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

April 12, 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-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 12 April 2005 Mardi 12 avril 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TERRY FOX

ETOBICOKE-LAKESHORE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

MILK VENDING MACHINES

IN SCHOOLS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS

SAFE SCHOOLS

TERRY FOX

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

HYDRO GENERATION

HYDRO ONE

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

PUBLIC SAFETY

RENEWABLE FUELS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AUTISM TREATMENT

FOOD SAFETY

TEACHER TESTING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ANTI-SCALDING DEVICE

SPORT PARACHUTING

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CONTROL OF SMOKING

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

INSURANCE RATES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO FARMERS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND

SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES

ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS

D'ALIMENTS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TERRY FOX

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'd like to speak today on a true Canadian hero. Twenty-five years ago this morning, on April 12, 1980,

Terry Fox began what was to become known as the Marathon of Hope.

Terry, who in 1977 had lost his leg as a result of bone cancer, wanted to run across Canada and raise money for cancer research and awareness. After a fairly

quiet beginning in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Marathon of Hope quickly gained momentum, and Terry Fox became a household hero and star as he worked his way across our country over the next four

and a half months.

I can recall talking to one OPP officer who had the honour of escorting Terry throughout Muskoka. He said to me that watching Terry run was one of the most

emotional days of his life and one of the most proud in being a true Canadian.

Terry's run came to an end on September 1 of that year in Thunder Bay when they discovered that the cancer had returned to his body. He died the following June

28. He died a legend.

Since that day, the Terry Fox Foundation has raised $360 million worldwide. The Terry Fox run, held in Canada during September, is now held in numerous countries

around the world. In my riding, the Terry Fox run is held in many communities. Thousands of participants and volunteers make the Terry Fox run a fun and successful day, year after year.

Today, in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Terry Fox family will help unveil a 25-year memorial to Terry. We as Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to Terry Fox. His

short life is symbolic of what is truly right and what is truly Canadian.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats are pleased to join others today in paying tribute to Terry Fox. It was 25 years ago today that

that young Canadian dipped his artificial leg in the Atlantic Ocean to begin a journey that changed a nation. After being diagnosed with bone cancer and having his right leg amputated, Terry Fox

wanted to make a difference in the world and help cure that dreadful disease. Young Mr. Fox said, "Somewhere the hurting must stop ... [I am] determined to take myself to the limit for this cause."

And he did. He began his Marathon of Hope and started an improbable dream.

He dreamed of collecting $1 from every Canadian to raise money for cancer research. After taking his Marathon of Hope halfway across Canada, young Mr. Fox

successfully raised more than $24 million for cancer research, emerging as a true Canadian hero in the process.

Although cancer had ended his life in 1981, his legacy was just beginning. He became an inspiring example of indomitable courage, spirit and determination, and a

symbol of extraordinary accomplishment and humanitarian excellence.

Twenty-five years later, cancer cases are on the rise at a rapid pace. One way or another, this disease touches all of us. While there's no cure yet, researchers

have made advances to improve survival rates and quality of life for cancer patients. Like Terry, there is a long road ahead of us.

New Democrats pay tribute today to a true Canadian hero who continues to inspire us all. We should reflect upon the past and work toward the future. During

Terry's fight he said, "Even if I don't finish, we need others to continue. It's got to keep going on without me." Twenty-five years later, we are continuing Terry Fox's work and making his dream

become a reality.

ETOBICOKE-LAKESHORE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

Ms. Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): One week ago today, I had the pleasure of hosting a round-table meeting of more than 45 community

leaders, members and constituents in my riding. The purpose was to discuss and provide feedback about the successes and needs of our community.

Community council served as a starting point to foster improved communication and interaction across our shared community. I appreciated the frank and open

dialogue about local issues that affect youth, businesses, seniors and residents in Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Our community council considered the unique strengths and challenges of all areas of the riding, from Lake Ontario to the Burnhamthorpe-Dundas area, and from

Etobicoke Creek to the Humber River. We are fortunate to have a genuine sense of community in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and also to have so many people devoted to furthering the vibrancy of all our

neighbourhoods. At the same time, our community is aware of the need for local infrastructure renewal, affordable housing, commercial revitalization, information sharing and increased green

space.

