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

April 25, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Apr-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 25 April 2005 Lundi 25 avril 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

HOT DOCS

FILM FESTIVAL

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

JUSTICE SYSTEM

EARTH WEEK

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

DOCTORS' SERVICES

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

LONG-TERM CARE

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

SERVICES FOR THE

HEARING-IMPAIRED

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

DUFFINS-ROUGE

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM FUNDING

POLICE SERVICES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ENERGY CONSERVATION

PETITIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

VISITORS

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

ABORTION

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

SENIOR CITIZENS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRANSPORTATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSPORT

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Imagine my shock this past Friday when I received a copy of a Liberal Party press release

stating that our leader, John Tory, was calling for a funding cut to Ontario municipalities and that I was calling for a cut to municipalities in my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The press release was targeted at PC-held ridings and quoted the member for Perth-Middlesex in an attempt to deflect

some of the heat that he is taking in his own riding for the beatings some of his own communities are taking under this Liberal government plan that actually reduces grants to municipalities by $47

million.

I reiterate the challenge issued by our leader, John Tory, that the member for Perth-Middlesex produce one quote that supports his claim or issue a retraction

immediately. We know that municipal governments across the province are extremely upset with the impact these Liberal cuts are going to have on their ability to provide service to their ratepayers.

We also know that politics can sometimes be rough. But spreading this kind of misinformation is a new low even for the McGuinty Liberals. Our party is committed to fighting for a fair deal for

municipalities. We have continually urged the government to honour its promise to communities.

As for the member for Perth-Middlesex, I would urge him to return to those principles of truth and honesty. At the end of the day, they are far more important

than a taxpayer-funded car and driver as a reward for blind obedience.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I would just caution members about unparliamentary wording as they express themselves in statements.

HOT DOCS

FILM FESTIVAL

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have two statements to make today. My mother turned 94 today. If I'm as healthy as my mother,

hopefully, I will reach that fine, ripe old age.

My second statement: I rise today to recognize the Hot Docs international documentary film festival, which is celebrating its 12th year showcasing the best in

documentary film from Canada and around the world. Hot Docs has built a strong international audience over the years with a solid reputation for excellence in documentary programming. In 2004,

attendance grew to more than 37,000 people. It is currently being hailed as one of the world's A-list documentary festivals. Public interest in documentaries has exploded in the past few years. The

quality of work at Hot Docs showcases the full range of cultural landscape in Canada and internationally.

I ask you to join me in commending the work of the Hot Docs festival organizers and their commitment to showcasing excellence in documentary production,

reflecting the true voices of people whose everyday lives are reflected in the stories. The Hot Docs international documentary film festival runs from April 22 until May 1, 2005. For more

information, call 416-203-2155.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): Last Friday at the Bill 164 hearings in Oshawa, my colleagues and I had the opportunity to listen to

Heather Crowe tell her story. A non-smoker who worked for decades in a smoky Ottawa restaurant area, Heather Crowe now suffers from lung cancer. Her time is now spent educating other Canadians

about the dangers of second-hand smoke.

Meanwhile, the opposition and their friends in the tobacco lobby continue to try to refute the evidence that second-hand smoke kills and to argue for designated

smoking rooms and things that only go halfway in protecting Ontarians from the kinds of complications that Heather Crowe suffers. They're still looking for the line on the autopsy that says, "Cause

of death: second-hand smoke."

I was part of the city of Ottawa council that brought in a no-smoking bylaw that did not permit designated smoking rooms. We made the right decision in going all

the way with that legislation; I continue to be thanked for it. It was an easy choice for me. My son, a non-smoker, used to work evenings as a doorman at a downtown Ottawa club. Over time, he

developed a chronic cough and ended up at the doctor's office. The doctor initially thought he was a heavy smoker and told him that he really should quit. My son quit his job, and the cough

disappeared.

When people like Heather Crowe testify to the harms of second-hand smoke, when they offer up their bodies as evidence of its horrible side effects, we should all

sit up straight and listen carefully. Heather Crowe, thank you for helping Ontarians to protect each other from second-hand smoke.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Canada's justice system continues to fail Canadians. Mind-boggling decisions by judges that seem to

completely lack common sense and blithely ignore victims occur all too frequently, feeding the disillusionment of Canadians. A case in point was a sentence handed down in Ottawa court by Judge

Roydon Kealey for one Henry Danninger. Danninger, initially charged with second-degree murder, was ultimately convicted of manslaughter in the stabbing death of Andrew Moffitt, a 23-year-old

University of Ottawa student. Andrew had attempted to act as a peacemaker during a bar fight and was fatally stabbed.

Prior to his trial, Danninger was released on bail under conditions that restricted his movements and obligated him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

During that time, Danninger ran a terror campaign against one of his neighbours, dumping feces and urine on the neighbour's car and driveway on an almost nightly basis. The neighbour ultimately

installed a video camera, and Danninger was caught on tape on 24 separate occasions. When the tapes were turned over to police, Danninger's bail was pulled and he was locked up.

At sentencing, Justice Kealey unbelievably awarded Danninger two-for-one credit for his time on bail, time that included his almost nightly prowls to pour urine

and feces over his neighbour's car. I ask the Attorney General to request that the prosecuting crown submit his views for consideration in Mr. Danninger's upcoming parole board hearing. Hopefully

such a submission will assist Andy's family and friends to right the wrong imposed by Justice Kealey's sentencing decision and keep Mr. Danninger in jail.

EARTH WEEK

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I'm proud to speak to the House today on the good work that the community of Thornhill is putting forth in

regard to Earth Week, and how we are putting the three principles, "reduce, reuse and recycle," to good use.

I had the pleasure of speaking to the students of Brownridge Public School on April 15 to kick off their environmental cleanup day. I spoke about the importance

of keeping our community clean and the importance of the three Rs. Afterwards, we gathered outside to clean up the school park. In the past, the students have planted on the school property as well

as participating in the school's environmental club for grades 1, 2 and 5 students. I would like to thank Ms. Strachan and Ms. Lostritto of Brownridge Public School for organizing the Earth Month

events.

Charlton Public School in my riding has a routine litter cleanup campaign by taking the initiative of assigning a month to each grade to clean up the school

area. They also have a Charlton environmental leadership team made up of grades 4, 5 and 6 students. The school plants flowers on the school property, composts waste, and puts out a bi-yearly

environmental news publication. I would like to congratulate Mr. James Craig of Charlton Public School for heading up the environmental team.

Last Friday, I took

part in the 20-minute Vaughan makeover at Dufferin Clark Community Centre, as well as in the Concord West Ratepayer Association park cleanup

at Southview Park. I will also take

part in the Pomona Park cleanup in the town of Markham on Saturday, April 30, at 9:30 am.

I encourage the residents in my riding and those in the province to participate in their local Earth Week events so that we can ensure that the message to keep

our community clean is heard and --

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

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): It is with a great deal of sadness that I rise in the House to read a clipping that I took out of the

Toronto Sun this morning. It says, "Dalton Backs Off." Let me read:

"Premier Dalton McGuinty has blinked in his fight with the federal government" over the huge discrepancy in the amount of money that Ontario taxpayers put in

versus what they take out.

"Apparently heeding the call of his federal Liberal cousins to cool the rhetoric, McGuinty said Friday he was temporarily putting aside his funding fight and

pledging support" for the minority Martin government.

"....As Conservative MPP Tim Hudak pointed out, `Paul Martin's in trouble.... It's the right time to put the knockout punch out there.'"

I want to encourage the McGuinty government to stay on track. Keep up the fight for Ontario's hospitals, for Ontario's nurses, for Ontario's immigrants. When you

fight for the good people of Ontario against this corrupt government, you'll have the support of hard-working men and women, hard-working Conservatives, and even a few New Democrats, I might

add.

So if you could call on your federal cousins to keep up the fight, to ensure that Ontario gets its fair share. If Paul Martin and the goons in his office would

spend as much time listening and talking to the Ontario government and Ontario political parties, if they would spend half the amount of time they did -- instead of maligning Warren Kinsella and

smearing Warren Kinsella, as they did at the public accounts committee, they should be talking with the Ontario government on how to adequately fund health care in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Just keep the language a bit parliamentary for me, please.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): Two quick announcements this morning, the first also to acknowledge a media clip and to hope that

the member for Nepean-Carleton reaches his goal of early retirement in the not-too-distant future.

I rise today more formally to speak about the economic record of the McGuinty government. We came to office with a commitment to make Ontario the best place in

North America to build a business and raise a family, and we're delivering on that commitment.

You just have to look at the numbers. Between March 2004 and March 2005, we've created 79,700 new jobs in the province of Ontario. Of those, some 6,300 are in

the northern part of the province, and northern unemployment has fallen from 7.7% in November 2003 to 6.8% in March 2005.

These are all indicators that the McGuinty government's economic strategy is working. Instead of the race-to-the-bottom economy that the Tory party was famous

for, we're committed to building an economy that's innovative and focused on the knowledge-based economy, one that's global in its outlook and can compete with the best in the world.

Take, for example, the auto sector. In their entire term, the Tory government did nothing to attract new investment. In our time in office, through our auto

investment strategy under the leadership of Minister Cordiano, we've helped bring GM's Beacon project to fruition. We've also helped Ford bring a billion-dollar investment in state-of-the-art

manufacturing to Oakville.

I'm proud to be part of a government that is moving forward on our economy.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to speak about the support that this government is getting in our fight to get a fair share

for Ontario. Last week, a group of health providers called on the Prime Minister to meet with the Premier to address the issue of closing the $23-billion gap so that Ontario can invest in "urgent

priorities, including health care transformation."

