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

May 4, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-May-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 4 May 2006 Jeudi 4 mai 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE FONDS

DE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE

DE L'EST DE L'ONTARIO

TRILLIUM GIFT OF LIFE NETWORK

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE RÉSEAU

TRILLIUM POUR LE DON DE VIE

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE FONDS

DE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE

DE L'EST DE L'ONTARIO

TRILLIUM GIFT OF LIFE NETWORK

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE RÉSEAU

TRILLIUM POUR LE DON DE VIE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOBACCO GROWERS

MOLSON CANADA

DRIVER LICENCES

GASOLINE PRICES

SULTAN JESSA

FARMERS' MARKETS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HEALTH CARE

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(BOB SHAW), 2006 /

LOI BOB SHAW DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

VISITORS

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DU POISSON

ET DE LA FAUNE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

GASOLINE PRICES

TENANT PROTECTION

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DRIVER LICENCES

STUDENT IMMUNIZATION

LONG-TERM CARE

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

AMATEUR SPORT

SMOKING CESSATION

TOURISM

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

IDENTITY THEFT

HIGHWAY 26

COLORECTAL CANCER

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

LONG-TERM CARE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

DRIVER PENALTIES

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

LONG-TERM CARE

HIGHWAY 35

EDUCATION FUNDING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA RÉGIE

DES TRANSPORTS DU GRAND TORONTO

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE FONDS

DE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE

DE L'EST DE L'ONTARIO

Mr. Sterling moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 42,

An Act to establish the Eastern Ontario Economic Development Fund Corporation / Projet de loi 42, Loi créant la Société de

gestion du Fonds de développement économique de l'Est de l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Sterling, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): This initiative is an attempt to mirror in some ways the northern Ontario heritage fund, which was set

up by the previous government to help municipalities and businesses in the north to attract economic development to their area because they had a special need. They had a special need because there

was a lot of population migration out of their areas. In other words, there was a net outflow of population from many communities in the north.

Their median incomes compare very poorly to the average Ontarian's. The municipalities that are trying to maintain a level of service necessary for the

population -- good drinking water, adequate sewage, an attempt to attract industry to their area -- just don't have the resources to do it. So the past government, in its wisdom -- and the present

government has continued the program of giving $60 million to the north in various different kinds of grants, either to private concerns or to municipalities to improve their lot.

This bill covers everything east of the region of Durham, save and except for the city of Ottawa. The city of Ottawa is not included in this bill because, quite

frankly, their median incomes are quite high in relation to Ontario. The city of Ottawa is growing rapidly,

whereas the areas outside of Ottawa are not benefiting to the same degree.

This bill was introduced before as Bill 187. It was passed by the Legislature but was allowed to die on the order paper. Some people have talked in the past

about bringing back what was there before. I want to assure members of the Legislature and members of the public that the Eastern Ontario Economic Development Fund Corp. is not anything like the

previous Eastern Ontario Development Corp. The previous Eastern Ontario Development Corp. was primarily a lending corporation, a lender of last resort. This particular corporation is primarily a

funding or a grant corporation. It also has much wider ability to make grants to municipalities. The former Eastern Ontario Development Corp. could only give municipalities money or help

municipalities with the development of industrial parks. This particular bill and the northern Ontario heritage fund allow the corporation to grant funding to municipalities for all kinds of

different projects.

I note most recently that the northern Ontario heritage fund has, for example, helped municipalities: Iroquois Falls airport, for a development business plan;

they have helped the city of Kenora with upgrades to their water treatment plant; they have helped the city of Timmins with $2.5 million to upgrade their drinking water system. A lot of what the

northern Ontario heritage fund does is to allow these municipalities with limited assessment bases to upgrade their infrastructure or bring their infrastructure up to scratch. The former

development corporations, either the Ontario Development Corp. or the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., did not have that ability. So there is a huge and significant difference between what I am

proposing here and what was there in the past.

My bill has become even more urgent today than it was a year and a half or two years ago when I first introduced Bill 187. That's because the manufacturing

sector in all of Ontario has faltered, but it has faltered to a greater degree in some of our smaller and rural communities. Take, for example, Smiths Falls. There are two major employers in Smiths

Falls. Rideau Regional Centre has 840 employees, and the government is going to close that particular residence in 2009. It's going to be very devastating for Smiths Falls, and there is no plan by

this government -- or they haven't come up with any money -- to assist that particular town to seek other economic alternatives. I suggest to the government that this is a very good tool to meet

that kind of problem. Also, in the manufacturing sector, Hershey chocolates, Smiths Falls' second-largest employer or approximate equivalent, has recently lessened their workforce by 50 people.

That's a big number -- 50 jobs -- in a town of 9,000 people; it's a significant number. As well, there have been jobs lost in places like Chesterville -- the Nestlé plant closed in

Chesterville -- and there have been losses by Domtar in Cornwall etc. in eastern Ontario.

This general overall decline in manufacturing jobs has had a real impact on the areas that we're talking about here, and we need to come to the assistance of

these municipalities who don't have the income levels and who don't have the assessment bases. They're not growing communities; they are, in general, static communities. They just need an extra

boost, not only to attract but to be able to maintain their infrastructure to help go forward.

I was glad to support the resolution of Mr. Runciman, the member for Leeds-Grenville, last week to set up an eastern Ontario secretariat, because this area not

only needs funding mechanisms; it also needs coordination of the efforts of this government to be able to provide significant help, not only with funding, as I've said, but also with organization

etc.

The beauty of Bill 42, the Eastern Ontario Economic Development Fund Corp., and the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. is that both of these organizations

would be deciding the priorities for their funding on the basis of local directors. The directors for this funding would come from eastern Ontario, and presumably they would know better than people

sitting here in Toronto what priorities are foremost. My bill tries to delineate certain priorities with regard to the choices the corporation would make. They would help those most in need; they

would look at the median income of particular areas and help them out.

Lastly, I think that's a fairly simplistic explanation of the bill, and I think that there is significant support from many, many townships. In fact, I have

endorsements from over 25 different municipalities for that particular matter.

I think a simple explanation would help most. If you look at the income level, the average income of an individual in Smiths Falls is $19,500. That's roughly

equivalent to what it is in Sault Ste. Marie, which is about $20,400. Both are far under the median for all of the province. Sault Ste. Marie needs help, but I would argue as well that communities

in eastern Ontario like Smiths Falls, like Cornwall, which has a median income of $18,300, need help as well.

When we look at some of the projects that have been granted to places like Sault Ste. Marie -- I applaud the government and the northern heritage fund in giving

$15 million to Sault Ste. Marie on March 31 to build a tourist attraction in the waterfront redevelopment. I think that it is absolutely necessary for the Ontario government to come forward with

special help for communities that are struggling, but we cannot confine this to northern Ontario. Eastern Ontario outside of the city of Ottawa has some of the lowest levels of income, the slowest

development and, in some cases, negative population growth.

So I urge all members to support this particular bill. It would be a great help to many people who are crying out for it.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to say first of all that I and the New Democrats will support this bill,

An Act to establish the

Eastern Ontario Economic Development Fund Corporation, and support its introduction by the member from Lanark-Carleton.

He makes a distinction between what was and what he is proposing. I had an opportunity to review what the member from Peterborough had said in last year's debate

on this. He articulated what it was, and I think the member from Lanark-Carleton did some justice in explaining the differences. Here's what the old Eastern Ontario Development Corp. did. Its first

mandate was to provide incentive loans and term loans to prospective businesses in eastern Ontario. We don't dispute that. Its mandate was to provide loans specifically to small business to start

their activity in eastern Ontario. We don't dispute that. The third was to provide venture capital for new ideas for those businesses that wanted to establish in eastern Ontario, give them a leg

up. It was a good idea, and we don't dispute that. Another one that the member from Lanark-Carleton identified in the debate was that they also provided loans for pollution control equipment, and

we don't dispute that. The EODC would provide to its municipal partners loans for pollution control equipment. This is something that's so important to eastern Ontario: It provided tourism industry

loans for new resort facilities. And so on.

The question that was raised was, why would the Conservative government -- and you were there -- through the former minister, M. Saunderson, decide that it was

no longer a very useful corporation to support? It is beyond me, because you, the member from Lanark-Carleton, speak about why it's so important.

Mr. Sterling: It's so different.

Mr. Marchese: It doesn't matter how different they were. I read out for the record what they did as a way of suggesting to you that what they

were doing was very useful and important for eastern Ontario, and that, rather than eliminating its function, if anything, expand its role, which you so easily could have done as a Conservative

government, but you decided to eliminate that corporation. I hope you're not proud of having eliminated that corporation and, for eight years thereafter, doing very little to support eastern

Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: No, no.

Mr. Marchese: I don't know how you could nod your head and say that's not true. If eastern Ontario is in trouble today, surely they were in

trouble five years ago. Surely they were in trouble seven or eight years ago. Eastern Ontario didn't suffer an economic development problem just recently, for God's sake. Clearly, the problems

you're identifying have existed there for quite some time, and I'll speak to that in a moment. But the point is, it's not for lack of will, I suspect, because I presume that most of you would have

liked to see this kind of development going on in eastern Ontario. If it wasn't will, I ask myself, what might it have been? Was it the money?

Interjection.

Mr. Marchese: Well, if it wasn't the money, and you had the will, what other possible explanation might you offer in the next round of debates

where you will be speaking to these questions that I ask? If you didn't suffer for lack of will and it wasn't an issue of money, then what could it have been?

My suggestion to you is that it was lack of money and you were trying to cut back rather than add to your cost. The northern Ontario heritage fund cost 60

million bucks. You spoke very positively about it. I do too, and we support it because it does good things. Northern Ontario needs as much help as eastern Ontario municipalities and communities. We

want to make sure that jobs, to the extent possible, are protected and created in eastern Ontario. We want to make sure that people don't leave the rural communities and head for the cities in

search of jobs, because as soon as you do that, you destroy those rural communities and those smaller communities outside of the city regions. So what you want to do, and I support this, is make

sure that you keep those jobs there. Having a fund such as the northern heritage community fund is a good thing.

All I wanted to do by raising the issues that the member from Peterborough had talked about -- it was a very useful tool. I argue here today that you should have

kept that Eastern Ontario Development Corp., because what it did was important. What you're proposing by way of offering grants is a very useful thing, although when we get to committee, assuming

this government will allow it to get to committee, we might have some suggestions about how we offer grants, with what conditions and controls, and not just simply willy-nilly giving away money to

those who say, "Here's an idea." I'm assuming the member agrees with that, and we'll see whether he does when we send this to committee, assuming the Liberals support this.

But my point is that you started this Eastern Ontario Development Corp. in 1973 and it continued to 1996. M. Saunderson decided it was no longer useful and then

we had nothing at all to replace it.