I am committed to continuing to develop and to sustain the relationships formed at community council. From the floor of the Legislature, I want to thank everyone

who took

part in last week's meeting for their insight and willingness to work together for the benefit of our community. To ensure we keep the energy going, I would like to invite all the

participants to our next meeting scheduled for May 17. I look forward to seeing them there.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): This past Sunday, a letter appeared in the Toronto Star written by Mr. Thomas Gibson of Richmond Hill. Mr.

Gibson's words speak to the frustration and the betrayal felt by thousands of families across this province in this government.

I want to share Mr. Gibson's letter with my colleagues, and I ask particularly that the Premier and the Minister of Health listen to his words. He writes:

"My beloved wife of 52 years, who died in January at the age of 72, placed her hopes and trust in the hands of the Ontario Liberals who have hijacked this

province on a field of broken promises. Suffering from bulbar ALS, my wife, in a wheelchair and incapable of speech, insisted on being taken to a polling station to cast her vote for Dalton

McGuinty's Liberals in the firm belief they would deliver on their promises:

"`We will invest in home care so Ontarians can receive better care at home.

"`We will recruit and train more health care professionals so no one goes without the medical attention they need and deserve.

"`We will provide treatment for autistic children beyond the age of six.' (Our grandson is severely autistic).

"Did he deliver on those promises? No. We had to struggle every inch of the way to get the little support that was available. My wife was bamboozled like so many

other Ontarians who believed, even trusted the word of McGuinty. What an abuse of trust. I will remember this.

"Thomas H. Gibson, Richmond Hill."

MILK VENDING MACHINES

IN SCHOOLS

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to recognize an important initiative that will benefit both the secondary school students and

the dairy farmers in my riding of Perth-Middlesex. Last week, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario meeting in Milverton learned that Stratford would be the first community in southwestern Ontario to place

milk vending machines in all of its high schools. Supported by Neilsen Dairy and the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, St. Michael Catholic Secondary School was the first to embrace this project. As well,

starting this September, both Northwestern and Central Secondary Schools in Stratford will implement this healthy initiative. This means that next fall, all high school students in Stratford will

have healthier food choices available to them in their hallway vending machines.

This healthy lifestyle initiative is also good news for Perth county's dairy producers, many of whom sell their milk to Neilsen through the Dairy Farmers of

Ontario and will now have access to another viable market: our schools.

Research shows that 94% of Canadians agree that the number of overweight and inactive children is a serious health issue in Canada today, and more than 60% of

Canadians strongly agree that junk food should be banned from public schools.

Last fall, Minister Kennedy issued guidelines that ensure healthy choices in Ontario's elementary schools. Similarly, the schools in my riding are embracing this

plan and introducing it at the secondary level. They should be commended. This is just one step to ensuring that our children can make healthy choices, but it's a big step.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I've said it before and it deserves to be said yet once again: The provincial Liberals have imposed an

illegal tax on the people of the province of Ontario -- $2.4 billion in an illegal tax, nothing short of massive electoral fraud in this province.

What is this government doing with this $2.4 billion? Well, in their own budget document tabled by this Minister of Finance, we learn that this money will go to

pay for exercise videos. We know that this money, instead of going to our hospitals, is going toward sewer pipe projects. They promised this Parliament and the people of Ontario that it would go to

health care. They bragged about how this new health tax will go toward increased immunization programs for children. Well, the truth is out. It was the federal government that paid for those

immunization programs, not this new illegal tax that was brought about by massive electoral fraud.

I can tell you, John Tory is the leader who can find the money to replace this illegal tax to ensure that health care is provided for the people of the province

of Ontario, to root out waste and inefficiency. I say to the Premier, we are the only party that is committed to removing your --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. The member has a statement to make and I would like to hear it. I can't understand him. Before members

even enter the Parliament area, you're shouting. I would like to hear the completion of the member's statement.

Mr. Baird: Thank you, Speaker -- just a little bit of respect from the members opposite.

What he's not doing with the $2.4 billion is that John Tory won't fire 757 nurses. He is committed to returning this illegal tax money back to the hard-working

taxpayers of Ontario. John Tory is up to the hard work of finding waste and inefficiency in government -- something that this Minister of Finance refuses to take up.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I seek unanimous consent that each party have

up to five minutes to be able to pay tribute to Mr. Baird. I understand he will be leaving this Parliament in due course.