Hilary Short, president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association, Doris Grinspun, executive director of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, and Dr.

John Rapin, president of the Ontario Medical Association, are among the eight people who signed the letter.

To be able to continue being the economic engine of the country, Ontario needs to be in a position where we can invest in the services that make our province

what it is. We need to close the $23-billion gap so that we can make needed investments to transform health care, reduce class sizes and give our kids the best possible start in life, and to invest

in post-secondary education so that we can be a world leader in the knowledge economy. As the Premier has said, and as was reiterated in this letter, "Investing in Ontario is investing in

Canada."

I would like to close with a reference to the Leader of the Opposition, who mentioned to me that there seems to be some discrepancy about the Ontario municipal

partnership fund. The London Free Press, a Sun paper, not really one that is kind to my government, has backed up my allegation that we know how to do grade 8 math over here on this side of the

House but that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. I might add that he mentioned, when talking about my riding of Perth-Middlesex, the great community of Southgate. I'd like to remind the Leader

of the Opposition that Southgate, sir, is in your riding, not mine.

DOCTORS' SERVICES

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): I rise to welcome to Queen's Park medical students from around the province. They represent the

dealing with quickly and diligently.

Here are some of the steps we've taken in our first year and a half in office:

We're increasing overall residency spots by 22% by 2006-07.

We're addressing the family doctor shortage in Ontario by increasing residency spots for family medicine by 70%, or 141 spots, by 2006. This means 337 more

family doctors ready to practise in 2008.

We're finally going to capitalize on our greatest strength: our people. We have more than doubled the number of training spots for international medical

graduates, from 90 to 200.

We've established the Northern Medical School, creating 56 new medical school spots.

Also, our agreement with the OMA makes us competitive with other provinces. It includes a clerkship stipend of $500 per month to undergraduate medical students

in their final 12 months of medical school.

Premier McGuinty and Minister Smitherman are truly transforming health care in Ontario, and medical students will continue to be part of this positive

change.

Let us not forget that the lack of medical spots in our schools began when the NDP cut medical school spots by 13%. The Tories compounded the problem. As a

result of the actions of the NDP and the inaction of the Tories, Ontario lost 500 potential doctors.

Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Motions? The government House leader.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): No.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I was going to move adjournment of the House, but if you don't want to do

that, we'll just work till midnight.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to deal with government

notice of motion number 354 without debate or amendment.

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

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Gord Miller as

And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Monday, April 25, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those against the motion, please say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

O'Toole, John

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Smith, Monique

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tory, John

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise to be counted by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 59; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In response to the statement by the member for London North Centre, I'm

pleased to introduce Ontario medical school students who are with us in the gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): That is not a point of order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Earlier today I had the pleasure to be in

North Bay to reaffirm our government's commitment to Ontario's small urban and rural communities. Together with my colleagues from the federal, provincial and municipal governments, we announced an

investment of more than $249 million by the province and Ottawa for projects that will renew local infrastructure in 120 Ontario cities, towns, villages and rural areas.

This investment represents the first intake of the Canada-Ontario municipal rural infrastructure fund, or COMRIF, which, together with municipal investments,

is expected to stimulate up to $900 million in capital investments over the next five years.

Ontario was the first province in Canada to sign a joint agreement with the federal government for this program, and we have moved quickly to bring the

benefits to communities across Ontario. It is a terrific initiative, based on the understanding that good, modern infrastructure is key to ensuring strong and healthy communities. It shows our

government's commitment to providing Ontario's small urban and rural communities the opportunities they need to grow and be prosperous. Their success is critical to the success of our province.

Our government has delivered a number of important initiatives as part of Ontario's overarching rural plan. The rural plan builds on rural Ontario's strengths:

dedicated citizens, diverse economic opportunities, unrivalled natural resources and an unwavering sense of community.

We had these principles of the rural plan in mind when we came to the table to design COMRIF -- we wanted to ensure it supported the priorities of rural

Ontarians. We're proud that, through COMRIF, we'll be improving the public infrastructure of 120 small urban and rural communities.

I'm particularly proud that COMRIF is the first infrastructure program developed jointly by the province, the federal government and the municipalities through

the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and that the priorities that municipal leaders told us they wanted addressed -- clean, safe drinking water, better sewage systems, improved waste

management processes, and safer roads and bridges -- are being addressed by our investment in Ontario's communities.

I believe COMRIF sets a new benchmark for co-operation among all three orders of government, and the success of the program is abundantly clear. We want

improvements to critical infrastructure to get started fast, so that Ontarians can quickly gain the benefits. We wanted to be sure decisions were finalized and announcements were made in time for

municipalities to get tenders out and start work during this year's construction season.

There will be more investments to come for intake 2 and intake 3 of COMRIF. Municipalities will have further opportunities to identify their infrastructure

needs and submit proposals for potential projects, the details of which will be announced in the near future.

In addition to COMRIF, our government offers other innovative programs to assist in the renewal of Ontario's infrastructure. The Ontario Strategic

Infrastructure Financing Authority -- or OSIFA, as it's known -- helps municipal governments borrow funds for infrastructure at better terms and lower interest rates.

By working together, we are building stronger communities and helping to deliver a quality of life that is indeed second to none.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond, on behalf of the official opposition, to the minister's statement in the House today.

Certainly those municipalities that have received some long-awaited funding for their capital projects will be happy with the news today. I know that others which did not receive funding will be

looking forward to an opportunity to work with the ministry and the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal to ensure that their projects hopefully get funded in the second and third rounds.

I'm very proud, as are members of our caucus who were part of a government that made the biggest investment in infrastructure in Ontario through the SuperBuild

program. Certainly my colleague from Oxford can tell you a lot about the record investments in rural infrastructure made under the OSTAR program and the OSTAR RED program. I was pleased to help

play a lead on the investment in community recreation, tourism and cultural infrastructure as well. Many of these projects are now coming to fruition, even here in the city of Toronto, like the ROM

project, the AGO and others. It's a revolution in cultural tourism. So we're pleased to see the government continuing, to some extent, the programs and the massive investments in infrastructure

under Premiers Mike Harris and Ernie Eves.

We do have to realize, though, that while today's announcement will be welcomed by a number of municipalities on the list, most will greet this as a salve on

the wounds by the new funding formula from Dalton McGuinty that has slashed funding to Ontario's municipalities. In fact, when you compare the previous CRF program with the ongoing funding under

the Dalton McGuinty program, it's some $47 million in reductions of annual funding to municipalities. While this will be welcomed, we would like to see more action in fixing the funding formula

that is impairing a great number of municipalities, which is, I will add, yet another broken promise by Dalton McGuinty, who has shattered the Guinness World Records when it comes to breaking

promises. He said he had a better funding formula for municipalities, and certainly those across the province, like my friend from Chatham-Kent -- you've got to pull the municipal politicians off

the ceiling, they're so incensed with Dalton McGuinty's betrayal of many of our municipalities.

Let's look at a couple of examples:

Haliburton: I know my colleague from Haliburton-Victoria-Brock has fought hard for the culvert replacements in Haliburton. That municipality will receive

$330,000 through COMRIF, which is welcome, but the county is losing some $3.5 million in funding under the new funding formula. So while the $330,000 is welcome, they're going to be hard pressed to

pay their municipal share, looking at a cut of some $3.5 million.

Kincardine: No doubt my colleague from Grey-Owen Sound will be happy with the funding of the Stewart bridge project, some $200,000. But Kincardine now has to

wrestle with a $1.2-million reduction, and I know the minister has looked to the press coming out of Kincardine and the Grey-Owen Sound area, and they are furious with the betrayal by Dalton

McGuinty when it comes to municipal funding.

I know my colleague from Lanark will be happy that the Little Clyde River bridge is getting some funding under this program. But there's approximately $2.4

million less for Lanark county under this program.

In the united counties of Leeds and Grenville it's some $3.3 million, the difference in what they had received under CRF in 2004 and what they will receive on

an annual go-forward basis under the new program. So the funding for the Spencerville bridge replacement is welcomed, but is a devastating cut.

In my riding of West Lincoln, I'm pleased and thank the minister that the project has come forward to help pay for a series of road, bridge and culvert

repairs, but the $600,000 that is coming from the province does not make up for the annual reduction of over $700,000 taken out of the community of West Lincoln.

I do want to add that, while this is the first round of projects -- I know both ministers are listening closely. Certainly, while some projects in Niagara have

come forward that we're happy about, Wainfleet and a really strong pending environmental concern to the water and sewer system -- I want to reinforce the need for that project. I hope that in the

second round we'll see the Wainfleet project get near the top of the list.

My colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has a similar concern in Arnprior, a significant environmental project dealing with the sewage system that is very

important. I hope they'll get further consideration, among others.

The last thing I'll say is that I would expect that the greenbelt municipalities will have some further assistance. Their growth has been frozen in by the

minister's greenbelt plan, and I do hope that when he looked at funding these projects, he made sure the greenbelt municipalities were taken into consideration.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I stand today to tell this government that you have perfected an art, and the art is of making and

remaking announcements that are not likely to ever happen. You know, in the end nothing actually ever gets done. It doesn't. The classic example of this government is the announcement after

announcement of all the housing and houses they are going to build in this province. You know, I once went out to Scarborough, because you said the shovel was going in the ground, to watch the

shovel go into the ground, to look at the housing that was going to be built for those who really needed it. While I was watching the shovel go in, it became very clear that you were building

condominiums -- not housing for people who needed it but condominiums. It was quite deceptive. When the reality comes down after announcement after announcement and you see the actual figures for

2003-04, you see that this government, in the first year of its mandate, contributed to the building of 18 homes, 18 housings for people, and of that, the federal government paid for all 18. You

paid for 11. That's the reality.

funding for this initiative was provided for in the February 2005 federal budget and complements other initiatives such as the five-year gas tax transfer of $1.865 billion to Ontario

municipalities."