We know that eastern Ontario continues to experience high unemployment -- higher unemployment than much of the rest of the province. The closure of the Domtar

mill wiped out 90 well-paying jobs in Cornwall. Those kinds of job losses are serious to these communities. We know that many people who live in the eastern communities that the member from

Lanark-Carleton was talking about are seniors and they are getting older. That is generally true, but it is particularly so in many of these communities. We also know that income levels in much of

eastern Ontario are lower than in many other parts of Ontario, so that speaks to the need for having an eastern Ontario economic development fund.

I know that many of the Liberal members supported this initiative the last time. Clearly, it was defeated by the Liberal government; hopefully, it will not be

defeated again. I have no doubt that the members of the Liberal Party who are here today are going to support this bill. The question is, will they have the courage, at least those who are here

today to speak to it, to speak to the Premier, the ministers and others who are not here to debate the bill? Will they pass on the need to have such a bill passed and support it? Of that, we are

not certain.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Who cancelled the EODC, Rosario?

Mr. Marchese: I pointed that out two times already. I agree. I've already assigned appropriate blame to the Conservative Party members who were

in government and who are here today.

Mr. Lalonde: I wasn't here.

Mr. Marchese: I agree. I have properly attacked the members of the Conservative Party for having cancelled the former Eastern Ontario

Development Corp. We're told by some members of the Liberal Party here that they benefited from that corporation, and I agree with that. I think all the Liberals here today should attack the

Conservative government for what --

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Attack no more --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Marchese: Tony Ruprecht, the member from Davenport, is speaking about me attacking them and that I should stop doing that.

Mr. Ruprecht: You've done that.

Mr. Marchese: I've done that. Oh, I see. I presume that when you get up to speak, you will attack the Conservative members as well. I suspect

that if the member from Davenport will stand up to speak today, he will not only attack the Conservatives once, but he will do it twice and three times. Rather than urging me to stop my attacks on

them, I would think he would be supportive of my attacks on the former members.

Mr. Ruprecht: I know what's coming next.

Mr. Marchese: Exactly. No, but also --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Marchese: -- I was attacking the Liberal government and the members for not properly defending this bill. So yes, let's share the blame here

and let's review the history, because reviewing history is always important.

That's what I love about the Conservative Party. I find them in opposition oftentimes progressive, and it is a scary thing because you wonder how that could be,

having witnessed what they did to Ontario for eight and a half long years, to have them get in the opposition benches and almost forget -- this collective amnesia that happens to the members who

were here in that government: You wonder how it works. How does it happen? How could you, in opposition, simply say things that you attacked when you were in government a mere two and a half years

ago? It puzzles me, I've got to tell you. It makes me feel very odd as a member here to know that when you get into opposition you start doing things that are very radically different. It's a very

Mr. Ruprecht: Maybe you want to share your own record.

Mr. Marchese: You're quite right. My own record -- and I'm on the record very clearly. I supported public auto insurance and I defended public

auto insurance. I was a very vocal member of the NDP in that party saying, "We support public auto insurance." I take pride in admitting that I was a strong supporter of public auto -- I don't hide

from that. Some Conservative members might hide and other Liberal members might hide from their own record, but I don't hide from that.

I supported us keeping the party policy on Sunday shopping. I was very proud of supporting it as a member of that party. I know that cabinet and the former

Premier changed their minds on that, but I don't have any problem saying I supported the idea of keeping Sunday --

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): You're saying you were basically an independent then?

Mr. Marchese: I am saying that you should have the courage, as Conservative members, to say, "Yes, I disagreed with my party." If you ever get

there, Yakabooski, I hope you'll be able to remember --

Mr. Yakabuski: Yakabuski.

Mr. Marchese: Yakabuski. It's a beautiful Polish name --

Mr. Yakabuski: It's a lovely name.

Mr. Marchese: -- and I don't mind repeating it.

Mr. Yakabuski: Say it again, brother.

Mr. Marchese: Yakabuski. I don't mind repeating it. If you ever have an opportunity to get back on that government bench, just remember what you

said here. Because when you get there, someone might decide you're not going to go into cabinet, and you're going to have to decide, "Am I going to be quiet? Gee, this is what I said."

Mr. Yakabuski: "Quiet" doesn't work very well for me.

Mr. Marchese: I know it doesn't work, but when you're there, if you're not in cabinet and you want to get in, you're going to be silent as a

puppy, I can guarantee it: silent as a little puppy -- or as a big puppy, whatever the case might be. I can guarantee it; yes, indeedy. I've seen it for 16 years. That's the way it works. Anybody

who wants to get into those front benches is silent as a puppy until they get in, with minor exceptions. Stockwell was one of them. God bless Stockwell. He was pretty sharp in that regard.

Mr. Ruprecht: What happened to you then?

Mr. Marchese: Tony Ruprecht, what happened to you is the question. It's not what happened to me; what happened to you?

I say to the Conservative members, I proudly support this bill. I think it's a good bill.

Mr. Yakabuski: Now you're talking, Rosie. You're back to the right message.

Mr. Marchese: Yakabuski, if it's a good bill today, it would have been a good bill under a Conservative government. It would have been such a

beautiful thing to have seen the member from Lanark-Carleton introduce this bill while he was a minister or telling another minister or buddy, "Please introduce this thing because we really need

it." Where were they when you needed them? That's the question I want to ask. When you need them, they're not there. They're only good when they get in opposition, because when they're in

government they are a complete waste to all of Ontario.

Today I want to see, however, having condemned the Tories as strongly as I can, whether those Liberals who are speaking are going to be able to convince those

who are not here that this is a bill they should be supporting. I'm going to be waiting to see whether they can and will do that, because it isn't just good for the Tories, who have introduced this

bill, but it will be good for eastern Ontario and it will be good for Liberals. I'm hoping they're going to have the courage to support this bill. Tony Ruprecht, I want to see you speak.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It is indeed an honour and a privilege for me to stand this morning to speak to Bill 42, An

Act to establish the Eastern Ontario Economic Development Fund Corp. As a member from eastern Ontario, as a member from the far east, from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, I will certainly be

supporting this bill, as I did when I stood in my place and supported the member from Lanark-Carleton when he introduced, I believe, Bill 187, if that's the number of the bill. At that time I

supported it and spoke strongly in favour of it, spoke strongly in support of the help that's required in eastern Ontario. I stand with a government that has provided many supports in the past,

since I arrived here at Queen's Park.

I would like to comment with regard to my good friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who is sitting here in the House this morning and was having some dialogue

with the member from Trinity-Spadina as the member from Trinity-Spadina was speaking. The member wondered if we would stand in our place and support this bill. The member from

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has been a strong proponent and a strong supporter of business in his constituency. Just last Sunday, as I was heading up on the train, I stopped at a store just around

the corner from the train station in Cornwall and picked up the Glengarry News. A banner across the front page alluded to the fact that there are some problems with a business in Alexandria. I read

the news report, and the work this member is doing for his riding and for that company in Alexandria is commendable. I want to say this morning that, as his neighbour, I think it's important for me

to make comment about that.

It is unfortunate that we've lost the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. As we heard, from 1973 to 1996 this was an organization that supported the economic

development of eastern Ontario and certainly of my riding. It's unfortunate that it disappeared and wound down operations in 1996 because, as we've seen across Ontario, certainly in eastern Ontario

with the loss of jobs related to one-industry town industries -- for example, comments were already made about Chesterville: by two members this morning. Yes, it's very sad that we are losing one

industry in the town of Chesterville, Nestlé. It has been a long survivor in that rural municipality in my constituency and has provided great jobs. I've worked with the company, I've worked

with the individuals from that industry and I've worked with the municipality to see what could be done. I think that if we had an Eastern Ontario Economic Development Fund Corp., if we had

something of that mechanism, not only with what we've provided in the past but with that type of organization, we could continue to give help to industries like Nestlé; to industries like St.

Lawrence Corp. in Iroquois; which recently announced their closure and have closed, with Gildan in Long Sault. My hometown of Long Sault lost Gildan Activewear. Both members who stood and talked

about this this morning talked about Domtar Fine Papers in the city of Cornwall.

I want to set the record straight. We had the debate here on the proposed eastern Ontario secretariat, a bill brought to this House by the member from

Leeds-Grenville, I think just last week or the week before, and I spoke in favour of that bill. In debate on that day, it was mentioned that 81 jobs were lost at Domtar, and then today we heard it

was 90 jobs. We have to multiply that by at least 10 in the past two years, which is very unfortunate.

I can say that we have a government that stepped forward with opportunities for Domtar, and Domtar didn't take those opportunities. Cogeneration: I met for at

least a year on a bimonthly basis with officials from Domtar to try and get something established there because they wanted cogeneration opportunities. We put money on the table. We put

opportunities in place for cogeneration. They did not. I remember sitting in this House on the day there were questions being asked by the opposition to the Premier. I remember the Minister of

Economic Development and Trade saying -- I won't say he was shouting, but he made it very clear that those opportunities were given to that industry and they did not accept those opportunities,

which is very unfortunate, because, in my understanding, the dollar was a detriment to them, right, but energy was a problem. We put something in place to help them on that energy front that was

not accepted, which is very unfortunate.

I'm going to tell you something else I would like to put on the record today. The member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, who represents that riding at the

present time, has been to my riding. The Leader of the Opposition has been to my riding a few times in the past year. I want to make a comment about a speech he gave to a group in Cornwall on

January 5 of this year. He said, "It's obvious that the local municipal leadership gets it, that something needs to be done ... the business community gets it; the only people who don't get it are

the Liberal governments."

I'm going to tell you that it was very clear on that day that he was not listening to the comments by the mayor of the city of Cornwall, Mayor Phil Poirier. It

was just after that, five days later, when the mayor of the city of Cornwall on Oldies 1220 The Jewel, on the morning show, said he had never seen the province so open to helping out in his

city.

I'm going tell you that as a member I've never seen a government so open to helping out the rural municipalities in my constituency too. I look at the recent

announcement of half a million dollars each to South Stormont and South Dundas, to those municipalities, to assist them with their water projects. There are other concerns there and we are

addressing those concerns, but that was some support that my government felt was important for those two municipalities.

I look at some of the other supports that have been given to the community: $5 million to the city of Cornwall, a one-time grant to help with water and sewer

improvements; a $5-million unconditional grant for reconstruction and widening of road lengths from provincial Highway 401 to the international bridge, an absolute necessity to get that done; $1.2

million for the city's water purification plant.

I look at our hospitals. We have the shovel in the ground in the city of Cornwall for St. Joseph's Continuing Care Centre. We will have the shovel in the

ground next year for the Winchester hospital. In 2008 we will have the supports to our Cornwall Community Hospital and some smaller projects already pulled out of that to give supports to health

care.