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

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): As the esteemed member from Nepean-Carleton moves closer to fulfilling his aspirations on

the federal stage, I was delighted yesterday to see him introduce a private member's bill urging the government to create a commission to examine provincial police activity during Project Truth

investigations in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. All of this is coming from a member who voted against Bill 48 in 2001,

an act to create an inquiry into police investigation of

sexual abuse against minors in the Cornwall area. It appears that the Ottawa press is more important than political conviction.

I will remind the member from Nepean-Carleton that this government is the first government to fully endorse a public inquiry into allegations of childhood sexual

abuse in the Cornwall area. Premier McGuinty and Attorney General Bryant have had the conviction to follow through on this election promise, and the residents of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh are

encouraged by this support.

The inquiry will happen, and the Attorney General remains fully committed to finding an appropriate commissioner and getting the terms of reference right. This

process is important and it takes time, but the success of the inquiry is largely dependent on this.

I want to assure the residents of the Cornwall area that I have been and I continue to be a vocal advocate for this cause. This government also remains committed

to this file, and we have demonstrated more fortitude than any of the opposing parties on this issue.

SAFE SCHOOLS

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I rise today to commend a very important initiative aimed at reducing youth violence and ensuring safer

schools and communities.

Hamilton has been very fortunate in receiving money as part of a $9-million provincial safe schools program announced in December. The public board is receiving

$204,000 to equip 51 of its schools, and the Catholic board is receiving $116,000 to equip 29 schools. These funds will be used to install cameras, monitors and possibly two-way intercoms and

remote-controlled locks.

We are committed to the safety of our children in Ontario's public schools. The Liberal government wants to ensure that schools are safe and free of violence.

This is the most basic principle in our schools today. When students feel they are safe and free from violence and harassment, they are in a position to learn and to succeed.

I'd like to thank the education minister, Minister Kennedy, and our member from Guelph-Wellington, Liz Sandals, who, under the safe schools action team, are

addressing the physical and social safety in our schools in a meaningful way. Your level of support and leadership is invaluable.

The opposition has criticized our plans. Well, here is a plan in action. We are investing real dollars in our children's future. This type of funding allows them

to learn in an environment free from violence, free from harassment and free from discrimination. It gives them the ability to succeed in a safe environment. That is what this party's all about:

success for our students and opportunity for the future. Safer schools open the door to opportunity, and Hamilton West thanks you.

TERRY FOX

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Today marks the 25th anniversary of an extraordinary event that touched all of our lives. Terry Fox

dipped his limb in the Atlantic Ocean in Newfoundland on April 12, 1980, and started out, a lone young man struck by a disease that raises fear in the hearts of all of us: cancer. Instead of

succumbing to fear, he decided to tackle his disease by raising funds for cancer research so that other people, in the years to come, would not face the ultimate prognosis that he faced.

Terry ran 42 kilometres per day, the equivalent of a marathon a day, for 143 consecutive days, totalling over 5,000 kilometres, until the Marathon of Hope ended

just outside of Thunder Bay.

This may have been the single greatest athletic achievement ever. Still, we can only imagine the pain he must have been in as he took each step. But with each

step, this amazing young man made us aware and made us believe that cancer can be beaten.

Each year, more than 200 cities in Ontario, including Thunder Bay and Atikokan, host a Terry Fox run. Locally, in Thunder Bay, the run is hosted by chairman Don

Morrison, who has done a tremendous job of keeping to the true spirit of the run. To date, over $360 million has been raised worldwide, started by the Marathon of Hope, for cancer research.

We in Thunder Bay have recognized Terry's incredible feat by erecting the Terry Fox Centre in Thunder Bay, where I invite all of you to come to see this

magnificent monument. It was at the relocation of the monument five years ago in Thunder Bay that I had the privilege of meeting Terry's parents, the only people I have ever asked to have a picture

taken with.

"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit,

however, it lasts forever." Those words were spoken by Lance Armstrong, the six-time Tour de France winner, in his book It's Not About the Bike. Armstrong, of course, is a cancer survivor

himself.

I can't imagine any other words that would likely have more appropriately described the attitude and will of Terry Fox -- an extraordinary life, an extraordinary

young man and a true Canadian hero.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Last July 9, your health minister announced that he was creating

regional health care authorities in Ontario, essentially 14 new layers of expensive bureaucracy. Tellingly, however, he has missed every single deadline since that time -- deadlines he set for

himself. What is the purpose of this bureaucracy, and can you tell us why your Ministry of Health can't meet a single deadline?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We are dedicated to improving the quality of health care for all

Ontarians. Unlike my friend opposite, we will not be taking $2.4 billion out of the health care system. What we are working to do, of course, is put in place a system that delivers resources to the

front lines. It turns out that when it comes to a regionally based model, ours is slightly different from that; we have a local health integration network model which we're using. But it turns out

that we are the only province in the country that has not acted in a deliberate way to provide resources down to the community level as much as possible. It's taking longer, I must say to my

friend, than I would have liked. But we want to make sure, in particular, that we have the best people in place so we can get the best job done once it's fully lined up, and that has been a

challenge.

