialogue with some of our partners in education about how those are going to look and how they may indeed

influence the conditions that they seek under collective agreements.

There is a long-term view on the part of this government. We have an outlook encompassing the four years that are going ahead to see how students are going to

improve. As much as we need to invest, as we did last week, in the buildings, as much as we have invested in the months before in the extra staffing, in the reductions in class size, in the

learning materials, in the more focused goals, in the bringing out of the potential of the instructors and the educators and the support workers so that we can bring out the potential of the

students -- as much as we've done that, we also need to take responsibility here in this House for the environment in our schools. We need to take responsibility for the environment in the

classrooms and the staff rooms. That is not to say that we in this room -- there are many qualified educators in this body, but none of us can influence that classroom except by making sure that we

don't put up additional barriers, except to make sure that we provide the sense of respect, the sense of support, and the sense of taking responsibility for those things that we can, which they

have every reason to expect from us but which I think most objective observers would say was not present for too many of the last number of years.

We're putting forward here an ability to provide support. For the first time, we are standing behind resources for school boards, to make sure that they are in

a position, going forward, to enter into long-term agreements should they so choose and should they have that choice made, also, on the part of the education workers.

We're also making sure, for the first time since the funding formula came into place in 1998, that we're actually paying the real cost of the increases that

are available. So we've provided a real amount of money in the funding formula to make sure that we don't have what has been so much a hallmark of funding decisions in the past, which is that

things are announced at Queen's Park and there is a requirement by boards and by others to come up with some form of adaptation. That adaptation often gets in the way of providing quality

education. We're working our way toward a very transparent and very accountable funding formula, which we can't say has existed in the recent past and which will take some time yet to bring

about.

The transparency, though, will also give boards some ability to show to us that they are able to accomplish their multiple responsibilities. It is not just the

environment that comes from the collective agreement; it's also the environment that comes from some of the changes that people in education have been asking for for so many years. Educators and

others have recognized, I think far ahead of the people in this room, that we can do things. There are insights we have about education that will positively influence the future of so many children

in this province.

One of those is lower class size. There has been, I think, a consensus for a very long time that we're shortchanging students by not giving them the attention

at the earliest age possible. Lower class size from JK to grade 3 is one of the things that's going to add to stability in this province, because it means that we added, last year alone, almost

1,200 new teachers, that we're improving the status of the teaching environment in 1,400 schools just in the first year, just in the first instalment. To be able to do that, we've established the

guidelines to make sure that those dollars are happening, and yet at the very same time there are adequate resources to make sure there are good, fair and respectful collective agreements happening

around the province.

The same can be said for secondary. Our secondary teachers and administrators have known for some time that we need to make a renewed effort in terms of

keeping students in school. Too often, 16- and 17-year-olds in this province have been casualties -- most recently, of a revised curriculum that didn't take a heck of a lot of our students into

account, and more importantly, that denied those children some of their potential. I say "children," but they're really young adults, young adults who found out that they were still struggling to

pass reading and writing tests in grade 10, and then turned around and found they could have no support, that there was no remedial available. Somehow, they were being defined on the outside of

what was seen to be the mainstream. There's only one mainstream, and that's one that includes a successful outcome for every single student. To do that, we need to make sure that those resources

are available.

We're still deciding the exact shape of some of that. I'm pleased to report that there were approximately $18 million in additional pilot projects

approved by our government this year and that we are sizing up a real, substantial change in how our high schools will operate in the future. Part of that is about the peace and stability that we

need to have, part of it is about the predictable funding arrangements and part of it is just the ability to plan.

As I travel the province and as the Premier does -- he visits schools on a frequent basis -- we're finding that there is a new energy, that there is a new

spirit of possibility. We are fortunate in this province to have very skilled educators, to have a system that has delivered excellence despite very difficult conditions.

The one thing I would say to people out there who question whether or not we should be aspiring for so much on the part of our students is that the only thing

we want for them is something that's already available in some parts of the province. In some parts of the province, we have the answer to the dropout rate. In some parts of the province, we have

the answer for kids who are aspiring for higher levels of literacy and numeracy and good foundations in all the other things we want to bring them in their education. It's simply our job in this

House to allow that system to work together, to actually, maybe for the first time since it's been redesigned, have publicly funded education operate as a system so that the good ideas that take

place in Thunder Bay or in London or in any part of the province are actually available right across the province.

The kinds of things that educators can do, provided with the right environment, and the kinds of things systems can do, provided with the right kind of support

from here, are exactly the things that we want to have happen. But they won't happen unless we make a decision here in this House that we're going to be able to take responsibility for supporting

that environment; that is, the intangibles of making teachers and education workers and support workers feel respected. That respect has to translate into the arrangements around working

conditions. For example, a reduction in class size for elementary teachers will reduce the number of students they have to deal with by 15% to 20%. Unfortunately, too many students were getting

lost in the crowd under the previous approaches. That cost may seem to be small, to crowd more kids into the classroom, that may be seem to be something that's easily done, but it's an accumulated

cost that we pay for over and over and over again.

Conversely, as we provide this environment, and as we provide the mix of resources that is contemplated in the supporting ideas around this bill, we're able to

provide a high-quality education -- I won't say with the least effort, because I know that our educators provide a focused amount of effort to every student in their class. But, by doing it at an

early age, we're helping the students and we're helping our educators. The frustration can be enormous when you have someone arrive in your class in grade 10 or 11 who has not had very much

success. It's very tough on their self-image and, frankly, it's difficult for anyone to compensate for what has gone on before when they get to that stage. But by doing it at the earliest of ages,

we're providing for tremendous possibilities for the future. Similarly, we have sent a strong signal throughout the school system that we're not giving up on any students. They may not have gotten

that attention in the past, but whether they're in grade 8 or grade 9, or this year in grade 12, they deserve to do better.

