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

February 22, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Feb-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 22 February 2006 Mercredi 22 février 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

CANADIAN OLYMPIC TEAM /

ÉQUIPE OLYMPIQUE CANADIENNE

OMERS PENSION FUND

COMMUNITY SERVICES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

OMERS PENSION FUND

NORTHERN ECONOMY

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

OMERS PENSION FUND

WEARING OF PINS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION MANDATORY DECLARATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 EXIGEANT UNE DÉCLARATION AU SUJET DU DON D'ORGANES ET DE TISSU

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMERS PENSION FUND

FOREST INDUSTRY

HEALTH CARE

OMERS PENSION FUND

DEADSTOCK INDUSTRY

HYDRO GENERATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

PETITIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PROSTATE CANCER

PORT COLBORNE GENERAL HOSPITAL

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CHILD CARE

SPECIAL CARE HOMES

MACULAR DENGENERATION

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HIGHWAY 35

CHILD CARE

FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOCAL HEALTH SYSTEM

INTEGRATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'INTÉGRATION

DU SYSTÈME DE SANTÉ LOCAL

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): The people are worried. Whether you're a hard-working Ontario family, a small business owner or

the head of a large manufacturing operation, you have a common concern: You have no confidence in the McGuinty Liberals' ability to properly handle the energy file. Without any kind of plan, this

government made the irresponsible promise to shut down almost a quarter of our generation capacity. There was no consideration given to the reality of the situation. They liked the politics of

their idea, so as far as they were concerned, that's all that mattered.

Liberals never look beyond the politics of anything. They said they would build natural gas plants to replace lost capacity. Well, where are those plants? They

are just figments of the Premier's imagination.

Let's look at the Sarnia situation. The government announced with much fanfare that they had accepted a proposal that would replace the Lambton generating

station. Not so fast. The shovel has not met dirt in Sarnia or in any of the other chosen locations for replacement natural gas plants. This is almost two years after the government first initiated

requests for proposals. This has led to a feeling in the industry that not only will those projects not get done, but their credibility on other future proposals cannot be taken seriously.

Even the IESO has said their scheduled commitments to shut down coal-fired stations cannot be met. The Liberals knew this in 2003, but they went ahead and

promised it anyway, regardless of what kind of damage it would inflict.

I find this government, just like the Minister of Transportation, guilty of egregiously reckless negligence.

CANADIAN OLYMPIC TEAM /

ÉQUIPE OLYMPIQUE CANADIENNE

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Yesterday, my colleague spoke about the phenomenal gold-medal performance by the Canadian women's hockey team.

Their 4-1 win over Sweden helped solidify Canada's position in the medal standings, with 15 medals: four gold, six silver, and five bronze.

Dans cette équipe, il y a beaucoup de femmes qui viennent de l'Ontario. The Canadian Olympic team is 196 athletes strong, and York region has a significant

presence at these games. Gillian Ferrari et Sami Jo Small, qui font

partie de l'équipe féminine canadienne de hockey, sont toutes deux nées dans ma circonscription de Thornhill.

Cherie Piper est née à Toronto et habite maintenant à Markham.

Vaughan-born Duff Gibson made Olympic history when he won the gold medal a few days ago in the skeleton event. At 39 years of age, Duff became the oldest

individual gold medalist in the history of the Olympic Winter Games.

On behalf of my colleagues and the people of Ontario, I congratulate all the athletes who worked so hard to get to the Olympic Games. Félicitations et bonne

chance.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): As all members know, the province could be facing an illegal strike sometime in the next 24 hours, and

as yesterday's question period clearly showed, the Liberal government has no plan to deal with it.

That's not a surprise to those of us who have watched them operate from the back of a napkin for going on three years. They don't look ahead, let alone plan

ahead. They simply measure political implications, and their time horizon on this is October 2007.

Bill 206 is being force-fed through time allocation with one political goal in mind: change the public perception of Dalton McGuinty. Mr. McGuinty quite properly

is viewed as a promise-breaker and a weak leader. The Bill 206 exercise is cynically designed to try and change or at least lessen that perception. Mr. McGuinty spends hours rehearsing his

tough-guy lines, but can't find the time to ensure the province is ready to deal with the challenges, risks and dangers brought on by an illegal strike. This is a cynical political ploy designed by

the deep thinkers in the Premier's office. Let's pray that no serious damage or injury results. If it does, Dalton McGuinty will share the responsibility.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): It seems that across the communities of Ontario -- in my riding, certainly, and I'm sure in others --

we're hearing the same story; it's starting to become a recurring theme. That is that people who are in the process of trying to provide services for their children who are basically autistic or

need to have special needs met are having more and more difficulty in getting the services they need from the agencies in their communities.

When we talk to the community agencies, what they tell us is that the dollars that they get are inadequate to provide for the need that is prevalent within those

particular communities. I have cases, as I'm sure other members in this assembly have, where parents who need to have respite care relief for themselves to be able to go away and do some of the

basic things in life when their autistic child needs to be supervised are not able to get those services, and as a result are burning out.

I say to the government, who are you going to hurt in the end? You are going to hurt the child and you are going to burn out the caregivers. We need to make sure

that we support those caregivers in such a way that they can keep on providing the level of care that their children need.

We're seeing also within the communities a whole host of other services that are starting to become more and more difficult to get. For example, we have elderly

parents having to make decisions about allowing their now-adult children to go into residential group homes, but unfortunately the lists are long and the spaces aren't many.

So I say to the government across the way, you certainly talked a good line when it comes to providing those services, but the reality for those families is

quite a different story.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): On February 3, I had the pleasure of making a wonderful announcement in my riding on behalf of Minister

Takhar.

At the OC Transpo station in Orléans, Councillors Rainer Bloess and Rob Jellett, and Helen Gault of OC Transpo, joined me to bring great news to commuters

across Ottawa. I announced the second instalment of gas tax funding for the transit system in Ottawa.

Last year, Ottawa received $18.8 million in gas tax funding. This money went toward improvements in the overall transit system, including construction of two

park-and-ride lots, new buses and a new bus garage, as well as increases in services across the network and adjustments in routes to serve new residential areas.

This is particularly important in my riding, Orléans, where our population is now 100,000 people and increasing every year. Public transit now delivers over

three trips out of 10, and by 2021 we expect that to be four trips out of 10 -- the highest ridership in the city of Ottawa.

There are new subdivisions popping up everywhere in Orléans, where young families can live close to their jobs in downtown Ottawa while still enjoying the

quiet serenity of a smaller suburban community. For those families who use OC Transpo to commute downtown to work every day, this funding was especially welcome.

This year, the McGuinty government provided $27.4 million to the city of Ottawa for transit. This money will encourage increased ridership in the Ottawa area,

which in turn helps to reduce traffic congestion, commute times and smog. A cleaner environment and a healthier atmosphere is what we want to provide for all Ontarians. The gas tax funding is one

major step toward achieving that goal.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Tomorrow, public services affecting the elderly, our children and indeed our entire economy will be put at risk. The

people at the centre of this storm are Dalton McGuinty, representing the Liberal government, and Sid Ryan, representing the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Ontario.

The issue is Bill 206, the Ontario municipal employees' retirement system and the CUPE pension. The problem: Premier McGuinty said before the election -- I will

quote an

article from the Ottawa Citizen of October 28, 1997 -- when speaking to teachers, "You have my support. Take heart. You're doing the right thing and I ask you not to give up." I can just

visualize the then opposition leader McGuinty standing in solidarity with his wife, Terri, a teacher.

I also recall at the same time dealing with this same issue with my wife, Peggy, who is also a teacher. The difference was then, and is now, that Dalton

supported teachers' job actions, but now he doesn't support the non-teaching educational support workers.

Is this just another broken Liberal promise or simply an old Liberal flip-flop? The difference between John Tory and Dalton McGuinty is that John Tory won't make

promises he won't keep. You have to ask yourself the question: Isn't the real issue here leadership and keeping your promises?

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I rise in the House today to recognize two important announcements our government has recently made. The

first announcement was made in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie and it involved a provincial investment of $4.75 million -- $3 million from NOHFC and $1.75 million from the GO North program -- helping

to create 140 high-skilled jobs at a new wind tower manufacturing facility in Sault Ste. Marie.

This new corporation, SIAG Great Lakes LP, a $35-million project, is a joint venture between Algoma Steel and Schaaf Industries of Germany. It's a tremendously

positive step forward for value-added steel manufacturing in our city.

I want to thank Minister Bartolucci and Minister Cordiano for their support and for the important role they have played in helping to diversify our economy.

The second announcement was made today by Premier McGuinty and Minister Ramsay regarding Ontario's forestry industry. Today, we committed an additional $220

million to help the forestry industry with access road costs and reduce stumpage fees paid by companies.

Here is what the industry and municipal leaders are saying:

"Today's announcement is a home run by the government that has done more for the forest industry than any other government," said Jamie Lim, president of the

Ontario Forest Industries Association. "It will pay huge returns for the people of this province in terms of jobs, the generation of wealth, and tax contributions from the industry that annually

exceed $1 billion."

"The government deserves to be thanked and congratulated," said Greenstone mayor and president of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, Michael Power.

"The measures announced today will have positive effects on not just the north, but the entire province."

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

health care for all Ontarians.

The establishment of local health integration networks, or LHINs, is an important evolution in the delivery of health care in this province. By ensuring that the

vital health care decisions are made locally at the community level by people within the community, LHINs will ensure that patients receive the best care possible in the most efficient manner.

The LHINs are unique. If passed, Bill 36 will present a made-in-Ontario model that will effectively transfer responsibility from the head office in Toronto, the

one big LHIN we presently have, to local communities where the impacts of health care decisions are felt.

Contrary to some of the recent criticism, LHINs are not about closing hospitals, cutting jobs and reducing wages. LHINs are about improving patient care in

Ontario by devolving decision-making to the community level, where we are giving a greater voice to those who actually deliver vital health care services in Ontario. The first community to have a

LHINs process in Ontario will be the first community --

Interjections.

Mr. Levac: The rest of Canada has already got these.