We have made strong commitments and strong support to those communities. I can say that an Eastern Ontario Economic Development Fund Corp. will certainly go a

long way in continuing to support -- and the member from Lanark-Carleton commented that this would be grant opportunities. Any opportunities that we have in eastern Ontario for grants, I say, let's

support it. That's why I stand in my place today and say I will support and will encourage my members from the government side to support his bill.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): At the outset, I want to make reference to the comments made by the NDP member for Trinity-Spadina,

Mr. Marchese, who is an engaging individual and an entertaining and, I think, forceful speaker in this place. It has always intrigued me that, over the past almost three years, when he speaks to

initiatives in this House he seems to focus on the past, to focus on the former government, which is, as I say, intriguing and in some respects puzzling.

If you look at his own riding and at the folks who are the government of the day, I'm not sure there is much in terms of political astuteness in continuing to

carry those embers of whatever it might be. It seems to be the David Peterson phenomenon, if we read about David Peterson's brother's spiteful comments about Bob Rae. People speculated it was

resentment because Mr. Rae led the party that dispatched the Liberals from government back in 1990. I don't know the reason, but it is certainly intriguing.

I want to support the bill put forward by the member for Lanark-Carleton. He is one of two deans of the Legislature, and certainly understands eastern Ontario

and the challenges faced by eastern Ontario as well as anyone in this Assembly.

There was a study done a number of years ago by the federal government that pointed out that pockets of eastern Ontario have the highest levels of poverty in

the province. That's not readily apparent to most of us when we're driving on the 401 or the 416 and visiting friends in Cornwall or Ottawa or wherever it might be. But you get out onto some of

those country roads and visit with people and you start to appreciate the level of poverty and the despair that many families in this part of the province are facing. That has been exacerbated over

the past number of years by the loss of significant manufacturing jobs in the province.

I think most people look at Ottawa for example or they look at Kingston and say, "Well, there can't be real problems in eastern Ontario," but we forget that

those communities depend heavily on government jobs and on academia, that those kinds of jobs continue to make those communities prosper, and in some respects they are radically different from

other parts of the region which indeed are suffering, and the suffering is growing month after month as we see good-paying jobs leave the region. We've had Chesterville mentioned, and I won't

repeat that, but there have certainly been significant job losses in my own community: SCI moving to Mexico and Quebec; Hathaway shirts leaving Prescott;. Black and Decker consolidating its

operations in the United States. There is a whole list, Mr. Speaker, as long as my arm and yours, in terms of job losses, and they have an especially devastating impact on the smaller communities,

where they tend to be either the only employer or by far the major employer in many of those communities.

An area where I believe this bill could assist as well is in terms of the tourism sector. If you look at the Rideau system, the Thousand Islands region,

they're significant attractors of tourism dollars. We've seen a dramatic decline -- I think you saw the press recently, Mr. Speaker: a 30% decline in US visitors to Ontario over the past couple of

years. Part of it is the dollar and the attacks on New York and Washington; there's a whole combination of factors. But we are suffering as a result. This is the sort of thing -- if you look at the

operation of the heritage fund in northern Ontario, you can provide and incent visitors, you can use those dollars to build tourist attractions, and you can use them to promote specific areas or

specific attractions within a region. We see that done fairly well within eastern Ontario.

Farmers' markets: This Liberal government is going to impose significant impediments on the operations of farmers' markets, requiring them to have public

washrooms. That's one of the regulations coming down. The government, through this fund, could ensure that those farmers' markets continue to operate and attract people by paying for this. If

you're going to impose these kinds of restrictions and regulations, the government should be prepared to come forward with the monies to accomplish that.

I appreciate the opportunity to support the member from Lanark-Carleton. He has done an outstanding job in this place for some 28 years, and I congratulate him

on bringing forward this initiative.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to make a few comments on the resolution or bill today from the

member for Lanark-Carleton. I tend to support it.

First of all, last Monday, I indeed was in the heart of eastern Ontario, in Gananoque. I attended the funeral for Corporal Randy Payne. I was there because his

mother and father and his grandmother reside in my riding. I think, outside of funerals for both of my parents, it was probably the most sombre event I was ever at. Corporal Payne's son, Tristan,

who is seven years old, delivered a poem in memory of his dad. For those old enough to remember, it was a flashback to that young child some 43 years ago, in late November 1963, who saluted his

father's casket to say goodbye to him. It's an experience I will never, ever forget. Being in Gananoque that day to see all the townsfolk out there lining the city streets with their Canadian flags

to salute that hero was a very emotional experience -- something I will never forget.

But getting on to the discussion here this morning, I really think there is an opportunity to look at the re-establishment of the Eastern Ontario Development

Corp., something that I believe was in place since the early 1980s and, for reasons I'm sure others have articulated, was abandoned during the 1990s.

When you look at some of the economic characteristics in eastern Ontario, there are great resources in eastern Ontario. Many of the communities are home to

universities and community colleges. There are two border crossings in eastern Ontario. When you think of the gridlock -- Mr. Speaker, you're very familiar with gridlock, coming from the Windsor

area -- that exists today at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor as the flow of commerce and commercial activities goes between Ontario, Canada, and the United States, it seems to me there's an

opportunity perhaps to make better use of those two border crossings in eastern Ontario that don't have the volume of traffic that certainly the Bluewater Bridge has in Sarnia and indeed the

Ambassador Bridge has in Windsor. So how can we make that come about?

We can make that come about by the proposal that has been put forward from the member from Lanark-Carleton and others from eastern Ontario, who I believe will

support this motion today, to look at perhaps providing some incentive, some mechanism to build up the economic base in eastern Ontario in many of those communities such as Belleville, Kingston,

Prescott, Gananoque, Cornwall -- real opportunities to take advantage of the fine labour force in those communities, an opportunity to take advantage, as I said previously, of the educational

institutions that are in those communities and the ability to shift some of the economic growth.

There are great stories about companies that are doing phenomenally well that have established in eastern Ontario. The member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke

will know that GE has a facility in Arnprior that's involved in the manufacturing of nuclear fuel bundles that are used in the Candu system, both here and abroad. In Gananoque, Textron Fastening

Systems is a company that does a tremendous amount of exporting. There is an opportunity in Kingston, Ontario, with research capacity related to Queen's University. We think of St. Lawrence College

and, in my own hometown, Trent University and Sir Sandford Fleming College.

There is a real opportunity to build on the base that we have in eastern Ontario. It may be that by providing a corporation like the Eastern Ontario

Development Corp. to look at incenting business opportunities and entrepreneurial activities in eastern Ontario. I think there's a real opportunity there and I commend the member. I supported his

bill the first time he brought it forward on this motion, and I look forward to supporting it again.

Mr. Yakabuski: It's a pleasure to support the member from Lanark-Carleton on his Bill 42 today. In the words of Yogi Berra, "It's like

déjà vu all over again." This bill was passed at second reading during a previous session. The government, even though many of its members supported it -- and we do really appreciate that

-- chose to let this die on the order paper. I think that was regrettable because there's no question that the prima facie case for passage of this bill has been made over and over again. I see the

support here, and we do appreciate that. I do hope that these members will make a point of taking this issue to their government, to their cabinet ministers and to the Premier and say, "Look, this

bill is important. It is worthwhile. It is necessary for eastern Ontario to show some fairness and equity. We demand, as members of the Liberal caucus, that you pass this." I see the member for

Brant there. He understands his bill. It had strong support in this House. Because it was necessary, it was passed by this House even though it was a private member's bill. I was very supportive of

that bill and would be again if I had to do it all over again because it was a great bill.

Let's talk about the case. It is so obvious that eastern Ontario lives under different economic circumstances from much of the rest of the province. That is

the reason, for example, that the northern Ontario heritage fund was established. We can show evidence that the incomes in eastern Ontario, save the city of Ottawa and possibly Kingston, are even

less. For example, in the city of Pembroke the average income is some 13% less than the average income in North Bay and some 12% less than the average income in Sault Ste. Marie, yet those places

are subject to receiving monies through the northern Ontario heritage fund. The member from Lanark-Carleton spoke about $15 million for waterfront revitalizations and things like that in the city

of Sault Ste. Marie. Why not in the city of Pembroke, which recently had tremendously terrible news with the announcement that the Smurfit plant would close, throwing 139 people out of work? I was

at a meeting last weekend with Cheryl Gallant, the federal member of Parliament, Mayor Ed Jacyno, myself and all the employees of Smurfit, and they're devastated. But if we had a proper fund in

place to recognize the impact of these things on eastern Ontario, they could be mitigated. The mayor has been a fighter for these issues, but Pembroke itself is a city that doesn't have room for

growth because of its geographical limitations and is facing economic difficulties because of that, because it can't grow its assessment.

This bill is something that addresses some of those needs. If you look at what has come forward from members from eastern Ontario -- myself with Bill 3, the

gas tax bill, and recently the member from Leeds-Grenville with his act to establish an eastern Ontario secretariat -- it seems there's a common thread here: We are always bringing in private

members' bills to try to help and support those people in eastern Ontario who need it so badly, but we need help. We've got the right ideas here but we need help from you people on the government

side. Recognize some of those things that the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus has been saying for years under the leadership of Bob Sweet, my warden here in Renfrew county. Recognize some of those

issues that they've brought forward to you at different conferences, whether they be AMO, ROMA or whatever. We're struggling in eastern Ontario. We need a separate fund that recognizes the

difficulties we're having, but we can't pass that law over here. We actually need you people to do that. I just want to, in the name of fairness and equiva --

Mr. Marchese: Equity.

Mr. Yakabuski: Equity; thank you very much, Rosario. In the name of equity, please stand in your place in your caucus next Tuesday morning and

tell your people that these things must be passed. Eastern Ontario deserves no less than the rest of the province.

I am always amazed, quite frankly, when we talk about the incomes in eastern Ontario, through counties like Renfrew, Haliburton and the rest of eastern

Ontario, at the resourcefulness and the resilience of the people who live there. Even under those kinds of circumstances, the lowest incomes in the province, you know what? They find a way to get

by, because they're not quitters. We're proud to represent people like that, but we'd like to give them some hope that there's some fairness on the part of the province of Ontario when it comes to

giving them a level playing field, to be able to say, "Yes, we're fighters, but give us a fair chance. Get us into the second round and we'll win by a knockout in the third."

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to join the debate today on Bill 42 and to support my colleague the member from

Lanark-Carleton. He is to be congratulated for his hard work and dedication to the citizens of eastern Ontario. This is the second time this bill has been brought forward, and I was supportive of

my colleague the member from Leeds-Grenville in the eastern Ontario secretariat bill he brought forward last week.