Mr. Tory: Well, I guess that's the point of the question: You may be the only province that hasn't done it, and you still haven't done it

because you're not able to meet a single deadline. The uncertainty caused by your local health integration networks and your poor implementation of this program to date is only the latest example

of your mismanagement of the health care file. Commenting on your networks, well-known health policy expert Michael Rachlis said of your government in March, "They really don't know what they are

doing -- they are making it up as they go along." That, I would say, is one of the most charitable assessments I've heard.

Nine months after your government introduced this scheme, the people and the organizations that have to make these local health integration networks work -- the

civil service, doctors, nurses, hospitals and others -- haven't been shown an actual plan. When are they going to see an actual, detailed plan from your government?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The reason we have to put so much effort into this is because no work was done in the past with respect to moving resources

to the front lines, so we had to start from square one. I can tell you that these 14 local health integration networks will plan, coordinate, integrate and fund the delivery of health care services

within their own specific geographical boundaries. We believe that this new approach is key to making the system patient-centred and responsive to local health care needs. In terms of the system we

inherited, there was no coordination and no integration, and it was, broadly speaking, a patchwork quilt. So we've decided that it's important to change that. That's what we're doing with the local

health integration networks, and we've made tremendous progress. I'll be delighted to speak to that in the additional supplementary.

Mr. Tory: The Brantford Expositor called these local health networks "an unfunny April Fool's joke." The St. Thomas Times-Journal said that

there's nothing in these LHINs that builds any public confidence. People in places like Orangeville in my riding are telling me that they'd rather see you spend their money on more nurses, not more

bureaucrats. How do you respond to them?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: What I can say to the good people at the newspaper and in the community is that we're not taking $2.4 billion out of the

system -- we made that investment -- unlike the leader of the Conservative Party.

This is how complex the health system is: We've got 154 hospitals, 581 long-term-care homes, 42 community care access centres, 37 public health units, 55

community health centres, seven ministry regional offices, 350 mental health programs and five academic health science centres, all with different geographies, funding flows and overlapping

accountabilities. My friend may argue that it doesn't make sense for us to develop a regional approach to bringing care closer to patients, but that means he doesn't understand where we're going. I

can tell you that at the end of the day, once this has been put in place, it will mean better care for more people closer to their homes. That's what this is all about.

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

Mr. Tory: I can tell you that the only thing we're committed to taking out is your illegal tax, and taking you out of office.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tory: Premier, your promise of better health care for Ontarians is just another broken promise. Speaking about taking things out, last

week your Minister of Health was musing about taking health services out of hospitals. He said your government would "extricate and consolidate services in our hospitals." Premier, specifically

what services will you be stripping and from which hospitals?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I don't think the member had the benefit of the exchange that took place on that day, but I can tell you -- and I'll say

again -- that what we're looking at as part of our determination to make sure we're getting the best use of the limited health care dollars we have is to find ways where we might consolidate

services.

We had a specific example. If there are cataract operations being performed in a number of downtown Toronto hospitals, we think it makes good sense to

consolidate that service in one centre, where they can deliver that service in a very efficient way, a better coordinated way and in a way that speaks specifically to the disease or the

manifestation that a patient is bringing to the centre. We just think that makes good sense.

I also said specifically that we are not going to do this in a way that is going to compromise access to care, especially in rural and remote communities and

in northern Ontario. That is specifically what we said.

I know my friend would agree that we have a shared responsibility to make sure we are delivering our services in the most cost-effective way and in a way that

not only does not compromise but enhances quality of care. That's what this is all about.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Premier, when you say you won't compromise care, the people of Ontario look at you and say that you're

the guy who said he wouldn't raise their taxes.

Your plan for imposing these 14 new layers of health care bureaucracy is a unmitigated disaster. You've missed every deadline that you --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I call to order the Minister of Consumer and Business Services.

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): Mr. Speaker --

The Speaker: When I say "come to order," I don't want someone to be talking back.