The reality is that the budget has not passed and, as Canadians who watch television know, the budget is likely never to pass. This is a dying government in

its dying days. You rushed out there in those dying days to be the very first provincial government to sign on board to match funds they don't have, and you know full well they're never likely to

get them. You've got all those municipalities that desperately need the money, that are looking for the money, that are trying to do something to get the money, and you're out there promising them

that they're going to get it.

The reality is, we know what's happening in Ottawa, we know what is likely to happen in the next couple of weeks and we know this government is never going to

be required to pony up the $300 million that is their share. Even if by some miracle this government survives and actually gets the budget passed -- and I say it's going to be a miracle, watching

what we're seeing on TV these days -- I'm not convinced they're going to have the money to do it, because if you watch Mr. Martin this week, they are going from city to city, from province to

province, and he is not only talking about saving his government, but he is also talking about spending additional monies in all kinds of places that he's never promised before: monies that aren't

included in the budget, monies he doesn't have, monies that he is never going to be able to get through Parliament.

There's no question that Ontario municipalities require the programs that are listed here. I would doubt very much that a single one of them can go without

improving their water quality, without looking after waste water or bridges or roads or all the other things that are contained in this list. They need the money, and they're even willing to go out

on a limb and borrow the money from you because that's part of the program too. Municipalities that once were able to debenture on their own no longer can afford to do so. Municipalities that used

to have money saved up no longer have money saved up. Municipalities have been downloaded. If you want to do something to help municipalities, you should help them with the download. You should

help them to be able to afford to build their own infrastructure.

Frankly, I've seen these announcements before; we've all seen these announcements before. The likelihood of your actually having to spend the money, and the

likelihood of the municipalities actually getting that money in this fiscal year, looks remote at this point. I don't think you should be congratulating yourself for what you're doing. If this was

such a good announcement, you should have waited to see whether the federal budget actually passed before you went out and made promises that you know you're never going to be able to keep.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): May I draw your attention, in the west gallery, to Mr. Gary Malkowski, former member for York East in the

35th Parliament. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Finance -- we tried them last week -- my question

today will be for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last Friday, Sudbury city council passed a resolution stating that the city will petition you to provide transitional funding to cover the

funding shortfalls for the years 2005-08 under your new so-called fairer program for cities and towns.

According to numbers taken from the Ministry of Finance's own Web site, Sudbury will lose over $1.7 million annually starting this year. The Minister of

Finance said these numbers were wrong when I raised them last week. Is the city of Greater Sudbury wrong, or is the Minister of Finance wrong? Can you straighten this out for us?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I'd like to refer the question to the Chair

of Management Board.

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I just want to perhaps refresh the memory of the Leader of the Opposition.

This plan was necessary because of the mistakes of the previous government in downloading responsibility on the municipalities. What the Minister of Finance has done is design a program that is

fair and equitable. I say to the public today that no municipality in the province of Ontario in 2005 will get less money than they did the previous year. It is a fair and equitable formula

designed to ensure that municipalities across the province are treated fairly by the province of Ontario in the delivery of services they are required to deliver to the people of Ontario

Mr. Tory: It's so discouraging to come in -- it's Monday; it's the beginning of a new week -- hoping things will get better when it comes to

the non-answers. In any event, we'll just keep trying.

We find out that in order to be able to say what you just did, some of the money included in this year's funding is of course for next year. I'll quote from

last Wednesday's Pembroke Daily Observer. They said, "[County of Renfrew Treasurer Jim Kutschke] noted, however, that one-time funding of $1.7 million received in 2005 is actually a cash advance

for 2006, which means next year's provincial funding will be reduced by that amount."

Minister, why is this McGuinty Liberal program handing Renfrew county taxpayers a $1.7-million property tax increase? Why are you doing that?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I just say to the public once again that sometimes statements in the House by the member across aren't exactly backed up by

the facts. I looked at some statements made last week, where the Conservative Party said that municipalities will lose $47 million. The fact of the matter is, it was wrong; they get $38 million

more. The Conservative Party said that over 200 municipalities will receive less funding; the fact is, every single municipality will get at least as much money, and 251 will get substantially

more.

Here is what a Sudbury ward 5 councillor said: "It's a reliable and predictable source of new revenue, and it's something we're very fortunate to get."

So I would just say that, once again, the facts as presented by the member opposite may not be exactly the real facts. I refer to several statements made by

the Conservatives last week that frankly were incorrect. I repeat: Every single municipality is getting at least as much money this year as they did last year, and the formula is fair.

Mr. Tory: I want to thank the minister for that half-hearted apology for the fact that the statements made by them in the House don't always

accord with the facts; I appreciate that. Unfortunately, the minister's story just doesn't hold up against an increasing lineup of municipal officials. He has a ward 5 councillor whom he refers to,

and we have a resolution of the Sudbury city council. That ward 5 councillor must have voted against it. They're saying that the fairer deal is going to mean higher property taxes.

Last Friday, the mayor of St. Thomas sent Mr. McGuinty a letter, and I'll quote from that letter: "Our city treasurer advised council that the impact of [your

new program] would result in an annual, ongoing reduction of $1,445,700 ... we are concerned about this impending revenue loss ... [which] would translate into a 5% increase in property

taxation."

Minister, why are you and your Minister of Agriculture so determined to hand St. Thomas taxpayers a 5% property tax increase, and when are you going to fess up

about it?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Again, I go back to the mess we are correcting that was created by the previous government: the downloading exercise,

loading on to municipalities services that cost them an enormous amount of money.

Again, I would say to the people of Ontario -- listen carefully -- we now have a fair and equitable formula that treats small and medium-sized municipalities

well; that recognizes the special needs of the north; that recognizes the special needs of policing in our smaller communities. Every single community in the province of Ontario will get at least

as much money from the provincial government in 2005 as they did in 2004. We have a fair and equitable solution to this problem that I think the people of Ontario will be appreciative of.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr. Tory: My question is again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would draw to the attention of the public that what we're seeing again

this afternoon is a great attempt to bamboozle them, as we did last week. But we'll try another one.

I will quote from the St. Catharines Standard from last Wednesday: "In all, after a previous one-time grant and new gas-tax revenue ... is factored, there will

be around $5 million less handed out than there was last year in Niagara."

Thorold will receive no funding from your so-called fairer deal. Thorold's director of finance says, "The loss of the $387,000 in our budget will negatively

impact on our levy and tax rates by close to 6%."

Minister, Thorold's numbers are confirmed by the Ministry of Finance's Web site. Why are you hurting taxpayers in Thorold and across Niagara region? Why are

you hurting your good friend whom you can normally rely on for such co-operation, the member for Niagara Centre, and forcing a 6% tax increase on his residents? Why are you doing that?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Let me just say once again that the actual money the municipalities are getting this year is $38 million more than last

year. It's a 6.1% increase. In addition to that, there is an additional $230 million to deal with the 2003-04 reconciliation and to make sure that every municipality gets at least as much money as

last year.

The system we've initiated is fairer to the municipalities involved. Talk to any municipal leader out there, or a group of them, and you'll find out that the

old system simply didn't work equitably and fairly. We are a government that's for fairness. This is the way we felt we should deal with it. It's fairer to the municipalities than the ill-begotten

system that they initiated a number of years ago.

Mr. Tory: I'm coming to understand that the Pembroke Daily Observer, the St. Catharines Standard, the Greater Sudbury council and the mayor of

St. Thomas -- these people are all wrong, your Web site at the Ministry of Finance is wrong, and you're right.

But let's try another one. The Ministry of Finance Web site shows that the county of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry will lose $5.1 million in annual funding

under this latest McGuinty Liberal scheme, brought in with the enthusiastic support of the local Liberal member. According to the county treasurer, Vanessa Bennett -- I'm sure we're going to hear

she's wrong too -- the county received just over $1 million as an advance for 2006. She's quoted as saying, "It looks like that's a windfall but we learned from Queen's Park that it is a

pre-payment of what we are entitled to in 2006."

Minister, how can it be that everybody else is wrong but you? And why are you and the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh and the member for

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell causing this big property tax increase for these people?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: In actual fact, the residents of Niagara are getting 22.5% more this year than last year, and the region of Niagara is

getting 10% more than last year. There are some municipalities that may not be getting in the long run, years down the road, as much as they were getting before, but, quite frankly, we wanted a

system that was fair to municipalities. We wanted to make sure that their social service costs were going to be covered to a greater extent. We wanted to make sure there was true equalization. And

we wanted to make sure that the smaller rural and northern municipalities got the kind of protection they needed. The new system is fairer. No municipality is getting less this year than they did

before, plus there is a $230-million transition fund that every municipality in this province will benefit from.

Mr. Tory: I think they think that the more ministers repeat this whole thing, the more often, on more days, it might become true. But let's

just deal with the numbers. I've referenced these numbers from the ministry's own Web site. Your so-called fairer deal for municipalities actually is a $47-million cut from the previous programs

brought in under previous governments. Property taxes are going up as a result -- 5% in St. Thomas, 6% in Thorold and an astonishing 10.5% in Chatham -- and we hear silence from the local

members.