LHINs represent the dedication of the McGuinty government to health care in Ontario. We'll continue to do the hard work necessary to respond to the changing

needs of the province. If Bill 36 is passed, the local health integration networks will be a significant step to better health care in the province of Ontario.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I rise today to talk about the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, otherwise known as

Bill 206. It's very important to me and to my constituents that we understand clearly what this bill is about. This bill provides for a new and independent governance model for OMERS. It devolves

sponsorship from the Ontario government to the people who contribute to the plan. Employer and employee representatives will be able to negotiate their pension benefits for the first time.

The McGuinty government, our government, understands the importance of pension funds in Ontario, and that's why we've committed to devolving OMERS. It has not

been easy. We believe that we've reached a responsible balance of interests with all parties involved. Although this has been an issue for 10 years, it's our government that has tackled the issue

when other governments did not.

It's important to make it crystal clear that current pension holders will not be paying for the supplementary benefits of police and firefighters. Those benefits

will be paid equally between those employees and the employer.

This government is moving forward to ensure Bill 206 fairly and equally represents the interests of all those involved, and that's why we've been as pragmatic as

we have with the amendments to the bill.

WEARING OF PINS

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to seek unanimous consent for members to wear today the Trillium

Gift of Life Networks pin, noted as the Gift of Life.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Klees has asked for unanimous consent to wear the pin for the Trillium Gift of Life Networks. Agreed?

Agreed.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I beg leave to present a report on the groundwater program from the standing committee on public

accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Sterling presents the committee's report and moves the adoption of its recommendations.

Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The committee completed its deliberations in December. This was dealing with the auditor's report of November

2004. There were 14 different recommendations, which the committee made unanimously, asking the ministry in many ways to report on the status of its overall strategy on groundwater management. The

deliberations of the committee, I might add, were prior to the minister's introduction of legislation in this place dealing with groundwater protection. Therefore there may seem, from the report,

some redundant questions or recommendations therein. However, there are other recommendations which are important for us all to know. I urge all members to read our report, and I urge the Minister

of the Environment to respond to the recommendations as soon as possible.

I move adjournment of the debate.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated February

22, 2006, of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION MANDATORY DECLARATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 EXIGEANT UNE DÉCLARATION AU SUJET DU DON D'ORGANES ET DE TISSU

Mr. Klees moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 67,

An Act to amend various Acts to require a declaration with respect to the donation of organs and tissue on death / Projet de loi 67, Loi

modifiant diverses lois pour exiger que soit faite une déclaration au sujet du don d'organes et de tissu au moment du décès.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm introducing this bill today in honour of Don Cousens, who is a former distinguished member of this House.

Don Cousens is also the current mayor of Markham, and he is a recipient of an organ transplant.

At last count, there were 1,920 people on the waiting list for an organ transplant in Ontario. Despite all of our good efforts, the number of Ontarians on the

waiting list for organ donation has virtually doubled since 1994, while the number of donors has remained almost unchanged. Ontario's donor rate is below the national average and far below the

best-performing province, namely, Quebec. There's a need to increase public awareness of the importance of organ donation to make people aware of the fact that they can save lives and reduce

suffering by registering as donors.

The Organ and Tissue Donation Mandatory Declaration Act, 2006, will require every individual who is at least 16 years of age to answer an organ donation

question when applying for or renewing a provincial health card or driver's licence. The organ donation question will be incorporated into the standard application form, and the legislation

provides that the question must be answered before the health card or the driver's licence is issued. There will be three responses to choose from in answering the question: yes, no, or

undecided.

By building this mandatory declaration into the application process for a driver's licence and health card, we will guarantee that the issue of organ donation

is considered by every Ontario resident on a regular basis. While requiring a mandatory declaration, this bill respects the right of every individual to make this very personal choice but also

ensures that everyone gives serious consideration to the opportunity they have to save a life.

I look forward to the debate of this bill in the Legislature and the subsequent public hearings, all of which will generate a broader public discussion on this

important issue. I'm hopeful that the final outcome will in fact be what is intended: increased public awareness of the fact that every individual has the gift of life to give, and that they will

be moved to give it.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing

order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 22, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will 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 1355 to 1400.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tory, John

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 54; the nays are 22.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. It seems, Premier, that there were some positive noises making their

way around the building this morning. In fact, according to Canadian Press, weeks of acrimony seemed to evaporate Wednesday. In light of the fact that we're 10 hours away from a threatened illegal

strike deadline that will affect many communities and families, I wonder whether you could give us a bit of an update on what is going on this morning.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm pleased to address the question, and I'm sure it's one that many

Ontarians are giving some thought to. First of all, I want to state that we look forward to moving ahead with the bill. We've worked long and hard to improve the quality of the bill over the course

of the past eight months.

Let me take the opportunity at the outset as well to thank CUPE workers for taking the day today to reflect. The bill was called for third reading yesterday,

but there is no job action that is taking place today. The reason I'm so optimistic is because I'm convinced that as more and more Ontarians, and CUPE workers in particular, gain a better

understanding of the substance of the bill, they'll understand that it does not compromise their rights, and that it's all about fundamentally giving control to the workers of a pension plan over

which only the provincial government has had control.

Mr. Tory: I think we'd all like to share in that encouragement and share in that optimism. I think we all hope that there's time to find some

common ground and avoid the illegal strike that we both oppose. Now, we know that there is really no need to rush this bill through the last stages in the House. There is no deadline. You have a

majority of members in the House, and we should be doing everything we can to reduce tensions and to provide the opportunity for that understanding that you just referred to to come about. So I

wonder if today, as

an act of good faith, you would commit to hold off on the passage of Bill 206 until next week, since it seems that all the signs in the building, in your own words, suggest that

there is a need for and perhaps a desirability of having a bit more time on this issue.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I cannot agree with the leader of the official opposition in this regard. We have made a commitment to Ontarians and we

intend to deliver on that commitment. We have taken all kinds of time and explored all possible opportunities to ensure that we had committee hearings after first reading and committee hearings

after second reading. We've had amendments introduced by all parties. We've adopted some amendments put forward by the other parties. I think we have done a lot of work in a collaborative way to

improve the quality of the bill. Now our responsibility is to move forward, and I am optimistic that we can do so in a way that will enable CUPE members to understand that this does not in any way

compromise their rights, including their right to negotiate enhanced benefits.

Mr. Tory: The Premier made mention in a number of previous answers on this question of the fact that the process had been followed, and how

important this was and so on, and yet it was deemed necessary to introduce a time allocation motion after only the leadoff speakers had been heard from on third reading, when normally I think there

might have been two or three sessional days allocated to this. I would ask you whether, for the betterment of the province and the stakeholders, the working families that will be affected by this

illegal strike, you might commit to a slightly extended timetable so that there could be some opportunity for this understanding you talked about to come about. The time allocation of this bill is

rushing it through in two days, when there is no deadline.

Now, if your party were to hold off until next week, I will commit to you, on behalf of the official opposition, that we will take not more than one sessional

day to complete the disposition of this bill for our part. I wonder if you might take that in good faith and consider putting this over until next week to allow more time for this understanding

that you talk about to come about.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, no, I cannot agree with the leader of the official opposition. We have devoted close to eight months to this

particular piece of legislation.

The Leader of the Opposition may want to cast his mind back to what his party did in years past. They refined time allocation to a fine art in this

Legislature. They would time-allocate without the benefit of committee hearings. We have had committee hearings after first reading and after second reading. We have entertained many proposals for

amendment. We have adopted some of those opposition amendments. We have greatly improved the quality of the bill, and we look forward now to moving ahead with it.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): New question?

Mr. Tory: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier and carrying on in the same light: In light of the fact that all of those amendments did take

place at second reading, at committee, it is precisely the reason that there is a third reading debate, so that people can come back to this House in committee of the whole or in the House as a

whole and have an opportunity to discuss what has happened with the bill and have an opportunity to have another discussion about it. In this case -- by the way, I should say that you condemned

time allocation at the time the previous government did it and now you're becoming a great time allocation artist yourself. But, having said that, why --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order. The Minister of Community and Social Services will come to order. The government House leader will come to

order.

Mr. Tory: Again, I don't know, Premier, why you seem so determined to be on a course which seems to be heading toward this illegal strike. In

e-mail after e-mail, interview after interview, the public say that they don't really know what this is about, but all they do know is that it's going to cause them great hardship and

inconvenience.

I say that the strike is illegal. Nobody wants it; it hurts people; nobody supports it. Why don't you try a different approach, which will cost maybe a few

days at most, after the eight months that has been invested, to head it off? You'll still get your bill passed at the end of the day, if you want it.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Just by way of contrast, the Conservative government time-allocated over 60% of their legislation; we've time-allocated

10%.

This is also noteworthy: In the last session of the Eves government, they didn't allow a single bill to have third reading debate -- not one. We will always

take the necessary time to ensure that there is full opportunity for legislators and for Ontarians to participate in important public debates. We have done that in the circumstance, and we will

continue to do that into the future.

Mr. Tory: We're dealing here yet again with an instance where you stood in your place on this side of the House at that time and condemned all

of that, and now you are saying, on an issue of great importance and potential hardship to families, communities and businesses across the province, that you are bringing in time allocation and you

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Minister of Finance.

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: It is obvious from watching the comments of the public, from just knowing the services that are proposed to be withdrawn, that it is

going to hurt the public -- hurt kids, hurt people needing care, hurt communities and so on. I don't know why, and I ask you again, for the sake of a couple of days -- I have told you and offered

today that we would take not more than one sessional day to complete debate on this if you put this off for a few days to allow this understanding that you talk about to increase and perhaps result

in some way of resolving this, other than through a strike. Why wouldn't you try it? What is the rush? What difference is it going to make whether it passes today, tomorrow or a week from tomorrow?

Can you tell us why it makes a difference?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, so Ontarians understand what we have devoted ourselves to to make sure we get this debate right: We've had two days

of debate; we've had 30 hours of committee debate over a period of 11 days; we have received 141 submissions; we've heard from 54 separate presenters; we have adopted many amendments, including

those put forward by the opposition. We think we have done justice not only to the bill itself and the subject matter that is found within the bill, but to important public debate. Now we feel a

responsibility to move forward with this, and we want to do that in a way that is always respectful of the process. That's what we will continue to do.