The member from Nepean-Carleton.

Mr. Baird: Premier, you've missed every deadline you've set for yourself and that your minister has set for your government. You seem to be

either unwilling or incapable of answering even the most simple questions about what your Minister of Health meant when he confirmed that you would be stripping services from hospitals. Premier,

tell us what services you will be cutting from hospitals under the guise of transformation.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: It's with a certain sense of nostalgia that I get a question from a member who is shortly going out the door.

We will not be giving up on Ontario's health care system; I can tell you that right now. Others may give up on other causes, but we will not give up on

Ontario's health care system.

We've said that we're looking for ways to deliver health care in a more cost-effective manner. If that means looking at ways we can consolidate different

services in different centres, then of course we're going to do so. But to say it for the umpteenth time, we will not compromise quality of care, we will not compromise access to care and we are

especially mindful of those challenges that are to be found in rural and northern Ontario.

Mr. Baird: I have a copy of a letter that you sent to hospitals in Ontario before you were elected. You seem to be getting in trouble for a

lot of letters you wrote before you went into the Premier's office. The letter says, "We are committed to providing hospitals with stable, multi-year funding, and we guarantee this commitment will

come prior to the start of the fiscal year." We are more than two weeks into the fiscal year, and hospitals like Queensway Carleton Hospital and the Ottawa Hospital still have no idea what you have

in mind for their fiscal crisis that you created.

Premier, will you stand in your place and tell us what fiscal resources you will make, and will you honour the commitment that you made to hospitals in Ontario

when you were seeking the job in the corner office?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I can tell you that hospitals in Ontario today have more certainty, more optimism and greater confidence in the future than

they ever had under the previous Tory government, which made cut after cut, whether to hospital programs or to Ontario nurses.

I think it's important for the people of Ontario to know what it will mean to take $2.4 billion out of our health care system. You only arrive at $1 billion by

way of reduction if you shut down 10 large hospitals. To arrive at a total of $2.4 billion in cuts -- and Mr. Tory is going to want to know about this -- you've got to close 10 large hospitals; you

have to fire 6,000 nurses; you have to shut down 49 MRIs; you have to cancel 5,000 hip replacements, 6,000 knee replacements, 5,000 cardiac surgeries, 3,000 cataract surgeries and 2,000 radiation

treatments; 50,000 fewer children will receive vaccinations; and finally, you will have to shut down 20,000 long-term-care beds. Those are the consequences of taking $2.4 billion out of our

precious health care system.

HYDRO GENERATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): For the Premier: Premier, tomorrow you are set to announce the winners of a competition to generate a

good chunk of Ontario's future electricity supply. During the election you promised ordinary Ontario families, "Your hydro will remain in your hands." You also said, "We're going to have to build

generation in the province of Ontario. Who? Ontario Power Generation, the way we did it for 50, 60 ... years."

Last month your energy minister spoke to the largest private electricity generating conference that I think Canada has ever seen, in Calgary -- a lot of

private power generators. Premier, can you tell us, was your energy minister's message to those private corporations the same message you gave to Ontario voters before and during the last election

about the importance of public power?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Let me begin by saying that this government's energy policy has put the

energy sector back on a stable footing so that we can ensure adequate supply, reliable supply, at affordable prices. Our commitments prior to the election are what we're working toward now, and had

everything to do with and continue to have to do with ensuring that the lights will stay on, ensuring that we can keep prices at a reasonable and responsible level to assure new generation.

We put out the call for proposals for the RFP. It's a substantial call for proposals. We will be announcing soon the successful proponents. We did the same

thing with renewables last fall. We announced 395 new megawatts in renewables. We're satisfied that this helps us (

a) to keep our commitments, (

b) to close the coal plants and reduce pollution,

which I know that member opposes, and (

c) to ensure a reliable, adequate supply of power into the future.

Mr. Hampton: I guess that's why, on a mild day in April last week, the lights flickered out in Ontario.

The Premier didn't want to answer the question and I'm not surprised, because this is what the media says about the message that was delivered in Calgary,

dateline Calgary, March 15, 2005: "Speaking to some of Canada's largest power generators, including TransCanada Corp., TransAlta Corp. and EPCOR," Ontario energy minister Dwight "Duncan said there

was money to be made in Ontario." Duncan told the private electricity generating companies, "The risks ... will be worth the rewards."