Your Minister of Finance has been caught including next year's money this year to try to bamboozle the public in this manner. Why don't you just own up and

junk this ill-considered McGuinty Liberal scheme to raise property taxes on all those people around the province? Own up and junk it.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: We know that the Leader of the Opposition is a great defender of the status quo. The status quo would have meant that the

funding to Caledon in your own riding would be cut by $1.2 million. The status quo would mean that Kawartha Lakes would get $2.7 million less, that Gananoque would get $302,000 less, that Pembroke

would get $418,000 less and Smith Falls $568,000 less.

We are not in favour of the status quo. We want to move forward in a program you created that was totally inequitable to the municipalities involved, taking

into account the realities of 2005. You're for the status quo. We are for going forward to make sure that municipalities are healthy. That's why we introduced the COMRIF program today. That's why

we've approved more equitable long-term funding for municipalities with this program.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. Last week I asked the McGuinty government to commit itself to

implement the 85 recommendations from the Casa Verde nursing home coroner's inquest, 85 recommendations that would improve long-term care for Ontario seniors. Sadly, your Minister of Health would

give no such commitment. The Casa Verde nursing home coroner's inquest shows that too many seniors living in long-term-care homes aren't being looked after properly, are not being cared for

properly.

My question is this: You've now had an opportunity to read and consider the recommendations of the Casa Verde nursing home coroner's jury. Will you commit

today to implementing the recommendations of that coroner's inquest?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): You can rely very, very heavily on the commitment of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to

do everything possible to protect patients, to protect people in long-term care. You can rely on that not just from what he said last week but by what he's done and what this government has done.

We've invested $191 million for 2,000 new staff, including 600 new nurses. We have brought in a higher standard of care than has been evident under any previous government in terms of long-term

care.

You should know as well that there have been revisions in terms of the standards for unannounced inspections. There were 482 unannounced annual inspections and

2,528 unannounced compliance visits last year, a 61% increase.

We have the commitment of the minister in this House and we have the actions of that minister and this government to protect patients in a manner that has not

happened in this province before. And it's not simply a record that we stand on but one which is an indication of further improvements to come.

Mr. Hampton: Well, the Casa Verde nursing home inquest has some very specific recommendations, and once again I'm appalled that this

government can't commit to them.

Acting Premier, I'm going to send you over something that many of Ontario's frail seniors are too familiar with. It's an undergarment for incontinent seniors.

When it's 80% full, it turns blue. Workers at Extendicare nursing home in St. Catharines are not allowed to change the undergarments of incontinent residents until they turn blue, even if they know

that an incontinent senior is sitting in their own urine or feces for hours at a time. If it's 20% or 50% or 75% full, it can't be changed -- only when it's 80% full, when it turns blue.

Imagine yourself in that situation. Imagine the embarrassment, the humiliation. Imagine being dependent upon someone to help you, but they won't help you

because the rules don't allow them to. You can do something about this, Minister. Will you?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: The member opposite has already heard that the answer is yes, we are doing something about this. We are making more likely

than ever before a standard of care in this province that we all can be proud of.

I say to the member opposite that any of us could be in those beds or in those incontinence diapers and we would want to be treated with dignity and respect. I

would say there's a judgment on every member of this House and every government that has held responsibility in this House, and this government has acquitted itself better than any before and is

striving, with $191 million in more resources, on behalf of that very person and every person who finds themselves in a vulnerable position in long-term care.

Other governments spent money on bricks and mortar. We have put the money into nurses and into the quality of care. For the member opposite to show his genuine

interest, he has at least to acknowledge that there is a marked increase in the value of care and the compassion that's able to be shown in those facilities, and he can depend on this government to

continue to improve that.

Mr. Hampton: What I acknowledge is that before the election, Dalton McGuinty promised $420 million a year in new funding for long-term care.

After the election, the promise changed to $191 million a year, but what is delivered is $116 million, only a quarter of what was promised.

The reality is that too many seniors across this province are lying and sitting in their own waste for hours because the improvements in long-term care aren't

being made. That's the reality that saddens and discourages staff who work in nursing homes. That's the reality that saddens and discourages family members who see an elderly parent lying and

sitting in their own waste for hours.

Your government promised to do something about that before the election. So far, very little is being done. You've got 85 recommendations from the Casa Verde

nursing home inquest. Will you implement them? Will we see the revolution in long-term care, or is this just another broken McGuinty promise?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: You may think you are channelling, on behalf of people out there, a genuine concern. What I see instead is an opportunity to

turn this into some kind of spectacle. I say to you and I say to the other members opposite that when you've got in the order of 2,500 new inspections taking place, when you have new standards that

were not there before for nurses, when you have the ability for spouses to be reunified, for families to have consideration for the first time, to actually have protection take place in those

homes, you see the extension of compassion from this House into actual services in every community in this province.

For the member opposite to somehow infer otherwise, that the initial investments of this government, which are substantial, have not resulted in that, is to

mislead families and others. We have a genuine reason to be vigilant and to have concern, but that expectation has been fully delivered on and will continue to be delivered by a Minister of Health

who has exerted his full energy --

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

Mr. Hampton: To the Acting Premier: The Acting Premier lectures on about dignity and respect. What we see is vulnerable children being

forgotten by this government: the poorest of children having their money clawed back and children who are autistic being told before the election that they'll continue to receive IBI treatment, but

after the election, no such thing.

Before the election, we were told that seniors living in long-term care were going to see a real progressive change, were going to see over $400 million

invested so they'd get better care. After the election, it seems like they're being forgotten. Your minister promised legislation last fall to improve long-term care. Where is it? Nobody has seen

it. He quotes regulations that aren't being enforced and he hides behind service agreements that aren't being honoured. A year and a half ago, he shed tears; since then, we've seen almost nothing.

Where is the revolution in long-term care for vulnerable seniors that the McGuinty government has promised?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: The average Ontarian watching the procedures of this House may be wondering, is it possible that somehow the member opposite

has an abiding interest in getting something done that isn't being done, or is it possible that he is actually the member of a government that promised to get rid of food banks, to do something on

behalf of hungry kids, but instead abandoned that promise faster than they could shred the Promises for People that it was built on? This was in fact not a cornering of that kind of concern and not

a reflection, in today's issues, on what can be done for people beyond what the government is doing.

We have committed ourselves very fully to take responsibility. The Minister of Health has stood in this House on occasion after occasion and made announcements

of improvement in the standards, and those improvements have translated, as I've already related, into $191 million worth of more services, 2,000 more staff to provide compassionate care, 600

nurses returned from some of the neglected previous governments to have them there in the first place --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Hampton: Last week, the Casa Verde jury said, "Nursing homes are in dire need of more funding, stiffer regulations and better-trained

workers." Well, we haven't seen more funding. You're delivering less funding than you promised. The minister cites regulations that we know aren't being enforced, and we've shown you examples last

week of where workers are being laid off -- not trained and hired, but laid off.

The minister says the revolution is underway. Well, from the perspective of seniors, from the perspective of workers who work in nursing homes, and from the

perspective of families, it's not underway, Minister. When you promise $400 million before the election and it becomes $191 million after the election, but only $116 million is actually delivered,

that's not an improvement for people. You're not even coming close to your own promises.

Minister, where is the revolution you promised? Where's the legislation? Where's the money? Where's the training? Where are the new nurses and personal care

workers that we need to look after our seniors?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: Again, there is the artificial cultivation of alarm on the member's behalf across. Two thousand new workers are there and

present in those homes, 600 nurses included. We have people like Greg Fougère, the chair of the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors, saying there has been a lot

done in the past year with the revolution in long-term care, and we see this government moving on many fronts to improve care and services for seniors. There are objective people in the community

who are seeing the improvements they waited too long for from previous governments.

We don't say that this is all the improvement that can be done or that should be done, and the Minister of Health has been first among those to put every

available resource that he can in smart places, not just with the dollars, but with the inspections, the regulation, and the training and other things that he's put forward in this sector. We have,

for the first time, a champion in the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care for all the vulnerable seniors in long-term-care facilities. This government is, frankly, quite proud of the record that

we have and the future that people in those homes have: a constant improvement, from a government that does finally care.

Mr. Hampton: Well, Acting Premier, I want to remind you of some of the key findings of the Casa Verde nursing home inquest jury.

First, a minimum nursing staff or personal care staff to resident ratio: That's something you promised and something you haven't done.

Another one: using permanent staff rather than contracting out. That's something you used to talk about.

Another one: mandatory reporting by long-term-care facilities on how the nursing and personal care envelope is spent. We've already had examples last week

where that's not happening.

Major changes to the way in which residents with dementia are cared for: That's something you used to talk about. That's not happening.

Revisions to the funding model: Before the election, you said over $400 million a year. Now that's not happening.

Minister, how can you continue to rant on with things that are not happening, things that are not being done to protect our seniors, when you know very well

from your own promises before the election and the Casa Verde inquest after the election that these things need to be done? You promised them. Casa Verde says they need to happen. Where are

they?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: They are out there, thankfully, in the real world, where seniors are, where they depend on the services this government is

providing, and which the artificial rhetoric of the member opposite is not accurately representing.

For example, I quote from the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors saying as recently as a few days ago that at Dufferin Oaks, the

community of management has supported significant staffing increases in the past year: May 1, we increased nursing and personal care staffing by 134 hours per week. In January 2005, despite a fall

in CMI that measures the difficulty, we have another 117 hours. With these enhancements, we now have 2.45 hours per resident a day.