Mr. Tory: I would argue that the Premier and his government could respect the process even more if they allowed a simple few days extra, both

to have a continued debate in this House but also at the same time to see if there is any possibility at all that the two sides could find some way of resolving these issues, short of an illegal

strike that none of us support. How will another few hours matter after all the time you just talked about that we've spent debating this bill? I concede we have spent that time; you're absolutely

right. How will another few hours make a difference if there is any chance at all that it could head off an illegal strike? Why won't you even consider this idea, especially given that I have said

that we will not obstruct this going through on third reading if it comes back here, say, next week? Why won't you even consider it? Instead, you'd rather see us get to the hour of reckoning at

midnight tonight and have communities and people hurt by that. Why do you take that position?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, it is at the least interesting that the question is put by the representative of a party that time-allocated over

60% of its legislation. Again, I contrast that with our government, which has time-allocated a mere 10% of our legislation. I also want to remind the leader of the official opposition that in the

last session of the Eves government, they didn't allow a single bill to have third reading debate.

There does come a time when the government must exercise its responsibility to say that the time for debate has come to an end. This bill was introduced almost

eight months ago. It has gone through first and second committee hearings. A number of amendments have been put forward and a number of opposition amendments have in fact been adopted. We believe

we have this bill exactly where it should be in terms of its quality and we look forward to moving ahead.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Since your government first acknowledged that there was a problem in

Ontario's forest sector, on June 13, 2005, over 3,500 good-paying jobs have disappeared from pulp and paper mills in northern and central Ontario. In every case, when they announced the layoffs or

the closures, the management of the pulp and paper mills said, "Look, our major challenge is the high cost of electricity. We are paying two and three times the price for electricity that mills in

Quebec or Manitoba or British Columbia are paying."

Today's announcement, with all your fanfare, fanfare you've repeated in the past, did nothing for pulp and paper mills, did nothing about the prohibitively

high cost of electricity in Ontario. Premier, how many more jobs is the McGuinty government going to wipe out in pulp and paper mills before you address the real challenge, the real problem?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm pleased to take the question. I guess the leader of the third party,

the NDP, did not have the opportunity to observe the reaction of representatives of northern Ontario, including mayors and industry representatives. Perhaps it is summed up best by Jamie Lim in

response to our announcement this morning -- a $220-million announcement over three years -- who happens to be the president of the Ontario Forest Industries Association, when she said, "Today's

announcement is a home run by a government that has done more for the forest industry than any other government."

Mr. Hampton: I hardly call wiping out 3,500 good-paying jobs in a year and a half doing something for the forest sector, but let me tell you,

Premier, after you made an announcement last June that went nowhere, and after you made an announcement last September that did nothing, and after an announcement two weeks ago that did virtually

nothing, they're at least happy to have something. I acknowledge this may help sawmills, but this does nothing, absolutely nothing, for pulp mills and paper mills where thousands of jobs have been

destroyed and where more jobs are going to be lost.

Premier, the problem that pulp and paper mills have identified for you is the high cost of electricity in Ontario. When are you going to respond to the

challenge that is actually killing the jobs in the pulp and paper industry, your policy of driving electricity rates through the roof?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'll tell you in particular why the announcement we made this morning was so very well received: because, among other

things, what we said was that we're going to invest $47 million more to support the construction and maintenance costs of primary and secondary access roads. This funding is in addition to the

previously announced $28 million, for a total of $75 million annually. I can tell you why that is so important to the forestry sector: because since the early 1990s, they have been suffering under

the ill-advised policies of the former NDP government, which had downloaded the costs on to our industry. What we have done, and we were glad to do it, is to reverse that injustice and lend a

supporting hand to northern Ontario and the forestry sector.

Mr. Hampton: You might want to check your own budget statistics. The biggest cut to road maintenance and road construction funding was made by

a Liberal government between 1987 and 1990, a cut of $24 million, but something that happened 20 years ago is not responsible for the challenge that's being faced today.

The challenge today is this: Paper mills and pulp mills cannot afford to pay eight cents a kilowatt hour for electricity when competing mills in Quebec are

paying 3.5 cents, in Manitoba they are paying three cents, and in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, they are only paying four or five cents. They have said that to you over and over again. Your

announcement today had much fanfare, but it doesn't address the big issue which has killed 3,500 jobs and is going to kill more jobs.

When is the McGuinty government going to reverse your disastrous policy of driving electricity rates through the roof --

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

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I think it's important that we hear from Jamie Lim, president of the Ontario Forest Industries Association. She said

this morning, "It will pay huge returns for the people of this province in terms of jobs, the generation of wealth and tax contributions from the industry that annually exceed $1 billion."

This is what Greenstone mayor and president of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, Michael Power, had to say: "The government deserves to be

thanked and congratulated. The measures announced today will have positive effects on not just the north, but the entire province."

Don Campbell, vice-president and resident manager of Thunder Bay operations, Bowater: "The government's willingness to act on the Minister's Council on Forest

Sector Competitiveness' recommendation regarding road funding is a most positive and welcome step."

I always welcome the advice and constructive criticism from the leader of the NDP, but when it comes to who I can rely upon for what is happening on the front

lines, I'll take the words offered today by those people in the industry from northern Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: That wouldn't be Michael Power, former Liberal candidate, would it?

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, my next question is about your LHINs legislation. In the election, you promised to stand up

for medicare. In fact, just yesterday your health minister said your government believes in public delivery of health services. So I want to ask you, Premier, can you explain

section 33 of the

LHINs bill, the privatization clause which gives the health minister the unprecedented, draconian power to order hospitals to privatize important services like cleaning and food services?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I detect that there is a theme emerging which is being developed

carefully by the NDP with respect to our LHIN legislation, and we look forward to enjoying that in the days, weeks and months to come.

I know Ontarians are going to have a real interest in our LHIN legislation, but let me just say this: I would ask them, as well as the leader of the third

party, to keep in mind that we have invested $32.9 billion in health care in 2005-06. That's up 19% over the course of the last two years. We put in place funding for over 3,000 new full-time

nursing positions. Our first 100 new family health teams have been announced. We're expanding family medical residency spaces by 70% and med school spaces by 23%.

I could go on and on with the investments that we are making, which are symptomatic of our devotion to strong, good-quality public health care for the people

of Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, Premier, there is a theme to our questions. It's about your refusal to answer that question about your interest in private

delivery of health services, your interest in the greater privatization of health services, and your refusal to answer the question tells us a lot.

You may not think that cleaners and the people who prepare safe food in our hospitals are important, but I want to quote from the Registered Nurses Association

of Ontario: "To outsource housekeeping and other services with direct patient contact will be disastrous for our patients." It will have "a negative impact on infection control and on the health

and safety of patients and employees."

Premier, you promised to stand up for medicare. How do you justify ignoring health experts like nurses at the RNAO and proceeding down a road of hospital

service privatization --

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

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I appreciate so much the opportunity to answer that question from the

honourable member and to provide him with an opportunity in his final supplementary to stand in this House and say why it is that, during the days of the NDP government, ancillary services were

allowed to be privatized in hospital environments in the province of Ontario. Just like the question that he asked a moment ago about the forest industry sector, he likes to shrug off the reality

-- sad, for many -- that this party was the government in Ontario for five years and that they too have a record.

In the province of Ontario, across the breadth of almost 155 hospital corporations, something like 83% of them do reflect on the fact that some variety of

services in their hospital environments are provided by the private sector. The member speaks about so-called experts, and in my final opportunity, if one is provided, I will very gladly read a

quote to the honourable member.

Mr. Hampton: Once again, this is the Premier who said he was going to safeguard medicare, that there would not be more of a move to

privatization, that there would not be more of a move toward private delivery of health services, yet he and his minister both refuse to acknowledge that that's exactly what this

section of the

bill is all about.

Let me quote the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario again about

section 33 of your LHINs bill: "It seems incredible that we should have to remind any

government in Ontario about the importance of infection control in hospitals, given our experience with SARS.... A vital way to prevent infections ... is to adhere to stringent standards that can

only be met if people are trained to meet them and if workers know their workplace." These nurses don't want to see services like food services and cleaning handed out to private corporations that

are more interested in how much money they can make and less interested --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: If that's the case, then one wonders why the honourable member allowed the same thing to happen at St. Thomas-Elgin

General Hospital, at the Trillium Health Centre, at Halton health care and at Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital.

The member wants to know about our values with respect to public health care. They are there in the

preamble of the bill, in the Commitment to the Future of

Medicare Act, commitment to the Canada Health Act and the things that we've done: repatriated MRIs from the private sector, community health centres, family health teams, midwives, newborn

screening. These are our commitments to a public health care system.

Here's what Roy Romanow said: "At a minimum, I believe governments must draw a clear line between direct health services ... and ancillary ones.... The former

should be delivered primarily through our public, not-for-profit system, while the latter could be the domain of private providers" -- advice that, apparently, that member accepted when he was in

power.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, I raised with you the issue of the importance of public

services that may appear to be compromised in this province as a result of Bill 206. Yesterday, you indicated that there was no role for you, as Minister of Health, to ensure that the important

health services that vulnerable Ontarians have come to rely on are not at risk. In fact, you indicated that we're operating on the basis of independent governance.

Minister, you made no contact with the long-term-care association for seniors in those homes. You made no contact with home care providers in this province to

determine if there is any risk. So I'm asking you today, have you or your ministry come up with any kind of plan, a contingency plan, and have you been in contact with those services that Ontarians

rely on, not only in our hospitals but with our ambulance services in the province of Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Now the honourable member has got himself to the circumstance where he

believes that it is those services provided by CUPE workers in provincial environments that are subject to these circumstances. He speaks about hospitals. There are no municipal CUPE employees

providing services in our hospitals, to the very best of my knowledge.

Accordingly, I think the honourable member's question goes a little further than the reach of the job action that has been threatened.