Ontario hydro ratepayers have already seen you increase the hydro rate by 34% above what you promised in the election. How much more will hydro ratepayers in

the province have to pay in order that the new private generating companies that you're so fond of have money to be made in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: First of all, rates have not gone up over 34%. That's just nonsense.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Fiction.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: It's absolute fiction. Number two, prices went up 43% under that member. Number three, that member proposes to create more

power by OPG. Do you remember what happened with Pickering A, unit 4? A billion dollars over budget. Is that the route we should go?

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Could you direct your response to the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member opposite of what he says in his own book, Public Power. "There will be important roles

for the private sector to play in the future of our electricity system, as there always have been." He goes on to say, on page 18, "I'm not ideologically opposed to private power any more than I'm

opposed to private restaurants, clothing stores or car dealerships." Talk about a flip-flop artist of the first degree --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's also against the rules to be shouting when the Speaker is standing up.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Yes, you're right, Speaker. I apologize.

The Speaker: I think we were on the final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: The question was about the message that the Premier delivered before the election. Before the election it was the Premier who

said it will be public power. It was the Premier, one Dalton McGuinty, who said it will be generation by OPG. Now it is to be TransAlta, it is to be TransCanada, and we know what they will want. On

whatever the price is, they'll want 20% more to take care of the profit line and the executive salary line.

My question to the Premier again is, after the election, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of those people who are already having a hard time paying

their hydro bill or are you now suddenly on the side of TransAlta, of all the other private power producers who want the 20% profit on top of the hydro bill and, yes, the executive salaries and the

executive perks as well? Whose side are you on, Premier?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: This Premier and this government are on the side of small consumers across Ontario, unlike that member. That member increased

hydro prices 43%. That member and his government cancelled every conservation initiative. They cancelled negotiations over Conawapa.

There is no inconsistency between what the Premier said before the election and what we are doing now. We are bringing affordable, cleaner electricity to

Ontario in order to ensure that we have a stable, reliable system going forward. Had that member and his government done even a fraction of what we're doing now, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in

today. Our plan is working. Our plan involves private investment to bring on adequate generation. Our plan involves closing coal plants to clean up the air -- something I know he opposes. We're not

opposed to that; we're moving forward on it. We believe it's responsible, we believe it's the appropriate policy and it's paying dividends. We have already increased wind power in Canada by

85%.

HYDRO ONE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): All of those paper mill workers and pulp mill workers are going to feel really reassured after the

Minister of Energy's statement.

Premier, I want to ask you about the latest episode of the habits of your high-flying head of Hydro One, Tom Parkinson. As you know, Mr. Parkinson gets a

$1.1-million-a-year salary. He will get a $2-million golden parachute severance package. The hydro ratepayers of the province subsidize his mortgage to the tune of $125,000, and, yes, he takes the

hydro helicopter when he wants to visit his cottage.

You'd think he would be happy with all that, but apparently he is not; apparently he is outraged. In a memo to senior management, he blames "media lies" for

the negative publicity he has received. Premier, do you agree with Mr. Parkinson? Is this all the media's fault? Or do you agree with ordinary Ontario hydro ratepayers who are already having a hard

time paying for Mr. Parkinson's, shall we say, large executive perks?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Hydro One's board of directors have an obligation to ensure the proper

functioning of that organization. We have confidence in that board. It consists of members who were appointed by the previous government. It consists of former Premiers of Ontario. There are

policies in place that that board will oversee. It is important that Hydro One function efficiently and effectively, not only to maintain, most importantly, our transmission infrastructure, but to

ensure a fair return to the taxpayers of Ontario, who own that important asset. It is important that all of us work together to ensure stakeholder confidence in that organization and in our

transmission system as we move forward.

Mr. Hampton: I think all those people who are having a hard time paying their hydro bill will be interested to know that it's keeping Hydro

One in line that forces Mr. Parkinson to take the hydro helicopter to his cottage for the weekend. But he says he's misunderstood. He said he never took the Hydro One helicopter to his cottage; no,

he only got a free ride to the Muskoka airport. He had to drive from the Muskoka airport to his cottage himself. I think the energy minister would know all about this. Apparently, he was riding

along with Mr. Parkinson.