Real improvements for every vulnerable senior are taking place in those quiet places. We've heard those noises of people who otherwise would be unattended.

This government prides itself on its civility and its purpose for being here and making sure that those people get attended to. Under our Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and our Premier and

this government, they are being listened to and those services are being delivered, despite what the member opposite tries to make of it.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Clause 6(1)(

b) of your Greenbelt Act gives you the

authority -- and, I suggest, the responsibility -- to set out "policies to support coordination of planning and development programs of the various ministries of the government of Ontario." I would

remind you that your act will be in force for a minimum of 10 years.

Minister, given your responsibilities under the Greenbelt Act, what intervention did you make or have you made with the Minister of Finance to ensure that

greenbelt municipalities are not negatively affected by the new Dalton McGuinty funding formula for municipalities?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Let me say once again that your funding

formula to municipalities under the old CRF program was totally fallacious. It didn't make any sense. Some municipalities were getting $30,000 and other municipalities in similar circumstances were

getting well over $1 million. It didn't make any sense. We simply felt that it was time to put a new --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The minister used some rather unparliamentary language. I would ask you to withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I'll withdraw whatever --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

I just ask for you to withdraw that. That's all I need.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I withdraw, Speaker.

All I can tell you is that the new formula is fairer to municipalities. It will assist municipalities with social program costs. It will assist and respond to

policing costs, particularly in rural municipalities, which vary greatly right across this province. It will provide for much better equalization and will recognize the unique challenges facing

northern and rural communities. That's what the program is about. There is $233 million in transition funding, and the funding for this year alone is up by 6.1% over what that government spent

before.

Mr. Hudak: Obviously, a disappointing response by the minister. I asked a very simple question: Did he intervene or not with the Minister of

Finance to ensure that the greenbelt municipalities would not be negatively impacted by the new funding formula? The minister, sadly, reverted to his general speaking notes prepared for him on a

different question entirely.

Minister, I'll give you some of the numbers here: Lincoln -- in the greenbelt -- cut by over $1 million in ongoing funding from the CRF envelope; the region of

Durham, $337,000; Grimsby, over $700,000; Niagara-on-the-Lake, $1.3 million; Milton, $1.2 million.

I remind you that your greenbelt plan freezes these municipalities. I find it hard to believe, and please tell me it's not so, that you stood on the sidelines

during the preparation of this funding formula. You didn't stand up for greenbelt municipalities; you didn't stand up for your legislation. Instead, you took a powder.

Minister, tell me it's not true. Tell me you'll fight for these greenbelt municipalities and make sure they don't get one dime cut from the municipal

transfer.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: First of all, the municipalities in the greenbelt can certainly work within their boundaries to develop the way they

normally want to. What we have done with the greenbelt law is protect those agricultural lands surrounding those municipalities that are very valuable to this province and that we want to protect

so they can provide the produce for future generations. We've also protected those natural heritage systems of streams and watercourses in those areas. Those are the areas that the greenbelt is

protecting, not only for this generation but for many, many generations to come.

We have been fair with the municipalities, both in the greenbelt legislation and in the funding legislation that we have in place for this year.

SERVICES FOR THE

HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): What we need is somebody in the greenbelt who will protect us from the Liberals.

I have a question to the Acting Premier. You will know that today we have with us a number of people in the east gallery who are parents of deaf children.

They're upset at your government because your government has cut the funding to the Ontario society of the deaf early literacy consulting program for children. This particular program is extremely

important, because it develops the curriculum needed for schools to be able to do their job when it comes to the instruction of these children, either in ASL or LSQ. Without that type of funding,

there is no curriculum development, no training of the trainers, no support for the people who are going to be working one-on-one with the kids in the education system.

I have a question for you, Acting Premier, and it's a simple one: Are you prepared to restore the funding to this program to make sure that those kids get an

equal opportunity when it comes to education? After all, you will know that deaf children are equal.

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): Thank you for raising the question. We appreciate the presence here of members of the Ontario

Cultural Society of the Deaf. The organization was provided with a contract as part of the start-up of the infant hearing program, as I think the member is aware. Its work was very much

appreciated. They were tasked with developing American sign language materials and resources for public education, and they did a tremendous job creating that as a method of communication for

babies identified with permanent hearing loss.

Now that the infant hearing program is fully implemented, all the available funding is being utilized not for start-up but for actual direct service for those

families. Those resources are available through the infant hearing program or the Ontario Early Years centres. We want to be able to assure everyone that those services will be available there. If

they choose ASL services, they will see the same level of service as those who choose oral language as a method of communication, as a result of the success of this program. That is as a result of

the funding having served its purpose over those three years, as I believe the member knows.

Mr. Bisson: The problem is simply this: It's like locking these children in time. It's like saying, "We're going to take the curriculum

community? They need to have this type of work to develop the curriculum, to do the training and to give the support that's necessary for the kids. I can't understand why your government would all

of a sudden think for some strange reason that the deaf community after today is not going to need more curriculum development. Get with it. You're the Minister of Education. You should know

better.

I'm going to ask you the question again. It was a program that was started to assist those people who are training kids who are doing communication in either

ASL or LSQ and give them the supports they need to go on with their education. Will you fund it? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: The member knew when he stood up in the House to address the question that the answer is yes, because the funding has

already been given. The funding has gone to provide for, first of all, the development of a new program, the development of those materials. That's been done. The same amount of money -- all of it,

in fact, $8.3 million -- is going to the direct provision of the services that were done with the materials that this society developed very expertly and much to the benefit of infant children who

need access to American sign language.

The member knew that when he raised the question. He shows the same cavalier respect for the facts as his leader when it comes to representing vulnerable

people in this House. There may be other things -- and I'm sure there are -- that the society should be engaged in. They've expedited and conducted themselves in an exemplary fashion here, but the

way you formed the question, the idea that somehow this money is not working on behalf of deaf children, is simply not accurate. I believe you knew that, and I believe this House deserves to know

better, as does the public. All $8.3 million is going into direct assistance to access educational services on the same basis as for the children with hearing of a different standard.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Minister of Education. As you know, the Lakehead District School

Board continues to move toward the closure of many schools in the Thunder Bay area. Seven are scheduled to close at the end of this year alone.

Minister, you have publicly stated that with the new closure guidelines in place, the board will have to meet the standards set by those guidelines in order to

move forward with their present plan. In fact, you have made it clear that you will be appointing a facilitator to conduct an independent review into all the closures, including those scheduled for

this year. Can you tell us today who that facilitator will be and provide some detail as to the scope of this review?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I'm happy to advise the member opposite, who has advocated quite strongly to make sure that the

ultimate benefit is served, that all children across the province, including those in the Lakehead, benefit from a facilities policy that will, for the first time, put a balanced view forward.

We have said that for the boards that could not, for whatever reason, honour the moratorium, we would conduct an independent review. We have now appointed Dave

Cooke, who is a former Minister of Education, to conduct that review, to look at whether the process that we have now put in place, that we've asked boards to follow in future, would significantly

benefit communities for which interim work was done by boards even as the moratorium was taking place. I believe Mr. Cooke will help us to make sure that a review is done to ensure that the

community of Thunder Bay and the surrounding communities of Lakehead region do not lose out from all the benefits that we're bringing forward in our new facilities policy.

Mr. Gravelle: Clearly, a great deal is relying on the review that Mr. Cooke will be conducting, certainly for the schools that are scheduled

to close and also for the board itself. As you are aware, this is an issue that has caused a great deal of controversy in our region, particularly as the board has publicly stated that they believe

they followed the school closure guidelines you recently put in place. Presumably this will be for the facilitator to determine, which I believe begs a few questions: How much scope does the

facilitator have? Will he meet with all the concerned groups as part of his review? Also, will his recommendations be binding? And, if I may, one more question: Will his report be presented to you

before the end of this school year?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: The independent facilitator will look at the actions taken by the board in arriving at a decision. We set the guidelines as

a province. We've set them newly as a government now, and we'll look at whether or not the spirit of the new guidelines was met by the actions undertaken while we asked for a moratorium. Yes, those

decisions will be binding and can result in changed actions on the part of the board in terms of not being in compliance with the new guidelines. I will receive those recommendations directly, and

the recommendations will also go to the board for any changes in their actions. In addition, we believe this can be done in an expedited fashion, approximately two to two and a half weeks.

We will be able to talk to members of the affected communities, not to re-conduct public hearings but to talk to representatives of each of the school

communities affected to show the respect that is implied in the policy: that every community should be respected for the value the schools provide to them as well as for the students who attend

those individual institutions. I believe the outcome will not just be good but better for the kids in Lakehead and the communities there as well.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. On March 30, our leader, John Tory, asked you when farmers could

expect the $79 million you promised them. Your response was, "The MRI program has been in place for a number of years. ... the $79 million that's going to flow is going to flow through the ...

program, and those cheques should be in the mail within the next two to three weeks."

Well, that time has long since passed, and the farmers in my riding of Oxford haven't received anything. Farmers are calling me to say that they continue to

call Agricorp, and the answer is the same: "The cheques have not been issued yet." What have you got to say to these hard-pressed farmers of Ontario? Where's the money, Minister?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The cheques are flowing. The cheques started to flow last week. The $79 million will

flow quickly into farmers' hands. The comments he has made that they're not flowing -- I don't know where he's getting that information, but the dollars are flowing. The provincial dollars will

flow much quicker than the federal government dollars. If the honourable member has a constituent who would like to know the status of his market revenue cheque, I'd urge him to pick up the phone

and contact my MPP liaison or call Agricorp directly.