I did not in any way suggest what the honourable member has attributed to me. What I did say was that organizations -- municipal service providers -- that have

relationships with their organized labour have built-in contingencies related to these challenges. And no, it's true, we haven't been involved in dealing with associations; we've been involved in

dealing on the front line with direct health care providers. Regional ministry offices and senior staff at the ministry have been working with those direct service providers that might have

implications from the threatened job action.

Mr. Jackson: The minister assured us of this yesterday. Evidence was brought forward, clearly, that he had not. We're supposed to rely on

faith. Let me say this: The CUPE locals in Halton region have indicated that they will not go on strike, but last week they served notice that they will create job actions and work to rule in the

Halton region.

This week, there was a meeting of seniors at an event in our community. One senior collapsed completely with laboured breathing, was unconscious and was in a

high degree of risk. The place where this occurred called 911 and was put on hold for 10 minutes because the operator insisted on speaking to someone who could accurately describe the condition of

the woman, who was very clearly in difficulty. A retired nurse who was in the room came to the phone, but they were still on hold. It took 25 minutes for an ambulance to arrive.

Minister, this is your ministry, your responsibility for the health care of Ontarians, and I'm asking you again to give this House evidence that you have a

contingency plan, that you have an awareness and an understanding that --

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

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The contingency plans the honourable member speaks of are a matter of due course and of legislative requirement of the

very service providers he's talking about. He asks as if we plan only on the week of a threatened labour circumstance, and the answer is no. At all times, it is the requirement of these

organizations involved in direct delivery to have appropriately developed and filed contingency plans. This was a matter of course during the days when that member was a minister as well.

Accordingly, of course, through our regional offices, through the ministry's emergency management unit, we've been involved with direct service providers,

seeking to make certain that their work with respect to contingencies has been properly developed. But I reassert, this is not a matter of attention over the course of just the last few days. This

is the kind of attention that is drawn to these matters on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, there are a variety of threats and concerns that could be out there making contingency plans necessary over

a wide variety of ideas.

The Speaker: New question?

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Premier. For the last few days, we've urged you to take a step back and work with

stakeholders on solutions to the OMERS fiasco you've created. We're concerned about the confrontational action you've decided to take in the last 24 hours that could increase the tension: serving

notice that you'll cut off debate on Bill 206 after just one day of third reading debate. In opposition, you said that time allocation diminished our democratic institutions. So why are you

invoking time allocation now, right when working families are counting on their democratic institutions the most?

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

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. Let's just review the

situation once again. The question relating to OMERS devolution has been on the government's agenda, both this government's and the last government's, for at least the last 10 years. There are over

950 employers on the employer side and something like 50 unions and labour associations on the other side. Getting 100% unanimity on any devolution simply is not possible. It's proven to be

impossible over the last 10 years. Yet at the same time, we have come up with a bill that takes into consideration many of the different points of view that have been brought forward, many of the

representations. We've had legislative hearings. The time has come that this bill should come to a vote. But it's a fair bill. It does not touch the pensions of pensioners, and it fully respects

what both the employers and the employees put into the plan, and they should be running the plan.

Ms. Horwath: Back to the Premier: The question was about your desire to cut off debate on this bill. In opposition, your finance minister

called time allocation an attempt to stifle debate. Your Attorney General called it antidemocratic and debate-killing. I guess for McGuinty Liberals what you say depends on where you sit. This is

an important piece of legislation, Premier. Many different Ontarians have serious concerns about it, but you're cutting off the debate. If time allocation was wrong back then, why is it okay

now?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I don't like to dwell on ancient history, but at the same time, sometimes it's useful. It was actually that party, when it

was in power, that started to use time allocation on a regular basis in this House on some very crucial bills such as, for example, the social contract. That system was perfected by the previous

government, which had time allocation on 60% of the bills. We don't like to use time allocation. We've only used it 10% of the time, which is a low over the last 15 years.

There comes a time, though, when there has been debate on a particular issue for more than 10 years in one way or another and on this actual bill for more than

eight months, that it's time to call for a vote. Again, it is a bill that's totally fair to the contributors, to the municipalities and to the pensioners concerned.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Stoney Creek.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My question is also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and it is on the issue that has

dominated this House this week and has been a concern for many people in this province and many people in my constituency.

I've received a number of calls from pensioners, retirees, who are worried about their pensions. These are retirees who have dedicated their life -- as in

firefighters, policemen, school boards, in our libraries, in children's aid societies, in our municipal governments -- and they are worried. They have been told that they should be worried about

their pensions, that they are now in jeopardy, that they are going to be harmed. These individuals have worked very hard for far too long to be told that they are now going to be short-changed,

that something is going to change, that something is shifting under them. Can you please assure us that these people will have a voice and that their pensions are not in jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I'd like to thank the member from Stoney Creek for asking that question, because in this whole debate, the real

unfortunate aspect is the myth that has been promoted by some parties that somehow, individual pensions of pensioners who are currently receiving these pensions are being affected. Nothing can be

further from the truth. The plan will go on, the day after this bill is passed and after the new sponsors corporation and the administrative corporation have been set up, in exactly the same way as

it has before. No pension is affected. As a matter of fact, for the first time pensioners will have a voting right on both the sponsors corporation, which sets out the various benefits, and the

administrative corporation, which deals with the management and the investment of the fund. That's for the first time ever. Pensions simply are not affected at all for either current pensioners or

for future pensioners.

Ms. Mossop: The other thing we've often heard about is that this bill has moved too quickly through the Legislature. It was introduced June 1

of last year. That was eight months ago. Most bills proceed through this Legislature by being referred to a standing committee after second reading, and I understand this bill took a different

route. There's been concern that all the stakeholders have not been consulted, that people have not been heard on this issue. If this bill is passed, it would give control of the OMERS pension plan

to those workers and their employers who pay into it. What steps have we taken to make sure that everybody has been consulted, that this is fully thought out and there is a fair process in place

for OMERS members?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Again, the discussions on this started over 10 years ago. The OMERS board came up with the report in 2002 and informal

discussions have taken place with many of the stakeholders over a long period of time as well. But when you talk about the actual debates that have taken place on the bill, the member is quite

correct. It took place after both first reading and second reading. There were legislative hearings at both of those times. They went on for a long period of time. Just about every stakeholder on

all sides of the issue, on both the employer and employee side, has had an opportunity to express their concern. As a result of that, a number of amendments were made that actually made the bill

better. It's a fair bill for all concerned. It's fair to the pensioners, fair to the employers and fair to the employees.

DEADSTOCK INDUSTRY

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Your government's

continued failure to recognize the challenges in rural Ontario is setting the stage for a potential contamination disaster. You know that the BSE border closing has eliminated the export market for

deadstock removal operators. You know that deadstock pickup charges to farmers have already doubled. Carcasses are already being pulled out of rivers and ditches, a situation that our agricultural

critic will tell you is about to get worse.

Minister, you already abdicated your responsibility to the farmers when you allowed the transfer of nutrient management and source water protection to the

Ministry of the Environment, but you still have to deal with deadstock. To what extent are deadstock animals contaminating the water?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): First of all, I would like to remind the member that with respect to

the Nutrient Management Act, it was Justice O'Connor who very appropriately identified that that act should be carried by the Ministry of the Environment. Our government is committed to O'Connor,

and that is why that move was made.

With respect to the deadstock situation in Ontario, I would say to the honourable member -- and I think it's important that it has been raised in the

Legislature today; it's probably not recognized as the important service it truly is in rural Ontario, as it should be -- that a number of years ago, the deadstock industry was one that could make

money, but after BSE, the products of meat rendering and carcasses were no longer cost-efficient or cost-productive for farmers. So the government did establish a program that would pay out --

we've spent about $4.3 million to support the deadstock, plus --

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

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Minister, you mentioned money. The extension of transitional funding for deadstock under your

watch appears to be dead in the water. Companies say they're forced to shut down if provincial dollars disappear. That leaves deadstock on farms, which jacks up the risk of BSE and water

contamination. Two colts were found dead on the side of the road just west of me. Is this the future of deadstock under your government?

We are concerned. Laurie Scott is concerned. Ernie Hardeman, Joe Tascona and Bill Murdoch are all getting calls. Minister, the question is, will you extend the

financial support required to sustain the deadstock industry?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: Again, I think it's very important to clarify that when support was introduced for the deadstock industry, it was

because there was a crisis after BSE when the market for the product plummeted. Our government has put $5.3 million toward the industry, with the very clear expectation that by working with the

Ontario Cattlemen's Association and renderers in the province, we would be able to achieve both a short-term and a long-term solution. I continue to work with those stakeholders so that we can have

some dollars provided for the short term so that deadstock removal people can continue the service in their communities, as well as working with the industry to ensure that we have a more

sustainable plan for managing this waste within our rural communities for the future.

HYDRO GENERATION

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Tonight, concerned citizens in the east end of Toronto will be

meeting to discuss a mega power plant that Dalton McGuinty wants to dump on our waterfront. We have presented any number of alternatives, but instead, you and the McGuinty Liberals are imposing a

solution that no one in our community can accept -- not the mayor, not the council, not the waterfront corporation, not Toronto Hydro, not the citizens and not the neighbourhood. Minister, the

community is meeting tonight. Do you plan to go in defence of your misguided plans?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I'm pleased to respond to the member from Beaches-East York. The Independent Electricity System

Operator identified that, by the year 2008, Toronto would be subject to rolling blackouts. This is a large, international, cosmopolitan city that, when it was half the population, had 1,200

megawatts of power. Today at double the population, it has no power generation. The Ontario Power Authority owns the particular piece of property where we will be putting this. We have made a

decision to keep that property in the hands of the people of Ontario, who own it, not to give half the property, transferred at no cost, to Florida Power and Light. This is the same party that in

fact would require us to waive an environmental assessment in order to support the proponent he is supporting.