The purpose of this is to create a corporation which would invest in the communities in eastern Ontario in an effort to promote economic development in the

region. My colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke articulated very well the core values and the strength of the citizens there, and their hard work and determination to prosper, but they need a

little bit of assistance. This fund, if established -- and we want the Liberal government to pass this act -- would create a fund like the northern Ontario heritage fund, and we'd be able to get

dollars to invest in public sector and private sector projects.

While pockets of Ontario are experiencing some growth, eastern and northern Ontario are falling way below the provincial average. It begs the question of what

opportunities are available for these communities to stimulate growth and attract the new businesses. They can't do it on their own. That's why this bill was put forward today: They need some

help.

The members opposite are acutely aware of the need of this type of development initiative in eastern Ontario. In my riding of Haliburton county, the median

income is $17,000. That equates to a 30% difference from the rest of Ontario. That is not their only challenge: In Haliburton county, they have the highest percentage of seniors in the province,

translating into a labour force participation rate of 50%. Kawartha Lakes is not far behind at 60%.

I ask this government, how are these communities expected to grow and prosper without our support? The legislation would provide the much-needed economic

development support to increase their tax base, increase their revenue and, most importantly, improve their quality of life, and that is what we are elected to do in this Legislature. This type of

bill being brought forward today is going to push that forward for the people in eastern Ontario specifically.

The municipalities in Haliburton county are completely behind it. They said that it would have the potential to provide much-needed, additional provincial

government investment into eastern Ontario. "It provides a structure and opportunity to flow funds through to eastern Ontario municipalities." From Sylvia Sutherland, who works closely with the

Peterborough county part of my riding: "It is long overdue, and I wish you every success." That was the municipalities all supporting this.

Small business is the economic engine that drives the Ontario economy. We want to encourage and promote this entrepreneurial spirit in areas where there is

tremendous untapped potential.

Eastern Ontario communities are welcoming and embracing this initiative. They are not just facing their own community-based obstacles to development expansion;

they are competing with highly organized and prosperous economic development associations throughout the province. These associations generate long-term strategic plans for their communities, and

are designed to anticipate and compensate for declining sectors in their economic base.

As my colleagues have pointed out, manufacturing is declining throughout Ontario. What are these small communities going to do when one of their main sources

of employment, like a factory, closes? I know that a lot of the forestry sector had trouble in the Haliburton area of my riding: Trent Rubber in the Lindsay area and the city of Kawartha Lakes part

of my riding have seen closures and lost jobs.

This bill is not just about business and economic development. We want to encourage small, medium and large businesses to thrive across this province, and,

more importantly, we want to ensure that these communities remain vibrant and that people can continue to provide a quality of life for their families.

I urge all members in the Legislature today to support this bill and I encourage the government to move quickly on this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Sterling, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Sterling: I'd like to thank all members who spoke on this legislation for their support of the bill.

One element we didn't mention in regard to how difficult a time this part of eastern Ontario is having is related to the agricultural sector. We all know in

this Legislature that the agricultural community, the farming community, has had a very, very difficult time over the last three or four years. This impacts on the ability of small-town Ontario to

keep up its infrastructure, because if the agricultural community does not have money -- and hasn't had money for the past two or three years, primarily because of the beef crisis, but also

commodity prices in terms of corn -- then the money isn't there to spend in town to keep the infrastructure up, or for the implement dealer to pay his taxes to keep his doors open, and that kind of

thing. It has had a devastating impact on many parts of eastern Ontario as well.

Again, there was the mention of the demise of the former Eastern Ontario Development Corp. As a result, I did an analysis on the 37 different grants that the

northern Ontario heritage fund has made since January 1 of this year. Under the old mandate, only three of those particular grants could have been made under the former Eastern Ontario Development

Corp. So I hope that members of all parties understand that what I am proposing here is very, very different than what we had.

Eastern Ontario communities need an alternate method of keeping up their infrastructure, of creating economic development. This bill will help in an enormous

way to not only give funding but to give hope to these communities.

TRILLIUM GIFT OF LIFE NETWORK

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE RÉSEAU

TRILLIUM POUR LE DON DE VIE

Mr. Lalonde moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act, the Health Insurance Act and the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le Réseau Trillium pour le don de vie, la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé et le Code de la route.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Lalonde, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I am very proud to rise in the House today to debate my private member's bill, the

Trillium Gift of Life Network Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006.

First of all, I would like to thank the Trillium Gift of Life Network for working closely with my office on this bill. Jennifer Tracey and Dr. Frank Markel

from Trillium have joined us in the gallery today. Welcome. I would like to thank them for their support of this bill and the tremendous work they do to raise awareness about organ donation.

Thanks to my staff, Pauline Auger and Jacqueline Locke.

As we know, organ donation is a very serious issue in the province of Ontario today. Every three days, a person dies waiting for an organ transplant. While the

list for people awaiting an organ has almost doubled in the last 10 years, the number of organ donors has remained low. About 2,000 people are currently waiting for an organ or tissue donation in

Ontario. Even though the majority of Ontarians support organ donation, the consent rate remains at only 45%.

I am very troubled by these statistics, and I know my colleagues in the House are troubled as well. This is why I am pleased that we in this Legislature have

had the opportunity to help raise awareness about organ donation in this province.

Let me explain a little about Bill 79. The purpose of this bill is to create an enhanced province-wide registry that will be created and maintained by the

Trillium Gift of Life Network. The registry will allow family members of potential donors to see that their loved ones had indicated their desire to be a donor.

Le projet de loi modifie la

Loi sur le Réseau Trillium pour le don de vie, la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé et le Code de la route, et exige qu'une

formule de consentement soit remise avec chaque demande ou renouvellement de carte Santé et de permis de conduire d'une personne.

It is my hope that consent forms will eventually be available in all government services offices and MPPs' offices. Upon the death of a consenting donor, the

consent is binding and there is full authority for the use of the body as specified, unless the person has expressly withdrawn consent in writing or has orally withdrawn consent in the presence of,

and attested to by, two witnesses.

The key to this bill is the registry. Consent information will be entered into the registry and it will be accessible by Trillium Gift of Life Network staff.

This is an important change. Ontario does not have registry for organ and tissue donations. Currently, the Ministry of Health maintains a health information database that includes information on

organ and tissue donation. When people register for their photo health cards, they are able to indicate their intent to be a donor. Individuals are also able to indicate their intent to donate by

contacting the ministry directly.

However, this database was created in 1995, prior to the introduction of the Trillium Gift of Life Network and contains health information unrelated to organ

donation. The Trillium Gift of Life Network does not have access to the Ministry of Health database. This means that filling out a donor card for your wallet or simply agreeing to be a donor when

you renew your health card or driver's licence is not enough. Many questions remain unanswered: Who keeps track of this information? Who has access to it? How will your family know your wishes?

This is where the registry comes in. Under Bill 79, Trillium will create and maintain the registry. They will then have access to donor information in order to

quickly and easily determine the wishes of the potential donor and discuss the option of organ donation with the family.

D'autres juridictions utilisent des registres semblables avec beaucoup de succès. Aux États-Unis, 36 États ont des registres pour le don des

organes.

This week I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. David Fleming, the executive director of Coalition on Donation in Virginia, an organization that promotes

organ donation awareness in the United States. Mr. Fleming told me about the success they are having in the States thanks to the organ donor registry. When the family of a potential donor learns

that their loved one has registered to be an organ donor, 99% of families agree to go ahead with the donation. This is a fantastic success rate, which shows the difference a registry can make.

L'éducation est ce qu'il y a de plus important à faire pour améliorer le don d'organes en Ontario. En conscientisant le public, nous pourrons,

sans aucun doute, réduire les listes d'attente et augmenter les taux de don.

For this reason, I am very pleased to support two other private members' bills on the subject of organ donation that have been brought forward for second

reading in the past few weeks. Both Bills 33 and 67 represent important steps in raising awareness and educating people about organ donation. I hope all members of this Legislature will support my

bill today for the same reasons. We have an organ donation crisis in Ontario and we must do everything in our power to put an end to this crisis. The creation of an organ and tissue donor registry

in Ontario is one more important step in ending this crisis.

I hope all members will support Bill 79. This is an issue that goes beyond party lines. It is about saving the life of the hundreds of Ontarians who are

waiting for organ and tissue donation right now.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I am pleased to participate in this debate. I commend the member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for bringing

this bill forward. I participate in this debate gladly because one more time in this Legislature we're able, as members, and as the public observes these debates -- the importance of organ donation

is once again highlighted.

I'm convinced that it really is all about education. Surveys show that a high 90%, 95%, 96% of people, when asked if they believe in and support organ

donation, say yes. Unfortunately, when it comes to actually making the choice of registering as organ donors, that percentage point is significantly lower, 35% to 45%, and therein lies the problem,

and the problem is in the availability of organs. I'm convinced that Ontarians, Canadians, when confronted with this issue and given appropriate information about their ability to give the gift of

life, will in fact participate. The bill before us does a great deal, I believe, to moving us in that direction.

The member will know that I have some concerns with the specifics of the bill, and our purpose in this debate is to highlight some of the issues relating to

the various pieces of legislation before us. I'm going to express, first of all, my support overall for the bill. I will vote for it, and I trust that my colleagues will as well and that this bill

will be passed today.

I do have the following concerns. With regard to the consent provisions, Mr. Lalonde's bill proposes that registration forms, consent forms be made available.

Specifically,

section 8.0.2 states that these consent forms should accompany every application for or application to renew a health card. It has the same provision for drivers' licences. My concern

with this is that I believe we need to go one step further because, even now, we have available the opportunity to register through the licence and provincial health cards.

That is precisely why I brought forward my private member's bill, Bill 67, which I appreciate the member's having expressed his support for as well, that there

should be a mandatory requirement for the reference to organ donation to accompany every application for either a driver's licence or health card -- application for or renewal. The reason I say

"mandatory" is because it's far too easy to ignore this issue. If one isn't prepared to confront it, it's a lot easier to pass by and not complete that consent form. What Bill 67 does is require

that for every application form, there are specific questions relating to organ donation, that people are confronted with the issue and that the application will actually be considered incomplete

if you don't answer that question.

My bill also respects the right of every individual, and this is where I differ with Mr. Kormos, who has also presented a bill in this House which actually

requires someone to state that they don't want to be an organ donor; in other words, there's a presumed consent. I don't believe that in Ontario, in our society, we're ready to take that leap. I

really believe that in our multicultural society, people want the right to make that decision themselves. So if I'm going to be an organ donor, I don't want the government to presume that I will; I

want to actually state clearly that that is my wish. That's why I don't support Mr. Kormos in the bill that he brought forward. I believe that my Bill 67 still allows that personal decision, the

right of choice, but it does require that the answer is given.