Mr. Hardeman: Mr. Minister, that's exactly what I did. As recently as this morning, we called Agricorp, and they said the cheques haven't been

issued and it could be another couple of weeks before the farmers get any money. I remind you that the day you made your announcement, you told farmers that the additional funds would be in their

hands prior to the planting season. Well, farmers, at least those who can afford to, are in the field and planting now. Banks are refusing to loan farmers money to plant their crops this year

because they have no faith in your commitment to Ontario's farmers.

Minister, I ask again, when will the farmers in my riding and the farmers in Ontario receive the help you promised and said you would deliver within two weeks?

They have so far got absolutely nothing, and the people who issue the cheques said they have not issued the cheques as of today.

Hon. Mr. Peters: Unlike John Tory and the band of Tories, who advocate that our grain and oilseed farmers should be getting away from grains

and oilseeds crops and moving to organics, we believe in the grains and oilseeds industry, unlike John Tory and the Tories, who are prepared to abandon our farmers in this province. As well, I see

they've struck a committee with member Yakabuski and member Hardeman to look at rural issues. It should be very interesting to see the influence that the Lanark Landowners' Association has on John

Tory and Tory policy in this government.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I thought that the member from Oxford asked the question, and I hoped he would listen to the answer.

New question.

DUFFINS-ROUGE

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On March 7, we asked to you uphold the

agricultural easements on the Duffins-Rouge agricultural preserve, because the city of Pickering had just lifted them, to the delight of the Premier's and the Finance Minister's $10,000-per-plate

dinner guest Silvio DeGasperis. Despite your lack of concern at the time, we now learn that the head of the Ontario Realty Corp. and the Chair of Management Board, Gerry Phillips, see things

differently. They believe the city of Pickering deceived the province and failed to honour a public trust, and are considering legal action. My question is, will you tell us today that the

government will be taking the city of Pickering to court to fight their lifting of the agricultural easements on the Duffins-Rouge agricultural preserve?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I would like to refer this question to the

Chair of Management Board.

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Indeed, I did send a letter to the city of Pickering on behalf of the

government. I wanted to make it absolutely certain that the city of Pickering, and indeed the people of Ontario, understood the government of Ontario's firm commitment to ensure that the

Duffins-Rouge agricultural preserve is preserved as agricultural land. That was the purpose of the letter, and it was clear to the city of Pickering that we have the full intention of making

certain that is preserved. We look at all our options. Legal action is one option, but we'll make certain we take the necessary steps to protect that as an agricultural preserve, and that was the

purpose of the letter I sent on behalf of the government.

Ms. Churley: Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Pickering council's attempt to liberate the Duffins-Rouge agricultural preserve on

behalf of Mr. DeGasperis and others is a strong statement on just how permanent developers perceive your greenbelt to be. They recognize that, contrary to your claims, one does not have to wait for

a 10-year review to amend the greenbelt plan. You, Minister, have the power to initiate amendments of the greenbelt plan at any time, and they know that. So Ontarians are legitimately concerned

that the Duffins-Rouge agricultural preserve is just the tip of the iceberg and that there will be other areas within the greenbelt where developers are speculating that they can win the favour of

government and get their lands removed.

My question: To stop this speculation by developers on the greenbelt, will you commit to passing NDP Bill 178, which will give Ontarians the permanent

greenbelt you promised them and not the floating greenbelt you gave them?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I want to continue to state very clearly to the member, and indeed to the public, what we've stated in our communication

with the city of Pickering: We are dedicated to preserving the Duffins-Rouge agricultural preserve as agricultural land, and we are committed to preserving the integrity of our greenbelt

legislation. The step I took last week on behalf of the government of Ontario was to make certain, in the particular case of this agricultural preserve, that there can be no confusion. We've made

very clear to the city of Pickering our dedication and determination to make certain that we preserve that as an agricultural preserve, and we are taking the appropriate steps. I've indicated that

one of the options we are looking at in making sure that is preserved is legal action. Make no mistake that we are dedicated to preserving that as an agricultural preserve and are taking, we think,

the appropriate steps.

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who I'm pleased to say sits in front of me,

to my right. In North Bay, and in the House today, you announced the infrastructure investments that deliver on the McGuinty government's commitment to build strong and sustainable communities. My

own community of Niagara Falls is the recipient of almost $2 million, which is part of a $6-million plan that will provide proper sewer infrastructure for my community to stop sewer backups and

prevent flooding for residents in the older part of the city of Niagara Falls.

Minister, can you tell us how these infrastructure investments improve the quality of life for Ontario's rural towns, cities and villages?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I thank the member for his question and for

all he does for Niagara Falls and the Niagara area.

I'm very proud that the government of Ontario has committed $298 million to improve rural infrastructure over the next five years. Together with our municipal

and federal partners, we will be investing over $900 million in rural investments over the next five years. These investments are helping Ontario communities provide clean, safe drinking water,

better sewage systems, improved waste management and safer rural roads and bridges.

The COMRIF program's objective is to improve the quality of life of residents through projects that enhance and renew our infrastructure to protect the health

and safety of citizens and to support long-term economic growth to build strong, sustainable and healthy communities.

Mr. Craitor: My supplementary question is again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The benefits of this unique partnership

between the province of Ontario and the federal government, known as COMRIF, will be felt across our great province. In the city of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake, projects for waste

management separation were selected because of health and safety value-for-money and public priorities. I know my community is eager to start construction in the upcoming season. This initiative

will be creating new jobs while improving local public services.

Minister, please explain how it came about that Niagara Falls and 119 other communities across Ontario are able to start constructing and improving public

services in their communities this year.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: This is the first infrastructure partnership of its kind that joins the province, the federal government and AMO, the

Association of Municipalities of Ontario, through a one-application process. That's never been done before. The governments of Canada and Ontario and AMO are working together to ensure that

municipalities have the tools they need to improve essential rural infrastructure. Our government is the first government in Canada to sign this agreement, because we wanted to act quickly in the

interests of all Ontarians.

As a result of today's investment announcements clear across this province, 120 communities will be provided with the support they need to renew essential

infrastructure in their communities. We, the McGuinty government, are committed to rural Ontario, and COMRIF demonstrates our government's commitment.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. It involves the city of

Guelph. I want to add right off the bat that Guelph has joined Club Zero as of 2006 under the Ontario municipal partnership fund.

In an

article in the Guelph Mercury on Saturday, a spokesman from your ministry identified the latest in your arsenal of stalling tactics on your campaign

promise to put 1,000 new police officers on our streets. I'll quote from the ministry spokesman, who says, "It's not just hiring the officers, but we also have to determine what areas need

officers." That's exactly what the spokesperson from your ministry said.

May I remind you that your ministry doesn't hire the officers? Local police services do. These local police services also know better than anyone else in the

province what areas of policing require the officers most. When are you going to stop stalling on keeping this promise, let municipalities know how many officers they are actually getting and let

local police services decide how they want the officers allocated?

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. He obviously doesn't

understand how the system works. Under the community policing program that his government initiated, it was a shared-cost program, with the government paying 50%, to a maximum of $30,000 per

officer. The ministry does not decide how many officers a particular municipality is going to have. The municipality has to decide how many officers they can afford, pegging their share of the

cost.

What happens is that we are negotiating with police services across the province to determine what number of officers they would like to access. When they do

that, and when we have them all in order so we know how many of the 1,000 are going to what particular police service, we will do it. We are absolutely committed, and I can give you my guarantee,

that before this mandate is over, we will be putting 1,000 new officers in the streets and communities in Ontario.

Mr. Dunlop: Minister, in that same newspaper article, Guelph police chief Rob Davis, right in your parliamentary assistant's own riding, says

he couldn't wait for the McGuinty government to make good on its promise to hire 1,000 new police officers. In fact, he hasn't even had a response from your office in over two months. Because of

retirements, maternity leaves and injuries, he's had to hire new police officers, but he's not getting a single penny from the McGuinty government to pay for them.

Minister, if and when you finally get around to keeping your promise, will you reimburse the city of Guelph and other municipalities for the police officers

they hire on their own in the meantime? Will you do that, since your Premier made the fancy announcement last year on October 24 when he announced that you'd be hiring 1,000 new police

officers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Every police service in Ontario has retirements, attrition, things that are happening, and they have a complement that their

local municipalities have decided they're prepared to fund. What we are talking about is an additional 1,000 officers. What is happening in a lot of communities is that they're saying, "This could

be imminent, so why should we hire 100% dollars on police services when we can wait and get 50% dollars?" That is what is happening. But in the meantime, they have an obligation to maintain their

police service at the complement they have. We are providing 1,000 extra officers on top of that.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Acting Premier. In the last election, your government campaigned on a platform of

restoring public services. To date, however, your record in office has been more about cutting those same services and handing out layoff notices to the workers.

Today we hear about another attempt to off-load valuable public services: the proposed privatization of air ambulances. Minister, air ambulances are a crucial

public service, particularly in northern and rural Ontario, and it is the sole responsibility of the government. My question to you is simple: Will you rescind your government's decision to

privatize this essential service?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I want to assure the member opposite that this government has in fact done the opposite of what

he has said, which is to make $3 billion worth of investments in health care, making them more accessible to people in every part of this province. The member opposite would well have taken note, I

think, of the family health teams put forward last week to increase access in their own communities to services, some of which would have required air ambulance before.