Premier, you are the sole shareholder of Hydro One. It's your job to protect the public interest. Can you tell me: How is the public interest being served by

Mr. Parkinson taking the hydro helicopter to his cottage for the weekend?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: We believe that transparency and accountability are the best safeguards to public service, and that's why it was this

government that made this information accessible to the public through freedom of information. We applied freedom of information to OPG and to Hydro One so that the ratepayers and taxpayers could

see what goes on, so that the board of directors of those organizations, this government and any government of the day knows that whatever actions are taken or not taken by management, by the

organizations themselves, there will be clear accountability and transparency.

That's something we're proud we did. That's something his government didn't do when they had the opportunity. None of this information would be public had we

not applied freedom of information to this situation. We believe it's appropriate. We believe ratepayers can understand this. We believe the board will understand ratepayer reaction and act

accordingly.

Mr. Hampton: I'm asking, how do you defend this to hydro ratepayers? In fact, it wasn't just once that Mr. Parkinson thought he had to use the

hydro helicopter. On another occasion, he took the hydro helicopter from his cottage to Ottawa. He said, "I decided to use the chopper rather than spend five hours driving and four hours in

airports just to give a speech." Poor Tom Parkinson. Traffic and commercial flights: what a problem.

The real problem here, Premier, is this. This is what you said before the election: "The real problem here is not these boards ... [or their] ability to ...

create these compensation packages." That's your quote. "It has everything to do with [the Premier] and [his] standards, and [his] failure to stand up for" hydro "ratepayers." Well, Premier, it's

your turn to stand up for the hydro ratepayers. Do you think Ontario hydro ratepayers should be paying for Mr. Parkinson to take the hydro helicopter to his cottage because he doesn't want to face

the traffic?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: We believe that it's in the interest of ratepayers to have a board of directors that is accountable to the government to

ensure that adequate policies and procedures are in place. It is incumbent that that board deal with the situation according to how they see fit. That board was appointed by the previous

government. It was supported by this government. It has a number of people who are well known to this House, including the former NDP Premier of Ontario. It is incumbent on any government to

ensure, unlike that government, that our hydro system remains competitive, that there's adequate, reliable and affordable electricity available to everyone and that the transmission system is run

according to a standard that, by the way, is second to none in North America right now. Our government is committed to that. Our government has confidence in the board of directors and that they

will do the appropriate things under all these circumstances.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Could I ask members to stop chatting across when we're having question period, or at any other time when

another member is speaking? It's very disruptive, and I'm unable to hear either the answer or the question.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Minister of Finance --

Interjection.

Mr. Flaherty: -- which isn't you. It's over here. But thank you for your views.

My question is about taxing and spending and the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Just stop the clock for the member here.

The member for Whitby-Ajax.

Mr. Flaherty: Minister, you brought in the largest single tax increase in the history of the province of Ontario in the past year: more than

$4 billion. You've also increased spending at a rate that you don't even know. When I asked you last week, you couldn't tell this place the percentage increase in program spending in the current

fiscal year, which is shocking.

We know spending has gone up something like 6.9%, which is what your budget plan is. We know spending is probably something north of $80 billion this fiscal

year. I hope you have the accurate number. You've abandoned your fiscal plan of balancing the budget in the province of Ontario within your term. Your government is aimless; it's rudderless. You

have ad hoc spending decisions; money over here, money over there that's not in the budget, that's not in the plan. Management Board isn't doing its job of controlling spending going forward.

The people need to know, though -- they're entitled to know -- how far off your financial plan is. The only way --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. You had adequate time to ask the question. The question has been asked.

Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: One second. Let me get the House leader to be quiet a bit, and also the Attorney General, before you respond. Are you ready?

Thank you.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I didn't hear a question, but I think the comments from my friend from Whitby-Ajax deserve some

response. The first thing to note is what we did, beginning the day on which we were sworn in, which was to start to bring fiscal discipline back to the province of Ontario. We inherited one heck

of a mess. I made it clear in my first budget that we were not going to resolve all of the problems of that mess in one budget. What we also did was begin to make investments in health care, to

begin to make important investments in education, to begin to make important investments in social services and to begin, for the first time in 11 years, to give those who are most vulnerable in

Ontario a small increase in what we provide through Ontario Works.

We're very proud of the start we've made. I want to tell you we have just begun to get this province back on the road to good, strong financial health.

Mr. Flaherty: That is frightening, if you've just begun. With that level of spending and that level of tax increases, the people of Ontario

will be in trepidation of what you will do when you bring in your budget.