I'm not proposing in that bill that you say yes or no; in fact, as Mr. Lalonde knows, on that application form it allows for a yes, a no or an undecided. The

reason for the undecided is because, quite frankly, a lot of people will be. For many people, once they're confronted with this, it will be the first time that they are actually confronted with

this issue of organ donation. I want to ensure that the trigger of that mandatory declaration is actually a trigger to get more education. I envision that along with that application form would in

fact be some educational material about organ donation: what it means; how significant it is; what the implications are; and the lives that we can save by actually giving a positive declaration.

Having said that, I know that for many people this is a very emotional issue, a very personal issue, and they will want some time. By allowing for that undecided, but yet triggering the discussion

about it, I believe that we'll move many more people into that positive side of declaration. So therein I differ with Mr. Lalonde's bill, because I don't believe it goes far enough. I think we can

do better.

I will now move on to the issue of the registry. I concur with and support a central registry. In fact, I was surprised that we didn't have one. Before I

started my research on this, and I'm sure before Mr. Lalonde, Mr. Levac and Mr. Kormos started doing their research as well, we had some idea about what organ donation is and some assumptions about

what may well be in place in this province. I assumed -- and I should have known better, because I've been a member of this Legislature since 1995. I was here as a member of the government when,

under the then Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer, the Trillium Gift of Life Network was brought to life in this province and became a reality because of the commitment that then-Premier Harris

had to ensure that we move the issue of organ donation on to the front burner. But as busy legislators, we don't always get involved with all of the details of the programs that are developed.

Somehow I assumed that there would be a central registry and that Trillium Gift of Life would be overseeing that; that when I sign my donor card it in fact goes into a registry; and, if I should

die, that somehow there's a trigger of that, and this information would then be available to the hospital so that the health team could deal with my family on this issue. It's not quite that

sophisticated yet in Ontario.

We have a very good system; Trillium Gift of Life is doing wonderful work. I have high regard for Dr. Markel and Jennifer Tracey, who have as their mandate to

advance the work of Trillium Gift of Life, and we want to do whatever we can to help them. But this issue of the registry is so important because it completes the system; it actually allows the

intent of the organ donor to be completed. The more work that we can do to make that an efficient system, I want to support. But I have a problem with the way this bill defines that registry. It's

for that reason that I don't support the details of the registry, because I think there are other ways. I would like to leave that open rather than entrench in legislation what that registry should

be. I think it's appropriate that we leave that to a committee, to be developed by professionals within the field, and ensure that if we're going to move in this direction, we've got the absolute

best system in the world. That's what I want.

I also have a concern about the identification that would appear on the driver's licence or the health card. Mr. Lalonde provides that there should be an

indication on those cards that "I'm an organ donor" or what level of organ donor I am. I don't have a problem personally with that, but I can tell you that in my research over the last couple of

years on this issue, there have been people who have said, "Look, I don't want anything to appear on my health card or on my driver's licence that I'm an organ donor or that I'm not an organ donor.

I don't want anyone, whether it's a health care professional or anyone else who has access to those cards, to be prejudiced towards me in how I'm dealt with, either at roadside or under any

circumstances, because they know that I either am or am not a donor." So I don't support that aspect of it, because I think there is another way that the same issue can be dealt with.

I'll give you example, and that is the registry in British Columbia. I'm not suggesting that that's perfect either, but I think there is something for us to

learn there. Under that registry, which is a central registry -- here's how that works. There is no indication on any driver's licence or health card that you're a donor, but the minute you sign a

consent form, your name and that form is registered with the central registry and it is kept there. In the event of a death, the central registry is contacted, the name then appears and, if the

person is a donor, that is immediately referred to the hospital, along with a faxed copy of the actual consent form. There is an automatic trigger of that individual, if they are a donor, that lets

the hospital know that that person is a donor, along with the signature on the fax form, which the health team can then use in discussions with the family to confirm the donation. It allows for

full privacy, but it also ensures that the hospital and the surgical team are immediately notified.

Those are my critical comments on the bill. That in no way takes away from my support for the bill today or for its intentions. My point is simply that I think

there are details that need to be worked out. In the end, we all have the same objective.

I believe that the more we do to help people in this province understand the importance of organ donation -- the fact that every one of us has within us the

ability to give life is such an important message that when it comes time for implementation of any of the legislation we have in place here, whether it be Mr. Lalonde's bill, mine or Mr. Levac's,

there should be no discussion about how it is too time-consuming or doesn't have a priority in legislation in this place. We have lots of legislation, a lot of bills debated here, and yes, it's

true that private members' bills seldom see the light of day. But I think we have here before us some private members' bills that deal with such a practical issue that can make such a profound

difference in people's lives that these bills deserve the support of this House and deserve the support of the government.

Quite frankly, I don't care if my bill goes forward under my name. I do believe it is a sound principle and that it should be done. If the Minister of Health

prefers to take that principle on and incorporate it into a government bill, that's fine with me. In fact, I would applaud him and applaud the government if that took place. I'm simply saying, and

I agree with Mr. Lalonde's comment, that this is not about partisan politics and it is not about playing a political game; this is about a serious issue that I believe all members of the House

should support. I certainly do, and I look forward to lives being saved as result of the debates that have taken place on this important issue.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): Good morning. It's impressive to me that members in this House have taken on the responsibility of

addressing this social issue, this medical issue. Certainly, the bills before us and the bill we're debating today show an attitude on the part of the legislators in this chamber that is

forward-thinking. I can say right now that this is a bill I will support. I personally feel that we could go further than this bill, but every step we take toward the goal that we all want to see

-- saving human life, making organ donation far more an accepted part of our culture -- I see as a positive step.

I would ask that the sponsor of this bill address the question, when he has an opportunity to speak again, about the

section in legislation -- I may have

misunderstood him, but I don't see that a registry is required to be set up. It's structured so that information is gathered and may be set up. I'd like to understand why a registry is not

required. Frankly, if we're going to go to this effort to make sure the information is gathered and made available, why don't we go the next step and require that it be systematically gathered,

organized and made available to those who need to make use of it?

The other bill, put forward by Mr. Klees, takes us a step further. It says that in order to get a driver's licence, you have to note whether you are for or

against making an organ donation. It strikes me as logical that you should have that step, that requirement that people take a few minutes when they get their licence to make a decision yes or

no.

But of all of the bills before us, I have to say that I think the direction set by Mr. Kormos will be the most effective. The reality is that most people in

this society support organ donation. When we look at the polling, it's up around 96%. The reality in my life and the lives of millions of people in this province is that they're extraordinarily

busy and there's always something else pressing in: They've got to get the kids to the hockey game, they've got to get out and get groceries; they have variety of responsibilities that press on

them on a daily basis. So when you come across a question that's not pressing and immediate, one that has to be dealt with right at that moment, then for the most part, it's set aside. I think that

the bill assuming consent unless people deny it makes a lot of sense in terms of the need we face in Ontario.

I understand that there are thousands of people on the waiting list. If we had a far more effective and inclusive system, we could address that unmet need

that, as we all know in this House, is leading to untimely death. If we could address that need, we could save more lives in this province.

My colleague in the opposition talked about cultural acceptability and the different religions in this province. But when you go to the Ontario government's

website, they have a fact sheet on cultural and religious perspectives on organ and tissue donation. When you go through it, there's no prohibition under Hinduism; Buddhism doesn't have an official

position; Sikhism supports a positive stance on organ and tissue donation; Judaism is supportive; Islam strongly believes in the principle of saving human lives, with no prohibition on donation of

organs; Episcopalians encourage donation; Greek Orthodox supports donation; Lutherans encourage donation; Presbyterians encourage and promote donation; Catholicism encourages donation. I would say

that the reality with religious choice, with cultural inclination, is that there's not unanimity but there's certainly a very strong degree of support for the idea of organ donation. It's there in

this culture. The question for us is, how do we move things forward with the support of the population?

I think we can go further than the bill that's before us today, but the bill that's before us does take another step forward, and on that basis I think should

be supported by this House. I look foreword to the debate on Mr. Levac's bill. We have this initiative from our legislators trying to deal with loss of human life. That's always a commendable

exercise on the part of those in this society.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's a privilege to have a chance today to join this debate. I don't often

take the opportunity, as a minister, to speak in private members' hour. In fact, in the two-and-a-half years or so that I've had the privilege of being the Minister of Health, there are only two

occasions, I believe, where I've done so. Both of those occasions were on this very same issue. I want to applaud the tone that has been brought forward by members on all sides of the House today.

I believe that the issue of doing a better job for our Ontarians on the issue of organ and tissue donation is one of those things that has the potential to be a unifying factor among parties.

The reason I come today in support of the work of my friend and colleague Jean-Marc Lalonde on Bill 79 is because I believe we have an opportunity in Ontario

to make dramatic improvement in this area. We don't just have an opportunity, though; I'd say we have an obligation. The obligation is a solemn one, reflecting the reality that has already been

well expressed in this debate, that too many of our Ontarians, people we love, who are our friends and neighbours, are very much in need of policy enhancement.

I want to compliment, on the point of policy enhancement, some that has already been done, acknowledging that we've worked hard as a government to give more

life to the work of the Trillium Gift of Life Network. Representatives from the Trillium Gift of Life Network are here today in the galleries. But way more important than that, they're here today

as a signal and a symbol of their engagement on this issue.

We've made some progress, as I said, even in the first quarter of this calendar year, the last quarter of the government's year. We saw a 19% increase in our

capacity to give appropriate, real life and meaning to the gift of life through our routine notification request. In a certain sense it was one element, one rather substantial element, of

low-hanging fruit that was available to us to do a better job, by simply creating the capacity for the Trillium Gift of Life to be provided with notice from our highest volume hospitals when an

individual had passed on, where that individual's organs or tissues might lend benefit and life to other Ontarians. We've made a substantial improvement. The improvement is most substantial when it

is measured on a percentage basis, and we have to be careful not to celebrate so much a success on percentage terms that continues to leave so many of our loved ones, so many of our Ontarians,

without all the support they require.

I come today as a member of the government on an issue during private members' hour to send a very strong signal to encourage all members of the legislature to

stand on this issue today, and to continue to be united in a desire to see us do a better job. There are four members of the Legislature who have distinguished themselves on this issue. I don't

know what it is about having the last letter L or K to lead your name, but Levac, Lalonde, Klees and Kormos, the group of four, if I might call them that, are all making a contribution to a debate

that lends us, gives us a sense of hope and opportunity that we don't always manage to achieve around this place.