The commitment we have is very, very clear: to invest at some cost, not just in dollars but in terms of political risk, because we think this is the right

thing to do for the province to improve health care services. So I say to the member opposite, we guarantee that health care services are getting better, that wait lines are getting shorter, that

services all around the province, far from being impaired, as the member implied, are actually going to be improved under this government's watch.

Mr. Prue: I listened to that whole response, and I'm going to check Hansard too. He never once mentioned the term "air ambulance." My question

is about air ambulances.

The reality is that it is the government that has a responsibility to ensure that emergency air ambulance service is there for the people of Ontario in crisis

situations, when they most desperately need it. Air ambulance services make 17,000 calls a year and are responsible for all of the people in Ontario. Off-loading that responsibility will prove to

be a disaster. I ask you again, will you rescind your government's decision to privatize this vital service?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: It's clear that the member opposite is, like some of his colleagues, stuck somewhere in the middle of a process and not

actually with delivering an outcome for a patient, for someone who needs a service.

Air ambulance service will not only continue but, like every other part of our valuable, publicly funded health services, we will endeavour to improve it. That

has been our track record; that has been what we've done. There isn't an area you can point to, frankly, where the services haven't been improved.

Your leader flailed away earlier, trying to talk about long-term care. Instead, that's improved. We say again, we will look at every area where we can find

improvements, because we have that obligation. We don't have the luxury of being stuck in process like the third party or stuck 25 years ago, like the third party. We have confidence in public

services, and the only way those services engender confidence is when they work, when people can actually see that they get value for the dollars that are in.

So we are looking at all the different operations of government, but they are essentially public in nature, they are publicly controlled, and they will have,

ultimately, the confidence of the public, which is something the third party forgot about how to do a long, long time ago.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, it's clear to me, as one who

sat through the Bill 100 hearings, that the McGuinty government takes its commitment to the environment seriously. Announcing the appointment of Mr. Peter Love as Ontario's first chief electricity

conservation officer during Earth Week was not just a coup, but a fitting reminder of that commitment.

Minister, I know that Mr. Love is a committed environmentalist who will be working as hard as he can to ensure that Ontario becomes a world leader in

electricity conservation. That said, Minister, can you tell us a little bit more about Mr. Love's mandate and specifically what he'll be doing?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I note that the NDP leader shakes his head in opposition to this

appointment, but let me say a few words about the chief energy conservation officer, the individual who will lead what will be responsible for helping the government meet its target to reduce peak

electricity demand growth in Ontario by 5% by 2007.

The bureau will develop province-wide conservation programs to help consumers save energy and save money. It will promote energy conservation and the efficient

use of electricity, it will assess the technical, economic and market potential for conservation in the province, and it will report on Ontario's progress in achieving its conservation targets and

assess what further action is required. That is, we'll set targets and we'll mark progress so that there's openness and transparency and the people of Ontario can see whether or not this government

or any future government is meeting its commitments with respect to that. This government still believes that a megawatt saved is every bit as good as a megawatt built.

Mr. McMeekin: Minister, you're just full of good news these days. Earlier last week you announced a new request for proposals for 1,000

megawatts of clean, renewable energy generation. You seem to be moving forward on all fronts, to be firing on all cylinders. What impact do you expect your announcement will have on our goal of

increasing the amount of electricity generation that comes from clean, renewable power sources in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: The member is accurate. We're doing what John Tory and the Conservatives won't do: moving forward on renewable electricity.

We're doing --

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): They liked coal.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Yes, John Tory and the Tories want more coal-fired generation in Ontario. We say no to that. We're doing what the NDP

couldn't and wouldn't do when they were the government: We're adding wind power, solar power, biomass, geothermal, in a way that is prudent and responsible, that's delivered in a timely fashion and

will lessen our dependence as the Tories don't want to do.

The Tories want more coal. They want more pollution. They don't seem to want to deal with childhood asthma. They don't want to deal with smog days in Algonquin

Park. They don't want to deal with smog days in Toronto in February. The McGuinty government is taking a lead in North America in terms of shutting down our coal plants, replacing it with clean,

renewable, affordable electricity that will serve our children and their children for many, many years to come.

PETITIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): This is a petition calling for "In-Depth Investigation of Judicial System.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Hon. 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 our Attorney General may not be aware of the serious and important issues facing individuals involved in areas of the justice system

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

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, ask the Hon. Michael Bryant, Attorney General, for his in-depth investigation of the Ontario judicial system and [to] make the

public aware of his findings immediately."

I'm pleased to submit this on behalf of many, but my constituent Albert Werry has signed and dated this, and I'm pleased to endorse it myself.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I'm pleased to present a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from the Mississauga Board of

Chinese Professionals and Businesses. CPB does a great job in our community, and I'm grateful for the help of André Mak, Rosie Yu, Winnie Tung and Cindy Chan. It reads as follows:

"Whereas there are no established, Ontario-wide standards to deal with anaphylaxis in Ontario schools; and

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

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

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

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

"Be it therefore resolved that....

"The government of Ontario support the swift passage of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students, that requires that every school principal in Ontario

establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I join with my colleague the member for Brampton in supporting this position. I affix my signature to it and I'll ask Taylor to carry it down for me.

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

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

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

Newmarket; and

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

decline in the value of their homes; and

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

intolerable;

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

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

As I am in agreement, I will sign my name to this petition.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's my pleasure to present a petition from a group of ratepayers in Oakville, Milton, Burlington and

Richmond Hill because they're all in the catchment area of my local hospital, Credit Valley Hospital. It reads as follows:

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and a Halton-Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the Credit

Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now, and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley Hospital bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered

each year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million of a $50-million

fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility able to meet the needs of our community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at

Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients in

the hospital emergency department, and to better serve patients in the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

I support this wholeheartedly. I'll affix my signature to it and ask page Jonathan to carry it for me.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

of the inaction of the Ontario Historical Society; and

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

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

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

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

come."

I want to thank Larry Whitemore of Loretto for helping circulate that petition, and I want to thank the CBC, which did an extensive program on this very issue

on the weekend.

VISITORS

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to recognize

students here from John Diefenbaker school in Scarborough East, who are playing host to a group of about 30 students and their teachers from Elnora, Alberta. I want to --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): It's not a point of order.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): On behalf of everyone in Mississauga, we join with them in welcoming all of our colleagues from

Scarborough here to the Legislature.

I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly from Lee Perrin on Lisgar Drive, in my home neighbourhood of Lisgar, in Mississauga. It reads as follows:

"Whereas there are no established, Ontario-wide standards to deal with anaphylaxis in Ontario schools; and

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

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

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

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

"Be it therefore resolved ...

"That the government of Ontario support the swift passage of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students, that requires that every school principal in

Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I thank Lee for sending in the petition. I affix my signature to it, and I'll ask Elizabeth to carry it down for me.

ABORTION

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have a petition from a number of people in my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 46,000 abortions in 1995 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of

abortions."

I assign my name to this, Mr. Speaker, and send it to you.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I'm pleased to present a petition sent to me by Roxanne Tang, who is actually from Markham, like a number

of others who are workers at the Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga. It reads as follows:

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and a Halton-Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the Credit

Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now, and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley Hospital bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered

each year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million" -- and counting --

"of a $50-million fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility able to meet the needs of our

community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at

Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients in

the hospital emergency department and to better serve patients in the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

I support this petition wholeheartedly. This is my community hospital. I'll ask Jonathan to carry it for me.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's one of the petitions from the Huronia Regional Centre.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

sector and the economies of the local communities;

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign my name to this.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's my pleasure to read a petition sent to me by Joseph Clegg and some of his friends and neighbours from

Barcella Crescent in Mississauga. It's to protect anaphylactic students and it reads as follows:

"Whereas there are no established Ontario-wide standards to deal with anaphylaxis in Ontario schools; and

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

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

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

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

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

An Act to protect anaphylactic students, that requires that every

school principal in Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to support the petition, and to ask Inderraj to carry it for me.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition signed by a number of individuals and veterans from the Preston, Hespeler and Galt Canadian

Legions.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

and

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

facility; and

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

respect to our veterans;

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

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

SENIOR CITIZENS

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

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

"To immediately commit to action and funding to ensure the rights and protection of our citizens living in nursing homes and retirement homes in Ontario."

It goes on to say:

"This is in support of the petition of Joan Faria which is currently before the Legislature."

I have signed this petition.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Again, a petition from the Huronia Regional Centre.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign this, and give it to Sean to deliver to you.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRANSPORTATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSPORT

Mr. Takhar moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 169,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and to amend and repeal various other statutes in respect of transportation-related matters / Projet de

loi 169, Loi modifiant le Code de la route et modifiant et abrogeant diverses autres lois à l'égard de questions relatives au transport.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I will be sharing my time with Dr. Kular, the MPP from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale,

and my parliamentary assistant Mr. Lalonde, the MPP from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

In leading off debate on this bill, I would like to underscore that at its very heart is the fundamental issue of public safety: safety for children at school

crossings, safety for senior citizens at crosswalks, safety for highway construction workers, safety for taxi passengers, safety for student drivers and for people commuting to work, safety for

truckers and for northern residents driving in harsh winter weather conditions; in short, safety for all Ontarians.

The facts are very clear: Fatalities are down. We have the lowest fatality rate ever recorded on Ontario roads. In fact, they're the lowest in North America.

I'm very proud of this great record, but over 800 people still died on our roads in 2003.