We have an attitudinal outlook in this province that says that everyone should go to university. Eighty per cent of parents believe that. We want parents and

grandparents to be strong in their ambitions for their children and grandchildren. But each of us has to take some responsibility here. Only 28% of our students are getting into university, and

we're the leading jurisdiction in the country. We can do better, but ultimately we can't make any of the students who don't end up in university feel as if they haven't reached their potential.

There are so many goods outcomes, whether it's a work experience with learning, an apprenticeship, college or university.

Part of what we have today is a piece of an outlook for peace and stability that will allow that to happen. There is not a single good reason that we should

allow the record number of students who in the last year of the previous government ended up not succeeding in getting a diploma. Eight thousand or nine thousand additional students didn't get a

diploma. None of that should have happened and it doesn't need to happen in the future. When we have a record dropout rate, that is a consequence of how that was handled. Under conditions of peace

and stability, which I recommend to every member of this House to take some responsibility for, not just in this bill but in how they treat education, how we discharge our responsibilities as

elected officials -- like it or not, we'll soon put to each member of this House another chance to go back to school and see for themselves that we really are part of the education system now in

the ways we exercise our decision-making, the kind of influence we have on how it's perceived, the way we give encouragement to some of those discouraged students.

There is a positive role for us to play. But that role is not one of interference. We are not reaching in and we're not touching either what's happening in

classrooms or, frankly, what's happening with collective agreements. We on this side of the House, at least, and in this government have shown a tremendous amount of respect. We're not the party of

Bill 160. We're not the party of the social contract. We have not interfered. We have, instead, provided to find out the useful role that the provincial government can play. If there's a hallmark

to anything we've done so far -- from cutting class sizes to repairing problems to working with my colleague the Minister of Tourism to putting community use of schools back -- it has been about

finding the right role for the provincial government and respecting the roles of others: the role of the school boards, the role of the teachers, the role of the principals.

We think that ultimately our success -- and we do feel that we're on the track for success -- is going to come from getting everybody to optimize in their

role, but that again brings us back to the intent of the bill. It is about us, in this room, taking responsibility for peace and stability.

If there's any compliment that has been paid to this government that I think both I and the Premier would wish to acknowledge -- we can't take responsibility

for it, in the sense that it has been based on everyone's efforts -- it is that sense that people are telling us in school after school and parents are telling us that there's a new sense of

possibility, that there are better things happening, that there's a new sense of what can be done. We're starting to get, as we spend time in schools, a flow-forward of ideas, of problems being

solved, of ways to solve problems. That is how -- and we're not there yet -- a provincial government should run a school system, which is allowing it to be the best it possibly can.

There are things that we can do from this House. One of these is to help set the right kinds of terms, in terms of how the contracts can take place. Another is

to take responsibility for where the provincial government in the past has had its thumb on the scale but wouldn't acknowledge that it was involved in the conditions and wouldn't take

responsibility. This bill is about taking responsibility as part of a whole package of helping to ensure that "peace and stability" is not just a watchword, not just a slogan, but a reality.

So far, it has been a reality in our schools, and I put to each member of this House that we each will have a corresponding responsibility over the next number

of weeks and months and years to help make sure that, whatever else happens, whatever party has whatever point of view about education, we never again put us back to a point where it is taken out

on lost days to students. We believe these measures will help ensure that that doesn't take place. In fact, they will unlock their potential, and I ask for every member of this House to support

that concept and the plan to move it forward.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Could I get clarification from you, Speaker? I assumed that we were doing one-hour leadoffs.

Interjection: He's sharing his time.

The Speaker: Minister, you're sharing your time?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: Yes, Mr. Speaker; with the member from Sault Ste. Marie. I announced it at the beginning.

The Speaker: Oh, I'm sorry. The member from Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to also add comments to the second reading of Bill 167,

An Act to

amend the Education Act, 2004.

Some of the comments that I'll make this evening may be reacted to by both of the opposition parties here, because the cold reality of this legislation is that

we are taking a new approach to education, one that has been long overdue in this province.

Let's be clear about our government's legislation with respect to the education system. It's designed with several key purposes in mind: to ensure that we put

in place policies that give our students the best chance at success; to ensure that our partners in education openly participate in the development of strategies; to improve Ontario's education

system; and to ensure that we restore respect for education workers and develop long-term stability in education -- something that has been sorely lacking.

I want to commend the minister for his leadership in the education sector and for playing a tremendous role in helping to rebuild trust among the thousands of

education workers in the province of Ontario, and also for the Premier's commitment to reinvest in education. I am proud to be part of a government that is reinvesting in education, that is taking

a completely new approach to the education system here in the province of Ontario.

Having spent 10 years working in the education system, I know how difficult labour negotiations can be. We all know how contract talks can blur the focus on

what our schools are there to do: educate Ontario's students. Teachers and school boards should be, and they want to be, concentrating on the goal of improved student achievement and giving our

children the tools that they need to succeed.

Disruptions caused by negotiating processes can disturb everyone: students, parents, teachers and administrators. Our government has been working hard to build

an atmosphere of peace and stability in our education system. I heard my colleague from Peterborough talking about the disruption and the chaos caused by the past