Mr. Prue: Minister, I suppose that's the answer you want me to take to them tonight. I'll be pleased to take it on your behalf. There are

reasonable solutions that are both cost-effective and environmentally friendly and achieve the objective of keeping the lights on in Toronto and in Ontario for years to come. It's not too late for

you to say you have made a mistake. It's not too late for you to say you will look at the other alternatives, especially when everyone in the community is united in opposition to you. Will you stop

the mega power plant tonight, and can I tell the people who are going to be there that you have a real plan to invest in a conservation strategy that is a proven winner?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: Yes, I do have a plan: I plan to keep the lights on for the people in Toronto, and I plan to keep that asset in the hands

of the people of Ontario. We have put in place over 300 megawatts of requirement in terms of demand-side management in addition to the 550 megawatts that are required by 2010. There is no question

that we have to have rigour on the generation side and on the conservation side. It is neither one nor the other; it is both working together on behalf of the people of this city in order that they

can be prevented from having rolling blackouts. I do not see nor understand why that particular party is continuing to perpetuate keeping the lights off. We're going to keep them on.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough-Rouge River): My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Last week, I was pleased to hear from

Minister Chambers when she announced the youth opportunities strategy that will fund community-based programs, to not only provide opportunities for youth, but equally important, offer hope as

well. I understand the frustration many youth endure, as many young people in my riding feel they do not have the opportunity to gain meaningful experience to help achieve their full potential. I'm

wondering, as one of Ontario's largest employers, how is the Ontario public service contributing to initiatives to help youth with employment opportunities?

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): I welcome the question from my good friend and colleague the member from

Scarborough-Rouge River. You're right. The minister announced the youth opportunities strategy last week. I'm pleased to say that on behalf of all of us, the Ontario public service is playing its

role in this program. We've launched a pilot project. We call it the OPS -- Ontario public service -- learn and work pilot program. It involves 20 young people who had left school without a

diploma. We've encouraged them to come back and we have found employment for them in three areas in the Ontario public service. They'll be working in some administrative roles, working with senior

citizens and at the Ontario Science Centre. I think it's a good, new, positive learning and work experience. I might add that we very much appreciate the co-operation of OPSEU, our union, which is

participating in this program.

Mr. Balkissoon: From what I know about this program, it is obvious that young people will benefit greatly from these employment opportunities

with the Ontario public service. The lesson these youths will gain from this experience cannot be underestimated.

Although I see the benefit in getting kids work experience, I believe education is also key to their development. Without the educational component to

accompany the experience they would get on the job, I believe their potential will not be fully realized. How is the government, with this pilot project, helping youth achieve their educational

goals and thereby helping youth to reach their full potential?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: As I say, the program is called "learn and work," so both components are in it. I talked earlier about the work component.

This is a pilot project. One high school in the city of Toronto is participating in it. They selected the 20 students. But the 20 students will also be participating in a learning experience. Every

two weeks, they will be taking an academic course. They're taking a three-week course. At the end of 18 weeks, they will have completed four course credits as well as the paid work experience. I

think it's a terrific pilot project.

We have engaged a co-op education teacher to help coordinate this. It's a pilot in one school. Our hope is that it will work well, and I think it will. It's

the kind of pilot project that we will be able to expand across the province in conjunction with the minister, who announced the youth opportunities program last week.

I'm very pleased with the program, and I appreciate the co-operation of everyone in the Ontario public service.

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Health. It's a rare occasion when honourable members can find common ground on

an issue in this place. I hope that today we find that common ground in the private member's bill that I introduced earlier today. The purpose of that bill is to ensure that the awareness of organ

donation and the opportunity for individuals in this province to make an election regarding their intent is heightened. I hope to hear from you today your personal view as Minister of Health in

terms of support for the direction of that bill.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think the honourable member is on very good ground to say that there is

common ground amongst members on the desire to increase the supply of donated organs and tissue in our province. We know that our loved ones -- some of them -- pass on and very, very good organs go

unharvested because people have not necessarily agreed to make those available. The honourable member's proposal and the one that we have seen again more recently from the member from Niagara

Centre are all very powerful in the important role of conversation and discussion because it is such a highly personal matter.

For my own part, I've been clear in saying that I'm very supportive of initiatives that are going to have certain implication in enhancing the supply of organs

and tissue. For now, though, these two honourable members have brought forward bills. We look forward to having them called and to the members in this place engaging in that discussion, with a view

not only to informing all of us better but informing Ontarians and encouraging them to give the gift of life.

Mr. Klees: Thank you, Minister, for that encouragement. As you know, there are some 1,920 people on the waiting list for organ transplants in

Ontario. The waiting list has effectively doubled since 1994 and the number of available donors has remained relatively the same, so we do have a crisis in organ donation in this province. I'm

hopeful that when this bill does come to debate in the House, we'll have broad support; more importantly, that we then have the support of you, Minister, and your government to move this forward

into meaningful public discussion through the standing committee, so that we can, in fact, ensure that we put in place the right mechanisms to ensure that the issue of this long waiting list of

people who are dying waiting for an organ can be resolved in this province.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I thank the honourable member again. We look to our friends at the Trillium Gift of Life Network to give us some

independent analysis of the various proposals that are out there, to help to guide us in our undertakings around this issue.

As Minister of Health, I feel many pressures operationally to support services here and there. I've been proud that we've been able to enhance funding to

support more organ donations. I suppose that amongst the list of pressures, this is one that I would further invite. We know that if we can encourage a higher degree of our population to contribute

to make this ultimate gift of life, accordingly, many of our loved ones will live on.

I think our government would stand firmly on the side of saying that this is an operational pressure which we very much would like the opportunity to enhance

funding around. Accordingly, we look forward to the discussion. It's really important that as MPPs we all take the opportunity to engage citizens in our local communities about the issues and the

law and also about the necessity of signing the card.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. In 2003, you and your party campaigned on a platform

of 60% waste diversion from landfills. You're nowhere near meeting that goal and, in fact, you have no plan at all for waste management. Instead of taking action on waste diversion, your government

is pushing an expansion of the Richmond dump on the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, the township of Tyendinaga and the residents of Greater Napanee. Will you stand today and tell the Mohawks and

residents of Tyendinaga township and Greater Napanee that the Richmond landfill expansion application will be withdrawn?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I know that the member knows very well that the Richmond landfill is in the context and

in the process of an environmental assessment at this point. Obviously, that process is underway. Community members have had an opportunity to speak to that issue. The public and ministry review of

the proposed landfill is now underway. The materials are before the ministry. I encourage all Ontarians to participate in that important process.

Mr. Prue: The important process I would like you to participate in is to do something to divert waste from landfills. You have no plan for

tires. You have no plan for used oil. You have no plan for e-waste. You have no plan for anything. Your lack of action to divert waste now threatens the groundwater and surface water of the Mohawks

of the Bay of Quinte, Tyendinaga township and Greater Napanee. It makes a total mockery of your promise to protect source water.

The residents from the region are here today. My question to you is, will you stand up for source water protection and deep-six the Richmond dump expansion

immediately?

Hon. Ms. Broten: I have to tell the member opposite that there is no government in the history of this province that has done more to protect

source water in this province. The issues dealing with the Richmond landfill site are before the ministry. There have been two public comment periods in place. My ministry takes very seriously the

concerns that have been raised. Those will be fully examined in the context of an EA process, which is a very important and critical process to raise serious environmental issues. That process is

well underway.

With respect to waste management in this province, you know full well that this ministry continues to work very closely with municipalities right across this

province. At the OGRA/ROMA meetings this week, I heard from municipalities that are reaching a 60% to 80% diversion. We're learning from those communities and bringing those best practices into

other communities. We will, together, work with municipalities as we move forward, because we all know that the best thing with respect to waste management is to divert more of that waste from the

waste stream. But at the end of the day, there will always be residual waste and --

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The people of my riding were very

pleased to hear that the McGuinty government has continued its efforts to reform social assistance and has made ODSP changes that will help recipients and their families move toward securing

long-term jobs.

These changes were endorsed by Community Living, and in a release on the day you made an announcement, President Garry Cooke said, "People want to work but

many can't afford to risk losing their ODSP income support while they try to establish themselves in the workforce. The new rules and exemptions make it easier to look for work to stay

employed."

Minister, you have been able to make significant policy changes that serve to help those on social assistance and take away the disincentives that the previous

government used to keep those on welfare staying on welfare. Can you please tell this House what exactly the changes are --

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

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

member for London-Fanshawe. It is always a pleasure to stand up and tell more good news on how we're changing a system to actually help people who are on social assistance move into the

workplace.

Let me start with just two items: First, people who are on our disability pension program will now be able to access employment services unavailable to them in

the past. That's important. They can get assistance to move into the workplace. Second, some of those rules the last government initiated actually prevent people, are actually a disincentive to

seeking employment. We've changed the rules, have thrown out the dumb rules and have replaced them with easy-to-understand rules that say this: "The more you earn, the more you keep." This is

essential so people will have an incentive to get out there if they can and, work if they can.

Mr. Ramal: Thank you, Minister. I know that different groups have been advocating for a social assistance wage increase. While a wage increase

is an important part of restoring our social assistance system, it's clear that we are moving ahead with other areas that are certainly just as important. This announcement shows that with the many

incentives for those living with a disability who are able to find work, they will be able to keep more of their earnings. The disabled community has been asking for these changes for some time.

However, there remains a concern out there that if someone on disability goes off ODSP, they will lose their health care benefits. Minister, how will they be able to take care of their health needs

if they're employed?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I can tell you about all of the consultation we've had with people who are actually on the system. They tell us what the

huge disincentives have been. One of the largest has been the fear of losing those drug benefits if they take the opportunity to work when it might be available. We've changed that so that today

individuals, when this goes into place, will be able to keep those health-related benefits, when the opportunity for a job comes along, until they can access the company benefits. This is extremely

well received by people on our system. We know that it can work for them.

In addition to that, we've added essential benefits to help them make that leap into the workforce, increasing that work-related benefit, for example,

increasing the deductions for things like child care, an automatic $100 work-related benefit, just for taking a stab at full-time work. Let me say this: We're proud of the work we've done. We're

proud of those who are on our system who are willing to get out there and try.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Minister of Health. I was contacted by a lady by the name of Shirley

Ravary. A matter of great concern was raised by her with regard to her treatment at a health treatment clinic in Cornwall, the Centre de santé communautaire de l'Estrie in Cornwall. She

approached it for treatment and was spoken to in French. When she replied that she could not speak French, she was told to go to another clinic, that she could not be treated there.