For our part as a government, and I want to follow up in a certain sense on the tone that was offered by the member from Oak Ridges, we see this very much as

non-partisan issue, as one where we can demonstrate to Ontarians that our best work on this file is yet to come. To that point, the government has an obligation to demonstrate its leadership. I had

the privilege, I think just a week or so ago, on a day when many had gathered in Toronto, international experts coming to work with our Ontario health care community and the patient community to

seek to stimulate the discussion even further, about what are those steps we can take to move Ontario from being a jurisdiction where we can celebrate our progress, but where we most certainly

cannot celebrate that we have maximized our opportunity to extend life -- this is the responsibility we have. Accordingly, the reason I am in support of each and every one of the bills that comes

before this House on the issue of organ and tissue donation is that they are all important contributors to a discussion.

I want to send a message clearly today to legislators and to anyone from Ontario who is attuned to this debate that some of the private members' bills

challenge us in certain ways. Not everyone has the same level of comfort around notions like presumed consent. For my part, I'm on the record to say I support it. I support Mr. Lalonde's

initiative, of course, because government has many opportunity points where we can influence the behaviour of Ontarians in a way that can help other Ontarians.

But our obligation is greater than that. I want to remind members of something I had the chance to announce in this House last Thursday, one week ago today,

that our government will soon be moving forward with the appointment of what I refer to as an eminent persons panel. We're going to ask Ontarians who, when we show them to Ontarians, will be a

group of people who reflect the diversity of our society. We will seek to reach out to people who are distinguished leaders. We believe it's essential that, on an issue like organ and tissue

donation, we create the capacity for a community conversation that engages people in their town hall and at the Legion, down at the library and at the community centre, to have the kind of

conversation to lay the groundwork for an organ and tissue donation system in Ontario that is a world leader, and that builds on the promise and the hope that is already so evident among all those

who have come together on this issue.

The Trillium Gift of Life, the important hospitals that are doing transplant work, the patient groups, the patients themselves and their loved ones, all

Ontarians who wish we would extend the very best of a health care system to offer more hope and more opportunity: This is with a promise that we have and the opportunity is there when we all work

together.

I want to say to all those members who, like Jean-Marc Lalonde today, have moved forward pieces of legislation, that we should stand and support them all. I

assure you that, on the part of our government, these bills will be an important part of the consideration we ask the people of Ontario to be engaged in.

I think that, by this time next year, we should establish for ourselves the goal of moving forward with a piece of legislation, not private members'

legislation but a piece of government legislation, that has our common hopes, dreams and aspirations that we would do a better job for those Ontarians, too many of whom now languish on waiting

lists that grow too long, that we will have stepped up to the plate and moved Ontario forward in a fashion that other jurisdictions will seek to emulate. This is the goal we should have for our

public health care system. We have that capacity in our society.

On behalf of the government, during private members' hour, I stand in support of this legislation. I say to all members of this House and all Ontarians that I

believe that in a one-year period of time we can unlock much of this promise, do a much better job for Ontarians and celebrate a community success that will have had important contributions from

members on all sides, and I thank them for it.

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I'm delighted to rise today in the House in support of Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Trillium Gift of Life

Network Act, the Health Insurance Act and the Highway Traffic Act.

I too had the opportunity last week to attend the Trillium Gift of Life symposium and to hear Dr. Robert Bell and Dr. William Wall from the London Health

Sciences Centre, and Dr. Gary Levy from the Toronto General Hospital speak about their experiences and the experience we are all having as Ontarians with respect to donors and transplants.

The Trillium Gift of Life Network officials who are here today in the gallery reminded me that last year we had a record year of donations of transplants in

the province, and that is something to celebrate, but we have much work to do. As all members of the House who have spoken to this today have commented, one of the main issues we have deal with is

a lack of awareness. We have to raise the awareness. We have to make sure that people know what their opportunities are and how to take care of those opportunities, how to act on those.

This morning, out of interest, I opened my wallet to check and see if I had in my wallet the card I had signed. In fact, I did not have one card; I have four

cards. Over time I keep signing them and putting them in my wallet in the hope that whoever happens upon me, should I be felled in an accident, will know that I want to donate.

One thing I was not aware of, that I found out at the conference, was that many people who sign cards do not talk to their family members about it; therefore,

there's some conflict at the time of death about whether that donation can happen. It's really important that people not only sign their cards today but also talk to their family members, so they

know that that's your intention and your wish, and that's what you want moving forward.

Part of this legislation will put in place a registry. It will also put in place acknowledgement of the donor card signature being the consent. That will

ensure that, having signed that card, people will know that was my intention and will move forward with that, unless I take further action to take away my consent.

I have no problem with the fact that my consent will be indicated on my health card or my driver's licence. I think it's important that that knowledge be out

there. Should I be in an accident, if someone is looking to find out who I am, they'll pull out my driver's licence and know, "This is who she is, and she has agreed to donate. Let's move

forward."

I think a registry is vitally important. It's one thing to have people aware of the opportunities, and it's another thing to have them sign their cards and

take action. But we also have to have that registry so that the confirmation and knowledge are there.

As a family member of someone who went through a bone marrow transplant, I am only too familiar with the need for a registry. On the bone marrow side, there is

a registry. You can be tested through the Canadian blood service and be included on a worldwide registry. It is so vitally important to make sure that a match can be made with someone in need.

There is precedent for this in donors -- transplants across other jurisdictions. There's a need for it, and I think that through this legislation and the other

private members' bills we have debated, we are raising awareness. We are making sure that people know the opportunity is there, the demand is there, and we are saving lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity, and I certainly support this legislation and my colleague.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Obviously I stand before us to support my colleague's bill, Bill 79, but I want to bring to the attention of this

place the overall debate, as the Minister of Health has done: Three days go by and you know that someone else has died waiting for an organ transplant. That's not acceptable. I said it before when

I introduced my bill, Bill 33, the Education Act amendments that would allow us to teach organ donation in all schools in the province. I believe that bill gets in front of the debate to change the

culture.

The member from Niagara Centre, the member from Oak Ridges and the member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are introducing bills that are asking us to debate

what we know is the right thing to do. I have stood in this place often during private members' time and professed a strong belief that when we speak collectively on the same topic as legislators

-- I will remove the party acronym and the shackles we are sometimes attached to that tell us we must think as any party does -- it offers us the opportunity to speak about issues that are

important to us as human beings. This is one of them. This is absolutely raw to who we are as people. We have great scientists out there who have brought us from the 1960s, when the first heart

transplant was done, to today, when people are surviving automatically with very few complications and moving on to us, as human beings, the gift of life.

I challenge all of us to remember that this isn't a debate about politics; this isn't a debate about whose bill is better. This is a debate about doing the

right thing. I challenge all of us to engage in the debate to ensure that, as human beings, we're doing the right thing. That's a very lofty thing to say, but I think we sometimes forget to do

that. Sometimes we forget to have that debate about the impact.

I have met with many organizations on this issue, and we are still scratching the surface of where we're going to be in the future. I commend all those

researchers, those people who have used their brains and their passion to bring this forward, and not to discredit those, more importantly to the families on both sides of the issue: those who have

gone through the painful process of losing a loved one to understanding the gift they present -- and I know; I've spoken to the recipients who have someone else's organ -- the utter joy and love

they have in their hearts for those that have contributed. That's what we're talking about today, engaging in that conversation.

As I've done in the past and I'll continue to do, I'll reach into my pocket and hold up my wallet. Inside my wallet is my card. More importantly, that

signifies to me that I've had the discussion with my family and they know my wishes.

Sign your donor card. Talk to your families. Let's get this moving. I thank the member for bringing his bill forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Lalonde, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Lalonde: I would like to thank all the members that participated in the debate today: the member from Brant; the Minister of Health and

Long-Term Care, the member from Toronto Centre-Rosedale; and the members from Nipissing, Oak Ridges and Toronto-Danforth.

I would also like to acknowledge a very special guest who has joined us today in the gallery: Marie-Josée Lalonde, who is not related to me but she's from

Rockland, Ontario. Marie-Josée suffers from Alport's disease, which causes kidney damage. This means she needs a new kidney, and has been on the waiting list for a kidney transplant since

La condition de Marie-Josée est héréditaire. Sa mère, Lorraine, et son frère, Patrick, souffrent de la même maladie. Patrick a eu

la chance de subir une transplantation de reins il y a 12 ans, et sa santé est très bonne aujourd'hui.

I would like to thank Marie-Josée for being here today and allowing me to share her family's story. This family's story is not unique. Hundreds of

Ontarians are waiting for organ and tissue donation as we speak.

Last week I attended a conference entitled Organ Donation Crisis in Ontario: Finding Solutions, which was organized by the Trillium Gift of Life Network and

the University Health Network. This conference included some of the most prominent doctors in the field of organ transplantation. I raised the issue of a registry during the conference, and doctors

were very supportive of a registry for Ontario.

A province-wide registry exclusively for organ and tissue donation is one critical change we can make here in the Legislature which undoubtedly will help

improve donation rates in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business usually takes us until noon. So what we will do at this point is

pause till 12 o'clock and then deal with the ballot items.

The House suspended proceedings from 1148 to 1159.

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT FUND ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE FONDS

DE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE

DE L'EST DE L'ONTARIO

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll deal first with ballot item number 33, standing in the name of Mr. Sterling.

Mr. Sterling has moved second reading of Bill 42,

An Act to establish the Eastern Ontario Economic Development Fund Corporation. Is it the pleasure of the

House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I'd like the bill to be referred to the finance and economic affairs committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the finance and economic affairs committee? Agreed.

TRILLIUM GIFT OF LIFE NETWORK

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE RÉSEAU

TRILLIUM POUR LE DON DE VIE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 34, standing in the name of Mr. Lalonde.

Mr. Lalonde has moved second reading of Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act, the Health Insurance Act and the Highway Traffic Act.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Lalonde has moved second reading of Bill 79. All those in favour, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Tabuns, Peter

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 37; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr. Speaker, I request that this bill be sent to the standing committee on social

policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be sent to the standing committee on social policy? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 p.m.

The House recessed from 1208 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOBACCO GROWERS

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Ontario's tobacco crop will shrink by 35% this year as local farming continues to crash. The

negotiated target price for the 2006 crop is $2.327 per pound, and at this price the 2006 crop will generate only $129 million.

As tobacco board president Fred Neukamm states, "A drop of nearly $60 million in the value of the tobacco crop is a disaster for our farmers and our

communities. This deal only reinforces the need for a universal exit program for our farmers, and detailed negotiations on that package are needed immediately."

The last remaining farmers and their communities in Norfolk, Oxford, Elgin and Brant do need federal and provincial government help to make the transition to a

post-tobacco economy. Previously, the federal and provincial governments put up $120 million in tobacco relief, buying out quotas, encouraging new businesses and crops, but now more help is needed

as the industry disappears.