The sad reality is that speed kills, and it keeps on killing. Too many people are dying while simply crossing the road. Fifteen thousand pedestrians have been

struck or killed in the past five years. People driving 50 kilometres per hour over the limit are almost 10 times more likely to hurt or kill someone. In 2003, speeding or loss of control was a

factor in about 44% of all deadly crashes. Those collisions took the lives of more than 300 people -- to be exact, the number was 363.

We want and need to address the issue of speeders. If the bill passes, we plan to give them longer licence suspensions. The bill proposes to increase fines for

those who drive 30 kilometres over the limit. It would also allow the courts to impose licence suspensions of up to one year on those who are convicted of repeatedly driving 50 kilometres over the

posted limit.

If this legislation passes, it would be an offence to ignore "stop" or "slow" signs on road work zones. That is important, because over five years there have

been more than 11,000 collisions on our roads. Fifty people have died. That is why we are getting tougher with speeders. We want fines doubled for speeding in highway construction zones and doubled

for those drivers who ignore the rules at school and pedestrian crossings. We are doing what we can to improve safety. Right now, 45% of pedestrians killed are struck at marked crossings.

We would also improve truck safety with more rigorous daily inspections. There would be tough new rules targeting those who operate illegal taxis, limousines

and passenger vans. There would be tougher standards for driving schools offering ministry-approved courses.

The police would be able to clear highway collisions more quickly. We need to do that in order to keep our highways moving. That would ease driver frustration

and help the economy. A major crash on the 401 can not only tie up traffic but lead to all sorts of secondary collisions as well.

To save lives, the bill proposes to allow a new generation of studded tires to be used in the icy winter conditions of northern Ontario.

When I introduced this legislation, the opposition parties knew it was the right thing to do, but they choose to say that the legislation won't work. But road

construction workers support it, and truckers are keen to do their part. Municipalities are pleased with what we are doing. We are adding provincial rules to crack down on speeders on local

roads.

Police support this law. Let's listen to what police and others say about this bill. Staff Sergeant Tom Carrique of York Regional Police said, "Anything we can

do to deal with speeding will make our roads safer." The Metroland papers said, "Peel Regional Police are lauding the bill." The Woodstock Sentinel-Review said, "A step toward pedestrian safety,"

and the Ottawa Citizen said, "This is the right move."

When the opposition criticizes the proposal of studded tires, they should think again about parents in the north who will have greater mobility to get their

sick children to the hospital. Ontario has the safest roads in North America, and every time we toughen road safety laws, we get results: People now wear seat belts; getting tough on drunk drivers

has clearly saved lives; introducing mandatory bike helmets for children has saved untold grief.

Ontario will continue to lead the way in road safety, thanks to responsible citizens, educational campaigns, fine police officers, good roads and sound laws

like the bill we are debating here this afternoon. Bill 169 demonstrates that we can, must and will do more to make our roads even safer. That is why I urge honourable members on all sides of the

House to give this legislation their enthusiastic support.

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It's a pleasure and an honour to participate in the debate on Bill 169,

An Act to amend

the Highway Traffic Act and to amend and repeal various other statutes in respect of transportation-related matters.

Bill 169 contains a package of integrated measures: short-term measures and long-term measures; measures to improve road safety; measures to ease the

congestion on the roads in our province; measures to help increase transit ridership. This proposed bill also meets our government's commitment by allowing studded tire use in the northern part of

this province.

This bill would also support the McGuinty government's growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe. This wide-ranging package of legislative measures proposed

by the honourable Minister of Transportation is pragmatic, sensible and very much in the interests of all Ontarians. As the minister has pointed out over and over, the bill is about safety on our

highways and local streets. Pedestrians, especially seniors and schoolchildren, are the most vulnerable road users. If passed, this bill would enhance the existing rules to improve safety at school

crossings, pedestrian crossovers, and crosswalks at traffic signals. Drivers who disobey these rules and put pedestrians at risk would be subject to increased penalties.

This bill would target illegal, unlicensed taxis and limousine scoopers who gouge unsuspecting travellers. For example, last year I was travelling across

Ontario during the public meetings and consultations, listening to Ontarians with disabilities, their family members and other stakeholders. Once I had to fly back from northern Ontario. When I

landed at Pearson airport, I was picked up by a scooper. Normally, it costs about $45 from the airport to my home in Bramalea. When I got out of his car, he asked me for a $100 bill. I was taken

aback. This bill will handle these kinds of scoopers.

It will also single out fraudulent driving schools which offer false certification to student drivers.

These are all things that Ontarians want addressed.

More than 15,000 pedestrians have been hurt or killed while crossing the street during the past five years in this province of ours. Almost half of the fatal

collisions on our roads are tied to speeding or loss of control. Over a five-year period, there were nearly 12,000 incidents in road construction zones, and those crashes resulted in almost 3,500

injuries, and the loss of about 50 lives. That's why this bill is important.

Through a combination of good laws, excellent policing, proper roads, public education and the basic thoughtfulness of Ontario drivers, our province has the

safest roads in North America, with the lowest rate of fatalities per 10,000 licensed drivers.

But being the best isn't enough when the number of pedestrians being run down is still unacceptably high. It's not enough when the current law only allows for

a 30-day licence suspension no matter how often someone is convicted of driving more than 50 kilometres an hour over the speed limit. It's not enough when illegal taxis and limousines are scooping

unsuspecting customers at Pearson International Airport. It's not good enough when fenders and grilles are flying off poorly maintained vehicles on our busy highways.

There would be increased penalties if this bill passes. The fine would be $210 and four demerit points on convictions for going 30 kilometres per hour over the

posted speed limit. There would be lengthier, court-ordered, suspension periods for drivers convicted of repeat offences of speeding 50 kilometres an hour or more above the posted limit, occurring

within five years of a preceding offence. The vast majority of road users view this category of speeders as both intimidating and reckless.

The fines for speeding would be doubled for offences in work zones when workers are present.

It would be an offence under the Highway Traffic Act to pick up a passenger for compensation without a proper licence or permit. It would help deter identity

theft by significantly increasing the penalty for having or using a fictitious, fraudulent or imitation driver's licence.

This bill is not just about going after the bad guys or after the bad drivers, as important as that is; it's also about working cooperatively and effectively

with the good drivers. This bill allows our police officers more authority to order the clearing of collisions or spills or debris on a highway. At the present time, the Ontario Provincial Police

have to wait for approval of trucking or insurance companies to get things cleared away. We think that the police should have the power to use their professional judgment to deal with serious

highway problems and to get our highways moving again. This is vitally important for export economies such as ours, where 60% of all delays on highways are the result of collisions, spills or

debris.

This bill is about working with 553,000 commercially licensed bus and truck drivers in Ontario. Over the past 15 years, the number of large trucks on our

highways has increased by about 45%, but the number of fatalities involving trucks has decreased by close to 27%. Our truckers are doing a great job, and soon they will be able to do even more to

make our roads even safer. They would examine more than 70 vehicle parts on every commercial vehicle every day. That is three times more than they do now. Trucks move over $1.2 trillion of goods on

Ontario's roads annually, and I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to our truckers for taking on responsibility in doing even more to improve highway safety.

This legislation would also give the professionals who monitor and oversee our highways the authority to set varied speed limits.

For people in northern Ontario, this bill proposes to allow the use of a new, more environmentally friendly generation of studded tires. Research shows that

studded tires can reduce collisions on icy roads. This is something that our Liberal MPPs from the north have been advocating for many years.

This government, the McGuinty government, has moved to promote transit by providing $1 billion to municipalities from gas tax revenues.

The honourable Minister of Transportation is working to promote measures that would improve public transit, our environment, our quality of life, and commuter

congestion. Bill 169 would protect school kids and senior citizens. It would protect sensible and responsible drivers. It would protect more than eight million Ontario drivers who follow the rules

of the road. This bill is about education, enforcement and the consequences, and most importantly it's about saving lives. I ask all the members of the Legislature to act to pass this legislation

as quickly as possible. We have the safest highways and streets in North America, based on the rate of fatalities. Let's work together to make them even safer.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I am delighted to stand in the House today and speak about a healthier and safer Ontario.

Since the Minister of Transportation introduced a transit and road safety bill, we have received overwhelming support and endorsement from stakeholders, from the police, from municipalities and

from the public at large. The minister has already dealt with the provision of the bill covering pedestrian safety, speeding and other enforcement issues.

Permettez-moi de passer en revue les dispositions du projet de loi 169, axées sur les transports en commun, et de réaffirmer l'engagement de notre

gouvernement aux transports en commun de l'Ontario.

Au coeur de notre vision de collectivités vigoureuses figure la stratégie de notre gouvernement, visant à planifier et à bâtir un

réseau de transports en commun intégré, sécuritaire et fiable pour tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes.

Ontario's 83 transit systems together move some 680 million passengers every year. GO Transit carries 44 million riders annually. The TTC, Canada's largest

transit system, carries 1.15 million passengers daily. Meanwhile, the average car in Toronto carries only 1.16 people -- yes, only 1.16 person per car. A single GO bus can replace 50 cars, and a GO

train would replace 1,400 cars.

Notre gouvernement est conscient du fait que nous devons investir, oui, investir aussi bien dans les réseaux routiers que dans les transports en commun

pour réduire les embouteillages. Nous devons bâtir un réseau de transports en commun pratique et coordonné qui offre au voyageur une vraie solution de rechange à

l'utilisation de leur propre voiture. S'il est adopté, oui, avec l'appui des trois partis de cette Assemblée, le p