Minister, this clinic has indicated that they serve both anglophones and francophones, and this woman was turned down on the basis that she could not speak the

language. Your ministry has said that it's okay to turn them down as long as the illness is not serious. However, she was never seen by a doctor. Could you answer that please, Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): There's a lot in there that I think is in need of some illumination. Firstly,

community health centres are not where you go if you are in an emergency circumstance. If the woman in Cornwall had an emergency circumstance, presumably she would know to go to the hospital. A

community health centre is primarily focused on primary care. They don't operate on a clinic basis, they operate on an appointment basis, and they're community governed. All across the province of

Ontario, your government not so much, other parties in this House have supported the community health centre movement, which is self-governed and allows them to target very specifically populations

with underlying health circumstances that are particularly negative.

In the Cornwall case, that means that the francophone community there has experienced particular challenges with access to health care. That's why they have in

the past been awarded a community health centre. In the supplementary I'll give the honourable member a little bit more information.

Mr. Yakabuski: When this health centre requested support from the community, they made it clear that they would serve people in both

languages. The lady in question has indicated to me that the director of the health centre, when approached by her husband, who spoke to him -- her husband, Marcel, is French-speaking, by the way.

When he spoke to the director, Mr. Bisson, he was told, "Well, if your wife is anglophone, you can't come here either." Now, Minister, I think it is very important, and the people of Ontario should

understand, that health services should be based on need, not the language someone speaks. Can you assure the House that is how health care is and will be delivered in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Let's put some more facts on the record. This woman, this individual the honourable member speaks about, has a doctor,

and in fact the doctor she has a relationship with in his family practice also serves part of the time as an employee of the health centre, providing medical services. She went there and demanded

to see her doctor, rather than following the route where their relationship was established.

Yes, of course, we need to have a health care system that responds to people's health needs, but we also need to have a health care system that is able to

target those underlying health circumstances we know to be particularly problematic. That's what community health centres are about.

In the Cornwall community, we're in the midst, because we've announced it and are building it, of an additional community health care centre to better service

the needs of the people in that community. But I believe this individual has received appropriate care from the health care system, had a relationship with a doctor that she chose to try to work in

a different way. I continue to support, and I believe everybody should, the community health centre movement, particularly the self-governing element of it, which is designed to try and make sure

that those who have greater challenges --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. This more than completes the time allocated for oral questions.

PETITIONS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to read a petition on behalf of my constituents as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas without appropriate support, people who have an intellectual disability are often unable to participate effectively in community life and are deprived

of the benefits of society enjoyed by other citizens; and

"Whereas quality supports are dependent on the ability to attract and retain qualified workers; and

"Whereas the salaries of workers who provide community-based supports and services are up to 25% less than salaries paid to those doing the same work in

government-operated services and other sectors;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to address, as a priority, funding to community agencies in the developmental

services sector to address critical underfunding of staff salaries and ensure that people who have an intellectual disability continue to receive quality supports and services that they require in

order to live meaningful lives within their community."

I'm pleased to submit this to Sarah, one of the new legislative pages.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to introduce this petition to the House. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario's health insurance plan does not cover the cost of PSA (prostate specific antigen) test as an early method of detection for

prostate cancer in men;

"Whereas mammogram tests for women are fully covered by the Ontario insurance plan for early detection of breast cancer and PSA test for men is only covered

once the physician suspects prostate cancer,

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

"We support Bill 4. We believe PSA testing should be covered as an insured service by the Ontario health insurance program. Prostate cancer is the most

commonly diagnosed cancer in Canadian men. At least one in every eight Canadian men is expected to develop the disease in their lifetime. Some five million Canadian men are currently at risk in

their prostate-cancer-risk years, which are between the ages of 45 and 70. For many seniors and low-income earners, the cost of the test would buy up to a week's worth of groceries for some

individuals."

I'm pleased to support this and put my signature to it.

PORT COLBORNE GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm very pleased to table some 4,139 names on behalf of Sharon Hamm, a hard-working volunteer in Port Colborne,

to reopen the critical care unit beds at Port Colborne General Hospital. I want to congratulate Sharon on her work. The petition is brief, and reads:

"Please show you care and sign this petition to reopen our CCU at the Port Colborne hospital. The Niagara health system claims there is not enough staff to

keep the unit open. What are we to do when there are no other beds available at another hospital? People before profits."

In support of Mrs. Hamm's petition, I proudly sign my name as well.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): I want to read a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and signed by hundreds of Ontarians.

"Whereas, without appropriate support, people who have an intellectual disability are often unable to participate effectively in community life and are

deprived of the benefits of society enjoyed by other citizens; and

"Whereas quality supports are dependent on the ability to attract and retain qualified workers; and

"Whereas the salaries of workers who provide community-based supports and services are up to 25% less than salaries paid to those doing the same work in

government-operated services and other sectors;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to address as a priority, funding to community agencies in the developmental

services sector to address critical underfunding of staff salaries and ensure that people who have an intellectual disability continue to receive quality supports and services that they require in

order to live meaningful lives within their community."

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have here a petition signed by a great many of my constituents, and obviously, from the petition previously

read, a great many constituents around the province.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, without appropriate support, people who have an intellectual disability are often unable to participate effectively in community life and are

deprived of the benefits of society enjoyed by other citizens; and

"Whereas quality supports are dependent on the ability to attract and retain qualified workers; and

"Whereas the salaries of workers who provide community-based supports and services are up to 25% less than salaries paid to those doing the same work in

government-operated services and other sectors;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to address, as a priority, funding to community agencies in the developmental

services sector to address critical underfunding of staff salaries and ensure that people who have an intellectual disability continue to receive quality supports and services that they require in

order to live meaningful lives within their community."

I affix my signature, as I agree with this petition.

CHILD CARE

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

"Whereas the province and territories negotiated agreements with the federal government to ensure Canadians would have access to early learning and child care

programs that are high-quality, affordable, universally, inclusive and developmental;

"Whereas parents in Ontario have demonstrated a high demand for greater access to high-quality early learning and child care programs;

regulated child care spaces in the first three years;

"Whereas Ontario's early learning and child care agreement represents a $1.9-billion investment over five years in high-quality early learning and child

care;

Ontario's early learning and child care agreement, for the sake of thousands of Ontario families who would benefit from it."

I want to sign my name underneath it.

SPECIAL CARE HOMES

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

"Whereas hundreds of vulnerable adults live in homes for special care that provide them a warm and secure, stable and friendly environment which allows them to

lead fulfilling lives; and

"Whereas the alternative for many of these individuals is a life of homelessness on the street; and

"Whereas special care homes have had only a single 3% increase since 1999, which in no way matches the rising costs they face; and

"Whereas the Liberal government promised Ontario in the election that they would `significantly increase supportive housing options for those suffering from

mental illness';

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the government to bring in an immediate increase in funding to homes for special care."

As I am in complete agreement, I've affixed my signature to this petition and will be giving it to Sarah.

MACULAR DENGENERATION

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to introduce the following petition to the assembly, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario's health insurance plan covers treatments for one form of macular degeneration (wet), there are other forms of macular

degeneration (dry) that are not covered,

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

"There are thousands of Ontarians who suffer from macular degeneration, resulting in loss of sight if treatment is not pursued. Treatment costs for this

disease are astronomical for most constituents and add a financial burden to their lives. Their only alternative is loss of sight. We believe the government of Ontario should cover treatment for

all forms of macular degeneration through the Ontario health insurance program."

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

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I've been receiving a number of the following petitions from across Ontario. This one specifically came from Gladys

Bates in Barrie, and I will read it for the record and support it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Honourable Michael Bryant is minister responsible for democratic renewal; and

"Whereas the Honourable Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, is elected to safeguard our justice system on behalf of the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Attorney General may not be aware of the serious and important issues facing individuals involved in the areas of justice, even

though the Attorney General's ministry is continually monitoring the system;

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

"That the Honourable Michael Bryant, Attorney General, be requested to do an in-depth investigation of the Ontario judicial system and make the public aware of

his findings."

I'm pleased to sign this on behalf of the people of Ontario.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as

follows:

"Whereas Ontario farmers are facing difficulties in earning their living and supporting their families;

"Whereas urban residents, such as those in Toronto, count on a reliable food supply from Ontario farmers; and

"Whereas farming is an integral part of the Ontario economy;

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

"To ensure that Ontario farmers are supported so that all residents can count on a reliable, well-priced, safe food supply for all Ontario residents."

This petition was prepared by Sonny Sansone of my riding. I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

HIGHWAY 35

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): "Highway 35 four-laning

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines to communities across Ontario and crucial to the growth of Ontario's economy; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has been planning the expansion of Highway 35, and that expansion has been put on hold by the McGuinty government;

and

"Whereas Highway 35 provides an important economic link in the overall transportation system -- carrying commuter, commercial and high tourist volumes to and

from the Kawartha Lakes area and Haliburton; and

"Whereas the final round of public consultation has just been rescheduled;

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

"That the Liberal government move swiftly to complete the four-laning of Highway 35 after the completion of the final public consultation."

I thank the businesses in the area for supporting this.

CHILD CARE

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

"Whereas the provinces and territories negotiated agreements with the federal government to ensure Canadians would have access to early learning and child care

programs that are high-quality, affordable, universally inclusive and developmental;

"Whereas parents in Ontario have demonstrated a high demand for greater access to high-quality early learning and child care programs;

regulated child care spaces in the first three years;

"Whereas Ontario's early learning and child care agreement represents a $1.9-billion investment over five years in high-quality early learning and child

care;

Ontario's early learning and child care agreement, for the sake of thousands of Ontario families who would benefit from it."

I submit this petition and I put my signature on it as well.

FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to respond to this petition:

"Whereas Bill 213, Justice Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, enacted the Limitations Act, 2002, which provides for a reduction in the legal limitation period,

from six years to two years;

"Whereas the two-year limitation period in effect from January 1, 2004, is not long enough for investors seeking restitution after suffering serious financial

damages due to the wrongdoing of the financial services industry; and

"Whereas the Attorney General's position is that the plaintiff investor interests do not need further protection;

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

"That the provincial government immediately pass and implement an amendment to the Limitations Act, 2002, to provide an exemption for claims by victims of

financial services industry wrongdoing so that no time limitation period applies to such claims."

I'm pleased to sign and support this, and present it to Matthew, one of the pages here at the Legislative Assembly.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): Similar to the last petition, I have another one, which reads:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario farmers are facing difficulties in earning their living and supporting their families;

"Whereas urban residents, such as those in Toronto, count on a reliable food supply from Ontario farmers; and

"Whereas farming is an integral part of the Ontario economy;

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

"To ensure that Ontario farmers are supported so that all residents can count on a reliable, well-priced, safe food supply for all Ontario residents."

I agree with this petition. I affix my signature to it and give it to page Yasmeen.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOCAL HEALTH SYSTEM

INTEGRATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'INTÉGRATION

DU SYSTÈME DE SANTÉ LOCAL

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 21, 2006, on the motion for third reading of Bill 36,

An Act to provide for the integration of the local system for

the delivery of health services / Projet de loi 36, Loi prévoyant l'intégration du système local de prestation des services de santé.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): On the last occasion, the member from Nickel Belt was in the process of giving her speech. She may

resume.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): When I finished up last night, I was talking about cutthroat bidding and how the Liberal government has done

nothing to end cutthroat bidding in home care, despite how chaotic it has been and how it's very clear -- because they refused to pass an amendment that I placed in this regard -- that cutthroat

bidding will now be extended to all of those services that the LHINs are going to have responsibility for.

I want to read two more presentations into the record, just to show how chaotic and how destructive this has been.

This presentation came from Madeleine Lebrun, in Ottawa, who didn't have a written presentation and spoke from the heart. She was very articulate and very

moving. Let me just read some of what she had to say:

"I'm Madeleine Lebrun. I'm with SEIU and with Red Cross home care. I've been hurt by the bids. Please try to understand, it's very emotional for me to talk

about it, because I've been with the Red Cross for 20 years. In 1998, when Harris came into power, they introduced the bid. We used to be 500 members. We used to go in in the morning and we'd stay

four hours with a client. We had time to give them a decent bath. We had time to feed them.... We had time to do housekeeping, maybe light, but anyway, we did. The people felt special and we

treated them as special, with respect and dignity. But Harris, when that government came in, took that away from them and took that away from me, because now I have to go in, sometimes at 7

o'clock, wake up that client, `Get up and go for a shower now,' when she's not ready. If I try to be nice, coax and beg -- sometimes I almost have to shove that person in the shower because I have

to be out of there within an hour and I have another client that's waiting for me. That's the sad part.

"You want to introduce bids? You want to degrade people? That's what it comes down to. Right now, we're down to 55 members in Red Cross. Is that fair? No....

Do I make a lot of money? No; I make $12 an hour, and I'm not even sure if I have a job tomorrow. My hours could go up; my hours could go down. Why do I do it? Because I love it. I love the people

and I think they deserve more than that. When people are sitting in the office -- I'm talking about the heart right now -- making judgements, making decisions without even walking in their shoes,

that's not fair. That's not fair at all. I have to bid. Every three years I have to go up in front of a stranger again and offer my service again. I'm 55. I'm tired. I'm exhausted from selling

myself to the lowest bid all the time....

"Again, I have to beg you, please don't go for the bids, because people do not understand. If my sister and brother have to go through what I went through, you

won't have any more home care. You won't have anybody who wants to work for a hospital. Why? Because it's not worth it. The lowest bid all the time? I don't have benefits; I don't have a pension.

I've got nothing. But I do have a heart. Is that recognized?" No. "Nobody cares."

"When we lose a bid, we have to give our clients to another agency. In the process of doing that, there are missed visits, up to six weeks. I know; I visit

those people. Why was it not reported? They're afraid that you might take away their service. That's the sad part. Do they have a voice in this LHIN? Do [I] have a voice" in this LHIN?

"When the other bids came in, Red Cross lost the bid. Everybody cried. We didn't want to go to the other agency because we were well treated by Red Cross. The

other agency didn't have an office. That lady was doing her work from the basement. I remember going in one time -- they finally found an office -- and they had a big box and all the clients in

there. `You want to work? Pick your client up.' Where's the confidentiality in there? There was none. Did somebody come and look at it? People don't care, and it's about time we start caring."

One final presentation from the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario with respect to cutthroat bidding: "Ontario's experiment with competitive bidding in

home care has been a failure. It has resulted in: a shift to for-profit providers (the share of the total volume of nursing services awarded to for-profit providers increased from 18% in 1995 to an

estimated 46% in 2001); a loss of the social infrastructure associated with not-for-profit providers; critical shortages of community nursing staff which are directly linked to system instability

and worsened working conditions in this sector compared to others; grave concerns about the quality of care; a misallocation of resources resulting from the high transaction costs associated with

the process; and tensions between direct providers and community care access centres.

"Expansion of competitive bidding as a method of allocating funding to health service providers in Ontario would be expensive, inefficient and lead to

deteriorating health outcomes. Government officials have stated that there is no intention to extend competitive bidding beyond the home care sector. However, any legislation passed will continue

beyond the current government and minister. As a result, that intention must be enshrined in the proposed legislation.

"Recommendation 3:" -- from RNAO to the government -- "Amend Bill 36 to prohibit LHINs from using competitive bidding as a method of allocating funding to

health service providers."

That's what people had to say. What did the minister say, though? It's worth putting into the record one more time what he said about competitive bidding. This

is on the first day of the presentations, in the

section where he outlined -- I use his word, "myth" -- the myths that the committee was going to hear during the course of the public consultation.

This is a myth, according to Smitherman: "Local health integration networks are going to open the door to privatization and to two-tier health care." And the minister says, "Well, I don't want to

seem repetitive, but I'm holding the bill right here ... and, as I've said, I have read it many times. Folks, it doesn't say that anywhere." LHINs "are designed to better manage and coordinate

health care services in order to ensure better access to those services. That does not mean competitive bidding."

Precisely because of what the minister had to say, that nowhere in the bill did it reference competitive bidding, and because of what we heard about cutthroat

bidding during this process, I moved a very specific amendment about cutthroat bidding that reads as follows: "I move that

section 6 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"No competitive bidding

"

(5.1) A local health integration network shall not use competitive bidding, a managed competition or any other similar process for any purpose under this

act."

What did the Liberal members do? With the exception of one, the Liberal majority voted that down. That speaks volumes about the government's commitment --

should I say, in fact, lack of commitment? -- to stopping privatization of health care services. It speaks volumes about what the minister said during the course of the public hearings and what the

reality is. The reality is that this government has done nothing to stop the cutthroat bidding process in home care started by the Conservatives, now continued under this government for the last

two years. It remains the same, and this government has no intention of ensuring that that same cutthroat bidding is not applied to the other health care services that the LHINs are going to be

responsible for.

Shame on the government, because during the course of the public hearings, when many people raised the concern about cutthroat bidding, the Liberal members

responded by saying, "It's not in the bill. The bill doesn't say that the LHINs are going to use cutthroat bidding." Well, when the rubber hit the road and there was an amendment on the floor to

make sure that cutthroat bidding was prohibited, the Liberal members, save one, voted against that NDP amendment. So it's very clear where you're heading, it's very clear what the direction is and

it's very clear that the chaos that we have seen with respect to cutthroat bidding in home care is going to be a chaos that is extended to those other health services that the LHINs are going to be

responsible for.

I want to deal with First Nations and francophone concerns. My colleagues who speak this afternoon will also focus some more on First Nations concerns in

particular. We heard during the course of the conversation how angry First Nations were by the lack of an adequate consultation process, both before the bill was introduced and, frankly, during the

process of the deliberation of the bill.

I just want to read into the record, though, a presentation that we had from Ms. Tania Cameron, who works with the Kenora Chiefs Advisory. It's a bit long, but

I want to put all of it into the record. She said the following:

"I guess that sort of leads off to where the Kenora Chiefs Advisory takes issue: that we weren't consulted in the beginning. We understand that there were

workshops in November, December and then in January 2005 talking about the LHIN. We asked the First Nations if they received any of these invitations. They didn't. We do our best, if we receive

these invitations, to forward them to our communities, and we've heard the tail end. We learned later that in LHIN 14, aboriginal issues were 11th on the list. It didn't even make the top 10

priorities. Given that within the LHIN 14 geographical scope there are quite a number of First Nations, that was a huge concern to us.

"Our leadership, through the Chiefs of Ontario, held a meeting with Minister Smitherman in May 2005 shortly after this promise was announced to Ontario." That

was a promise to have a new relationship with aboriginal people. "We had concerns over the non-participation of First Nations people regarding this change and the new structure of the LHIN. This

meeting was held. Our chiefs had requested LHIN 15, an aboriginal-specific LHIN, and that was immediately denied. What was offered was the task force and some dollars attached to it. The Chiefs of

Ontario did agree with this, so the First Nations task force on the local health integration network was struck. I have sat as the technical rep for our Treaty 3 territory. Our objective was to

identify potential impacts of LHINs on First Nations health and services. Our final report was submitted in December 2005.

"What I wanted to mention is that, from the beginning, there were barriers. The first barrier I mentioned was that in LHIN 14, aboriginal issues did not make

the top 10. Another one was that immediately, at our first task force meetings, we requested a number of documents from the health results team, one being the document on the need to integrate

health so we can better understand where the integration was coming from. We requested a memorandum of understanding. We requested bylaws of initial LHINs. We also requested the training, design

and orientation package for the LHIN board and staff to see if there was any aboriginal-specific orientation that was taking place. We never received those documents, and we had made numerous

requests.

"In August, we had asked Minister Smitherman eight specific questions that we felt we needed to know in order to address these potential impacts. We asked that

in mid-August and we got it at the end of November. Our task force was mandated to serve until November 15, so that was very frustrating.