"The crisis for growers is a perfect storm where all negative factors are in alignment," says Brant MPP Dave Levac in today's Brantford Expositor, and I concur

with Dave. Tobacco taxes keep rising; Ontario will go smoke-free on May 31; and cigarette makers are importing more foreign, less expensive, tobacco.

The solution is a full exit plan, as in Australia and the United States. There is no turning back.

MOLSON CANADA

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): Today it's my privilege as the member of provincial Parliament for Etobicoke North to recognize the good

work of one of our leading corporate citizens, Molson brewery. Recently, I had the pleasure of participating in the kick-off of the Molson brewery volunteer program. This is an innovative campaign

that invites all Molson employees to take a paid day off work to participate in team-based volunteer activity.

On April 21, Molson brewery participated in a community cleanup day in Etobicoke. Several other regional projects will be undertaken by Molson employees across

Canada. In fact, the volunteer program broadens the company's commitment to communities all across the land.

With more than 3,100 employees across Canada, the Molson's program has contributed over 25,000 volunteer hours. This is the economic equivalent of more than $1

million.

I and the Minister of Health Promotion, the Honourable Jim Watson, and indeed all members of this House, would like to congratulate the Molson's team, ably

represented in the east gallery today by Judy McClelland, Heidi Pokorny, Kathryn Spraggett, Stacey Ritz, Ali Cameron, Mary Boynton, Babita Khunkhun, Ashley Basfield and Carole Berry.

You are a credit, Molson, to Canadian business and a great corporate citizen in Etobicoke to partner with. Thank you for helping to better the communities we

live in.

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today because of concerns over the number of unlicensed drivers on Ontario roads.

In May 2004, Mothers Against Drunk Driving announced the findings of a report on the number of suspended drivers who continue to drive in Ontario. The results

were simply shocking. MADD Canada revealed that the number of suspended drivers had increased by 2.4 times in the past five years. MADD Canada estimates -- this is important -- that up to 75% of

Ontario's suspended drivers continue to drive while the minister tinkers.

These outlaw drivers are likely to get into crashes. They lack the insurance to compensate their victims. Mothers Against Drunk Driving issued a report

yesterday that compared Ontario's and Saskatchewan's statistics in terms of the number of suspended drivers who continue to drive. This report reveals that only 27% of first-time offenders in

Saskatchewan did not follow through by attending the initial session. In Ontario, the non-participating rate was 55%. Andrew Murie, CEO of MADD Canada, has warned, "In Ontario, there's a nightmare

scenario where more and more drivers who are losing their licence fail to get properly relicensed."

I urge the government, indeed I urge the minister and the Premier, to take some leadership: the government to act at once to end the nightmare of unlicensed

drivers and get them off the roads.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It's highway robbery. Motorists across Ontario, every time they pull up to a gas pump, are getting mugged

and rolled, are getting ripped off and scammed by the price-gouging big oil companies of North America and beyond.

This government, the Dalton McGuinty Liberals, had all the answers, and they promised to control, stabilize and reduce gasoline prices once they got elected.

They ran on that during the course of campaigning across Ontario, but when they get elected, what do they deliver? Nothing. Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals have abandoned drivers here in the

province of Ontario, indeed have betrayed them. The Liberals crawl into bed with big oil and its billions and billions of dollars of new profits.

We know it's well within the jurisdiction of the province to regulate gasoline prices. The announcement just this week that Nova Scotia has acquiesced to the

demands of the New Democratic Party there to regulate gasoline prices means that Ontario is the only province in eastern Canada that does not regulate and control gasoline prices.

I say it's about time for the robber barons of the big oil industry to be taken to task and put on a leash. Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals would indeed keep

one of their promises were they to set up a regulatory regime.

New Democrats are committed to protecting drivers across Ontario from the robber barons of big oil and their price gouging at the pumps. We're committed to

recovery from pump shock rather than inflicting more.

SULTAN JESSA

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I rise in the House today to recognize the contributions of Sultan Jessa, an outstanding

journalist and decorated booster for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

Recently, Mr. Jessa retired from a 33-year career with the Cornwall Standard Freeholder. During those years, Cornwall and area citizens relied on him to tell

the stories about their communities, both in the worst of times and the best. Sultan's reporting went beyond basic facts. His editorial work helped our community see the bigger picture.

It is people like Sultan who have given Cornwall and area its reputation for having hard-working, capable and caring citizens.

Settling in Cornwall after his family was forced to leave their native Tanzania, Mr. Jessa's story is one that exemplifies the challenging circumstances many

of Ontario's newcomers face. When he arrived in 1973, Sultan experienced a number of frustrating and senseless roadblocks driven by racial prejudice.

Thankfully, we have come a long way since then, and I am proud to be part of a government that welcomes newcomers and recognizes the important contributions

they make to our province.

Since settling in Cornwall, Mr. Jessa's achievements have been outstanding. He was named Cornwall's Citizen of the Year in 1979, just six years after his

arrival. Most recently, in 2005 he received, with the pride of the community, the Order of Canada. All along the way, he has been continually recognized for his contributions to the community, from

service clubs like Rotary International and Big Brothers, to multiculturalism and the arts.

I salute Sultan Jessa, who is watching today at his home, and I wish him the happiest of retirements.

FARMERS' MARKETS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Rural Ontarians have once again found themselves in the crosshairs of the McGuinty government. It

disappoints me to have to rise in this House today to provide yet another example of this Liberal government's encroachment upon rural values.

In March of this year, the Ministry of Health secretly distributed a draft report entitled Ontario Farmers' Markets Food Safety Guidelines with the intention

of drastically altering the regulations governing Ontario's farmers' markets. This report was compiled without input from municipalities, market managers or the individual vendors who make our

farmers' markets the unique fixture Ontarians have enjoyed for generations. One is left to ask, how many other provincial matters are being discussed behind closed doors without input from those

most affected?

In fact, the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit board has determined that due to the potential negative impacts on the region, they object to the

ministry's hasty timelines to ram these new and secretly drafted guidelines through. They have called upon the minister to accept a three-month extension on changes to the current guidelines so

that proper consultations and stakeholder input can take place.

I encourage the Minister of Health to listen to this plea and recognize the importance of farmers' markets to the cultural and generational roots of rural and

small-town Ontario.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): Recently the University of Western Ontario announced that they will be offering a university course in

Goderich, which will be held at the Goderich museum starting this fall. I can tell you that this is good news for the town of Goderich and the surrounding communities. People in the area will now

have an opportunity to take a university course without having to move out of the area or travel long distances each day. This will give students the chance to take a university course who might

not have had that chance before. The first-year sociology course that is being offered will provide a head start for most university degrees. This is an exciting new opportunity. This is only the

beginning, but it's a step in the right direction and it will strengthen our rural communities.

I want to add my congratulations to the extremely vibrant volunteers who so diligently worked on this program. Congratulations to them for their work and the

successful outcome. We look forward to developing further relationships with our universities and colleges to provide post-secondary education in the riding of Huron-Bruce.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I am pleased to rise in my place today to report to the Legislature about a very successful event held

in Ottawa last Friday, April 28, at the Ottawa Hospital.

I was honoured to participate in an announcement alongside my colleagues Minister Jim Watson and Minister Madeleine Meilleur. We had the pleasure of informing

the people of Ottawa that wait times for medical procedures in our city are decreasing due to the historic investments this government has made in health care.

The former government left Ottawa and indeed the entire province in terrible shape for health care. In order to address this situation, thanks to Premier

McGuinty and Minister Smitherman, our government has made great investments in health care in Ottawa and the Champlain district. Even with higher demands for procedures, wait times for cancer

treatment are down 4%; cataract surgery wait times are down 21%; hip replacement wait times are down 19%; and knee replacement wait times are down 17%. These are numbers to be proud of.

In order to expand on these triumphs, we announced on Friday that the McGuinty government is providing even more funding for the Champlain LHIN to help reduce

wait times even further for various procedures. The Champlain LHIN received $2,996,000 for cancer treatment; $9,854,000 for cardiac treatment; $6,319,000 for hip and knee replacements; and

$1,100,000 for cataract operations.

Since 2003, we have increased the number of MRIs by 43% and are now adding $4,361,000 to increase MRI examinations in the city of Ottawa. Ottawa patients no

longer have to go to the US or Quebec and pay $900 for these procedures.

I thank you, Premier McGuinty, and thank you, George Smitherman, for the great progress we are making in health care in Ottawa.

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's my great pleasure to rise in the House today to announce that the Peterborough region has ranked first in

the country for per capita retail sales. The Peterborough region was recently identified as the top community in per capita retail sales with a population of over 100,000 people. These results were

released in the 2006 Financial Post Markets Canadian Demographics. Edmonton, Alberta, ties with the Peterborough region for total average sales estimates of $15,100 per capita.

Growth in the region is evident, as retail sales surged by a total of 11% from 2005 to 26% above the national average in 2006. Over the past year, major

retailers such as Home Hardware, Shoppers Drug Mart, Rona Cashway and Wal-Mart have recognized the economic opportunities in the region by opening new locations or expanding existing operations.

Peterborough continues to grow, and future retailers such as Costco and Loblaws Great Canadian Superstore continue to announce new construction plans in our communities.

I am delighted to join with the Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corp. in declaring Peterborough as the number one business region in

Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to introduce some people in the members' gallery. We have

Denis and Jennifer Chamberland and Anne Marie and Elizabeth Chamberland. They're the family of Caroline Chamberland, our page.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to also introduce two proud relatives of our page,

Elliott Leeflang. His mom, Helen Leeflang, and his aunt, Mary Brown, have come here from Port Elmsley near Perth. We'd like to welcome them here to the Legislature. I know how proud they are of

Elliott.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I too want to engage in the introductions. With us in the west gallery, just

speaking with the Minister of Labour, are Lois Boggs, Jackie and Nathan Shaw, and Henry Watson, working on presumptive legislation. We welcome them to the House.

We also have with us the president and the vice-president of the OPFFA, firefighters Brian George and Fred LeBlanc. We welcome them and others to the

House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(BOB SHAW), 2006 /

LOI BOB SHAW DE 2006

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Ms. Horwath moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 with respect to occupational diseases and injuries of firefighters / Projet de loi

111, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail relativement aux maladies professionnelles et aux lésions des

pompiers.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm not going to reintroduce all of the members; I want to thank the member opposite for having introduced

all of the people who are here today. He missed some of the family members who are also up in the gallery, some of the Hamilton firefighters as well as the experts in both the Toronto and Hamilton

forces on compensation: Mr. Colin Grieve and Mr. Paul Atkinson. They're with us on this auspicious day of the introduction of this bill, which will basically see that firefighters get certain types

of cancer or degenerative neurological diseases recognized as occupationally related and enshrined in the legislation of the WSIB. It's long overdue; other provinces have done it. This is Ontario's

opportunity to make sure that our firefighters, who put their lives on the line every day for the people of every community in this province, don't have to fight tooth and nail at the WSIB when one

of their loved ones ends up dying of a disease that they contracted while fighting fires.

VISITORS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would be remiss not to recognize in our east gallery today two distinguished

members of Peterborough's fire department: Matt Parkhurst and Greg Simmons.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That is not a point of order, but we welcome everyone to the Legislature.

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DU POISSON

ET DE LA FAUNE

Mr. Miller moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 112, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la protection du poisson et

de la faune.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): The bill amends the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, to prohibit the hunting and trapping of

albino mammals.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a question for the Premier. It has been almost 48 hours since a Conservative budget in Ottawa brought

real tax relief for working families, for Canadians, for working seniors across Canada and in the province of Ontario. It has also been 48 hours that the McGuinty government has been silent about

any plans to step into that tax room by once again breaking your election promise and raising taxes on working families and seniors in the province of Ontario. Please, Premier, confirm to the House

that you have no such plans.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): We have no such plans.

Mr. Hudak: We're making progress. I thank the Premier. We asked the Premier that question many times yesterday, and I'm pleased to see that

we're finally making progress and that the Premier gets it: Working families and seniors in the province of Ontario can barely make ends meet in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario.

Let's go for one more. Let me remind the Premier what the last three years have brought in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario: higher taxes, despite campaign promises

to the contrary; higher hydro rates, despite campaign promises to the contrary; higher home heating costs, higher gasoline prices and higher insurance rates. Working families cannot make ends meet

in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario.

I'll ask you, Premier, now that you've confirmed you're no longer going to increase taxes, will you go back to your original campaign promise and actually

lower taxes for working families and seniors in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: It's always remarkable the amount of energy that the member opposite brings to his questions. I really appreciate the

enthusiasm.

I think it's important to recognize the difference in terms of the situation that the federal Conservative government inherited and that our Liberal government

inherited here in Ontario. The federal Conservative government under Prime Minister Harper were the beneficiaries of good fiscal management, and they found themselves in the wonderful position of

having a surplus and enjoying the luxury of being able to cut taxes. What we inherited was something significantly and markedly different than that: We inherited a huge deficit, and we have been

working our way out of that ever since. But I am proud to say that, as we do that, we've made substantial investments that have resulted in better public services, whether in our schools or in our

hospitals, and the continuing growth of this economy. So we're proud of the decisions that we have made, notwithstanding the difficult financial circumstances that we inherited.

Mr. Hudak: I think the Premier well knows that his record tax increases have brought in some $15 billion in additional revenue to the treasury

of Ontario. It has been a gluttonous attack on the pocketbooks of working families and small businesses under the Dalton McGuinty government.

Let me tell you, it's not only in Ottawa, but I think you know that a New Democrat government in Saskatchewan and a New Democrat government in Manitoba are

cutting taxes for working families and seniors; a Progressive Conservative government in Alberta is reducing taxes; and in Quebec and British Columbia, Liberal governments are reducing taxes for

working families, for seniors, and aiding small businesses.

You are the head of a government that is increasingly out of touch with the realities of the pocketbooks of working families and seniors in Dalton McGuinty's

Ontario. When will you open your eyes? When will you realize what's happening at the end of the month for these working families? Will you join the rest of the provinces and the federal government

and finally get to the task of reducing the tax burden on Ontario taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I think it's important for the member opposite and his party, as well as Ontarians, to hear this: We're not going back into

deficit. We've been there before; we were saddled with that. We will proceed in a thoughtful, responsible way. We have a long-term plan that is going to ensure we eliminate not just our fiscal

deficit but the education deficit, the health care deficit and the infrastructure deficit.

I understand the member's obsession with tax cuts, but there is a time and a place for those. Right now we've got to work our way out of the mess they left us.

As we do that, I'm proud of some of the improvements we have brought about for Ontario families, whether it's free immunization for children, which saves a family $600 per child, or the new insulin

pumps just announced in our budget. This September, 60,000 young people from low-income families are going to get grants -- not loans but grants. We have enhanced student assistance generally. Auto

insurance rates are down 13% in the province of Ontario. I think that's a step forward. That's evidence of the positive direction we are moving in.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): A question to the Premier: In today's Globe and Mail, you are quoted as suggesting you've got a lot

of work to do to ensure that the provinces are speaking with one voice regarding fiscal arrangements. In yesterday's paper, you were quoted as expressing concern that the Bank of Canada's

initiatives directed at Alberta are harmful to Ontario. In response, Premier Klein is quoted saying, "I wish he would talk to me. I haven't heard from Premier McGuinty on this issue or any other

issue."

Premier, if you want to have provinces speaking with one voice, why would you not at least call Premier Klein with your concerns before going public? Why

wouldn't you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm delighted to speak to this issue. The fact of the matter is, I did

not direct any comments at my friend and colleague Premier Ralph Klein, but a reporter chose to interpret something in a way that elicited a response from the ever-colourful Ralph Klein, and I can

appreciate that.

The point I was making is, I think, a good one; that is, that we ask the Bank of Canada to be mindful of our economic circumstances here in Ontario, and rather

than design a monetary policy that is predominantly focused on the overheating economy in Alberta, they recognize that we find ourselves in different circumstances here, and while we have steady

growth, it's not as rapid and not as much in need of cooling off as are other parts of the country. I thought that was a good point to make.

Mr. Runciman: Premier, yesterday's side-swipe of Alberta wasn't the first time you've blindsided a provincial counterpart. At last month's

meeting of the Council of the Federation, you caught your colleagues off guard with a press release outlining your view on equalization and going against the one-communiqué tradition. In

reaction to that blindside, Prince Edward Island Premier Binns said, "We just haven't seen this before. It's disappointing." That sentiment was echoed by other Premiers.

Premier, how can you expect to achieve provincial consensus on the fiscal imbalance when you apparently prefer to play politics rather than work in a

co-operative way with your provincial colleagues?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'm just not going to apologize for standing up for Ontario.

Applause.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order. Government bench, it's one of two things: I either stop the clock or the Premier won't have

time to respond.

Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Just so the members opposite understand, the proposal that was on the table, which was presented in Montreal by a panel

that had been commissioned by the Council of the Federation, would have required that Ontario taxpayers contribute $1.8 billion more toward equalization. I said that is unacceptable. I said that,

given the fact we are contributing close to $5 billion on an annual basis, I thought we were doing our fair share.

Mr. Runciman: The Premier could have at least not blindsided his provincial colleagues. He continues to play this political game. All parties

in this Legislature have indicated our support of the effort to redress the fiscal imbalance. Our concern is your apparent inability to build bridges to accomplish that goal. You've blindsided and

offended many of your provincial counterparts on more than one occasion. You and your members, on almost a daily basis, have attacked the new federal government from the day they came into

office.

Ontario has a great history of leading the way in nation building, a reputation that you are damaging, if not destroying, for purely --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, Minister of Education.

Member for Leeds−Grenville.

Mr. Runciman: Ontario has a great history of leading the way in nation building, a reputation that you are damaging, if not destroying, for

purely political purposes, trying to portray yourself as Mr. Ontario. Premier --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Leeds−Grenville, if you'd put the question.

Mr. Runciman: -- when will you put politics aside and make a sincere and honest effort to work with federal and provincial governments to find

a national fiscal arrangement that works for all Canadians and stop --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The question has been put. Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Obviously, I don't share the perspective brought by the member opposite as represented in his question. We think, on this

side of the House, that we can both stand up for our province and be proud and patriotic Canadians at the same time. In fact, we believe that a strong Ontario is only going to serve to benefit all

Canadians, no matter where they live across this great country of ours.

The member opposite is right in the sense that we have been commissioned by history to play a continuing leadership role in the evolution of this magnificent

country, and we will never, ever walk away from that responsibility. But at the same time, we will not walk away from our responsibility as representatives of the people of Ontario to ensure that

we get a fair shake. That's all we're asking for, and in that regard I'm very much looking forward to my meeting this afternoon with Prime Minister Harper and to communicating and conveying to him

our concerns when it comes to how we're going to resolve the fiscal imbalance. We'll do that in the way we've always done it here in Ontario: in a way that is both determined and respectful.

Mr. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would respectfully request that when government members scream down opposition members

asking legitimate questions, you stop the clock.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Leeds-Grenville, I did stop the clock. I gave you the opportunity to conclude your question. I think I could

use the co-operation --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I could use the co-operation of everybody in here, and then we'd get on with question period in the way we

should.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. Motorists from across Ontario are suffering from pump shock.

They're angry about big oil's price gouging, like a recent rip-off in Timmins where the price of gas went from $1.10 to $1.42 a litre overnight for no reason. People can't understand why the same

gas in the ground goes up 30 cents a litre overnight.

Not long ago, you and your colleagues used to advocate for gas price regulation to stop gas price gouging and rip-offs and to ease people's pain at the pumps.

You used to advocate it. When will you do it, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I think if the leader of the NDP were to check the record, he would know

that I have never been a proponent of regulating gas prices, and I'll tell you why. There are some jurisdictions today in Canada which do in fact regulate their gas prices. The price in Prince

Edward Island today, which is a regulated jurisdiction, is $1.20 a litre; in New Brunswick, where it's regulated, it's $1.14 a litre; and in Newfoundland, it's $1.22 a litre. Today gas prices in

Ontario range from 92 cents to $1.07. Prices in Ontario have been on average 20% lower than the regulated prices in the Maritime provinces. That's why we are not going to proceed with regulating

gas prices in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: The people in those provinces will tell you that gas prices were far higher before they implemented gas price regulation.

Earlier in the week you said that Ontario didn't have the constitutional authority to stop gas price gouging, but now we see that Nova Scotia has found the

constitutional authority, and so have Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Quebec. Premier, can you tell us why only the McGuinty government, in all of eastern Canada, argues that

it doesn't have the constitutional authority to implement gas price regulation?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, if the leader of the NDP checks the record, he will see that I never claimed that we didn't have constitutional

authority to regulate gas prices.

I think what's important is that what the leader of the NDP is advocating would effectively result -- not effectively; in real terms -- in an increase in gas

prices in Ontario. Perhaps it is not surprising, given that when they were in government the NDP raised the gas tax by 30%. We're not going to raise the gas tax by 30% or any other amount, and

we're not going to regulate gas prices in the province of Ontario. But I can say, by way of one positive initiative that will help out our motorists, that automobile insurance in Ontario has come

down over 13% on our watch.

Mr. H