"We asked right from the beginning to review draft legislation to clearly identify potential impacts of LHINs on First Nations and aboriginal organizations....

It was asked a number of times and, finally, late on November 2, we were told that we could get a PowerPoint presentation of this draft legislation, but we had to be there for November 4 for this

meeting at 8:30 ... in the morning.... Even just myself, with family commitments, work commitments, to ask me to go from Kenora all the way down to Toronto the next day to listen to an hour

presentation, I couldn't do it. So I requested a teleconference and the PowerPoint presentation forwarded to me. Technical difficulties did not allow me -- not on our end, on their end. We couldn't

get the PowerPoint presentation, and we were told that it would be a one-way dialogue, so we couldn't ask questions. It was very frustrating and I thought it was a waste of time.

"Like I said, we had the first meeting of our task force in July and they wanted a report by November 15. Of course, we were late because we didn't get a lot

of the documents we'd requested, and when we did, it was within the last two weeks of the task force mandate. I wanted to state those frustrations with that."

As I said, my colleagues will talk about some other correspondence from aboriginal people later on this afternoon.

What we heard during the course of the public hearings was that First Nations were clearly very concerned that this bill was going to infringe upon their

inherent treaty rights and health care rights. That was made very clear to the members during the course of the presentations, and also from a letter that all of us got before the clause-by-clause

started. We got this letter from Bob Goulais, executive assistant to Grand Council Chief Beaucage. He says in the letter, "The Union of Ontario Indians are concerned that the province of Ontario

has failed to properly consult with the First Nations of Ontario on this sweeping legislation that has a genuine possibility of impacting negatively on the aboriginal, inherent and treaty rights in

health of every First Nation member in the province of Ontario."

That is why, because of the concerns, I put forward three amendments that had been given to us, given to all members, by the First Nations, three amendments

that I felt would address their concerns -- concerns they had about the bill and concerns they had for the whole process, which was a sham, at best, from their perspective.

The government voted down all three of those amendments. I argued with legal counsel; I argued strenuously with legal counsel that we should include a

non-derogation clause in this bill. I am still of that belief, and I regret that I couldn't convince the Liberal members on the committee to do even that, given how bad the process had been from

the start with respect to aboriginal people: three amendments that we were asked to move by aboriginal community leaders, political leaders; three amendments that were voted down by the government

members.

What was also very disturbing was that the two amendments that were moved by the government members were amendments that the First Nations had already told the

minister -- we all got copies of the correspondence -- they did not endorse, they did not accept. So not only could we not get the amendments forward that they wanted; we ended up with two

amendments that the chiefs themselves had said were not acceptable and did not address their concerns.

It is no wonder that we are now in a situation -- and we all got this correspondence after the clause-by-clause -- where Grand Council Chief John Beaucage has

written to the minister and said, "If Bill 36 is passed and given royal assent, the Union of Ontario Indians will seriously be contemplating a constitutional challenge through appropriate legal

challenges." We shouldn't have gotten to this stage. We are, and it's an absolute shame. The whole idea that there's some new relationship with aboriginal people that this government has entered

into was clearly undermined through this process.

Let me just deal briefly with some of the concerns from francophones, and again, this will be expanded upon by some of my colleagues. We heard some very good

presentations in Ottawa in particular. The one I want to reference came from some of our former colleagues in this place, M. Grandmaître and M. Morin, and two of their other

colleagues who were there. This one is specifically M me Michelle de Courville Nicol, who said the following:

« ... le cadre des réseaux locaux d'intégration des services de santé est profondément défectueux, et structuré de

« Chaque fois que cette question a été soulevée lors des ateliers sur les réseaux locaux d'intégration qui ont lancé

cette initiative du gouvernement il y a plus d'un an, la responsable de l'intégration du système, M me Gail Paech, a dit à plusieurs reprises qu'un groupe de travail

présidé par M. Gérald Savoie examinait cette question et allait résoudre le problème.

a eu le mandat d'examiner précisément comment les décisions en matière de soins de santé touchant les francophones pouvaient être prises par des francophones, y

compris la question de la gouvernance.

a déposé son rapport final en octobre, mais que la communauté franco-ontarienne ne l'a pas encore vu parce qu'il n'a pas été rendu public par le ministère. Nous

attendons sa publication avec impatience. »

It was very difficult for us as committee members to deal with the concerns that the francophones wanted us to deal with because none of us has had access to

this report. It's been in the hands of the minister since October. It has still not been rendered public. We cannot tell whether or not the concerns that were raised through the report are going to

be met, because the government hasn't released the report and hasn't said if it's going to implement the recommendations. So we couldn't do anything, essentially, with respect to the bill because

we didn't know what the government was working with and we didn't know whether or not the concerns of the francophone community are indeed going to be met through this report.

Frankly, it put the committee in an untenable situation and it put the francophone community in the untenable situation that we would have a bill that's going

to affect health care services that francophones are very concerned about, that we have a report that has been done by the francophone community about how to improve those services, but we don't

have a copy, we don't have the recommendations and we have, as far as we can tell, nothing in the bill to address those concerns.

We know that because francophones came forward and -- even though there's a slight reference to Bill 8, a former bill that provided for French-language

services in designated parts of the province -- made it very clear that even with Bill 8, many francophones were losing access to service in French. So it was not helpful at all for the minister

not to have released this report, for us not to know what the recommendations are and not to know how we could respond by, hopefully, improving the bill to actually respond to some of their

concerns.

What we did do, as New Democrats, was actually try to move an amendment that had been recommended to us in one of the last presentations we heard from

francophone groups. This was l'alliance des réseaux de santé francophones, who asked us to move an amendment in the

preamble of the bill that would recognize the francophones'

participation in health care in the same way the

preamble currently speaks to First Nations. Right now, under paragraph (

e) in the

preamble, it says "recognize the role of First Nations and

aboriginal peoples in the planning and delivery of health services in their communities."

I moved the following amendment: "that the

preamble be amended by adding the following clause: `(e.1) recognize the role of Franco-Ontarians in the planning

and delivery of health services in their communities,'" an exact parallel to what we already have. Do you know that the government voted this down? The government voted this down. For the life of

me, I cannot understand the rationale for this. What we were doing, what we were asked to do, was in the

preamble pattern we already have in place for First Nations, to put that in place with

respect to francophones, so that at least in the

preamble of the bill we've got some recognition of the role of Franco-Ontarians in the planning and delivery in health care in Ontario. We couldn't

even get the government to do that. It's ridiculous.

Yesterday, the minister was talking about their relations with Franco-Ontarians and their relations with First Nations. I'm telling you, everybody who came

before the committee had something to say about that that was very different. When you can't even get a simple amendment like that through, I think it speaks volumes about what the commitment is,

frankly, that this government is making to Franco-Ontarians, to francophones, with respect to their participation in the delivery and the planning of health care.

In the final part of my remarks, because I am getting near the end, let me just deal with some of the other amendments we put on the table that the government

voted down.

I also moved in the

preamble a very specific amendment that would give voice to or recognize the importance of "health care professionals and confirm that they

workers needs to be addressed"; "confirm that regional disparities in the availability of health care within Ontario needs to be addressed"; "recognize that patients who are required to travel for

medical care as a result of an integration ... should be reimbursed for costs" under this bill. That was voted down.

I moved that we have, frankly, a definition of "public interest." That, as far as I can recall, was developed during the Bill 8 proceedings by the committee

that dealt with Bill 8. Public interest is not defined in the bill yet. LHINs, the minister and others are supposed to make their decisions taking the public interest into account, but again, since

it's not defined in the bill, it's hard to know what the term is going to be and what criteria they're going to use. I used language that was put forward by OPSEU and by ONA that specifically

talked about the public interest, including "(

a) the protection of medicare through ... the expansion of existing publicly funded health services; (

b) the prohibition of two-tier medicine, extra

other provisions. The government voted that down.

I moved that the LHIN board members be elected in a process to be outlined in the regulations instead of appointed so that there might be some accountability

back to the community that they are purported to serve. The government voted that amendment down.

I moved an amendment that would ensure that the local health integration networks should get some advice from a number of groups. Right now in the bill, before

the amendments, it spoke only to a health professionals advisory committee, which I am in favour of, but I felt there were other groups that needed to be contacted, needed to have input. I

recommended as well a health workers advisory committee consisting of front-line health care workers, employees and the unions who represent them, and "a community advisory committee existing of,

at a minimum, seniors, mental health" advocates, "consumers of community support services, and with respect to each of those classes, representatives of the organizations that advocate" for

them.

I said "at a minimum" so that others could obviously be added to that community advisory committee, but that at a minimum, those groups would have to have

representation. Why? First, because seniors are primary users of the health care system; secondly, because we heard from mental health advocates that too often their issues are not addressed;

thirdly, because we had many representations from community support organizations, which are important organizations, and we wanted to make sure there was some representation. My amendment would

have made sure that, at a minimum, those voices would be at the table; they would have to be at the table because it was outlined that way in the bill.

The government instead voted that down and came forward with an amendment that they said allowed for much more flexibility. Of course, the flexibility is that

nobody is named in terms of who should be on the committee. So seniors may be on; they may not. People who are mental health consumers may be on; they may not. People who use community support

service agencies may be on; they may not be. I regret that the government voted down my amendment, which would have made it very clear that in particular those groups who have a very specific

interest in health care at least would have to be represented, among a number of others.

I also moved a motion that would have made it very clear that any savings that were found by the LHIN in a fiscal year would have to be kept by the LHIN and

could not be deducted from the global amount of funding that the minister was going to allocate in the next fiscal year. The amendment was very clear to say that the minister could not deduct

savings that were achieved by the LHIN from the global amount of money, and those savings, in addition to the global amount of money, had to be used on patient care in the next year. The government

voted that amendment down too. So it's very clear in the bill that the minister continues to have the discretion to actually deduct savings, which the LHINs achieve, from the global amount of money

that they're going to receive in a fiscal year. How silly is that?

Two other amendments had to do with the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act to say it would apply to all workers, regardless of wheth