You do have this safety valve that you put in your last budget, and that's the LCBO. That's the cash cow that you might make subject to a fire sale. You

appointed a committee and you said in your terms of reference, Minister, that the panel is to provide its advice and recommendations in a written report to the Minister of Finance in spring 2005,

on a date to be approved by the minister.

We know the budget is coming up. What is the date that you have approved for the release of the report by the LCBO panel so that the people of Ontario will

have that information before your budget?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend from Whitby-Ajax simply uses his questions to get his own private political philosophy on the table. We know he

wants to sell the LCBO. We don't know what John Tory thinks about selling the LCBO, but certainly my friend from Whitby-Ajax has had no qualms about that. We know that's his philosophy. He wants

government to get out of the business of public education. He wants government to get out of the business of distributing beverage alcohol. We don't yet know where John Tory stands on this, other

than that he is going to fund private schools as well.

I will simply tell my friend that, shortly after the review panel for beverage alcohol reports to us, I will report to this House as to their findings.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Attorney General. The shocking decision to grant bail to a man charged with

murdering his wife in broad daylight left women wondering if the justice system works for them. Now that we have the details about the decision, our concerns increase even more. It appears that men

who are charged with murdering women can buy a "get out of jail" card. In the bail arrangement, Mr. Candir would have paid $120,000 for an ex-RCMP officer to monitor him and $200,000 for the

electronic monitoring bracelet after his release.

Minister, how are you going to fix a system that allows men charged with killing their partners -- and, may I add, witnessed -- to get bail if they can afford

to pay for it?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I thank the

member for her question. I'm sure the member will understand, or I hope she will understand, that I'm not going to comment on this particular case that we are speaking of. As was said today by the

dean at Queen's law school, Gary Trotter, it's not appropriate for us to be debating a position that an independent crown would be taking.

That said, I can assure the member and assure all members of that community that that individual is incarcerated.

Ms. Churley: Minister, you have been talking about Karla Homolka all morning, but I asked you a specific question. It's clear that there is a

two-tier justice system here. If you have the money to buy yourself out of jail, you can get bought out of jail. If you don't, you stay in jail. In this case, it doesn't eliminate the fact, even if

you are not going to speak to the case, that the decision was made to let a man accused of such a horrific crime out of jail on bail because he can afford to pay for it. Otherwise, he would not

have gotten out. It has left the distinct impression that the justice system thinks it's acceptable that violence against women be treated as an out-of-pocket expense.

I'm asking you again, Minister: What are you going to do to ensure that such a situation does not happen again?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: This government, through the domestic violence protection plan, is undertaking not only a review of bail practices and the

positions taken before the courts, how the courts respond and the way in which governments can make improvements, is not only addressing the same issue with respect to parole and probation, but is

also looking at every way that we can to not only deal within the system to try and identify -- for example, through ODARA -- ways in which we can identify people who may be a risk to the community

and use that evidence, use that test to determine the position that is taken before the courts, but we are making the investments that we have to through the victims' justice fund and through

Minister Pupatello's ministry to make improvements.

Let me be clear to the member. You are asking me about a particular case where the crown opposed bail. We opposed bail. We did not think this person should get

bail. We made arguments that they should not get bail. A judge disagreed with us.

In the interim, the person is incarcerated. In the interim, the person is in fact not within the community. And I can assure the member that we will be taking

the position before a bail review --

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

RENEWABLE FUELS

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, our government is committed to phasing

out coal-fired electric generating plants and developing cleaner sources of energy. Expanding wind and water power opportunities will contribute to a cleaner environment, cleaner air and healthier

Ontarians. In a year and a half, our government, under Premier McGuinty, has unlocked the potential for 25 times more wind power than the past Conservative government and 390 times more wind power

than delivered by the NDP.

For instance, the installation of approximately 60 wind turbines near Sault Ste. Marie on the North Shore of Lake Superior will produce 100 megawatts of clean,

renewable energy. This project attests to our government's commitment to develop more renewable energy sources for Ontarians. Clearly, we're on the right track toward developing cleaner, greener

energy sources.

To help us achieve our goal of eliminating coal-fired electric plants, I know the Minister of Energy and you have been working hard to promote wind and water

development on crown land. Can you elaborate on what our government is doing to expand renewable energy projects in Ontario?

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I apologize for the length of the question. I appreciate the member's interest in wind and

water power. I know he's looking at a project that's just outside of Sault Ste. Marie. As the member may know, the McGuinty government has made 18 sites available for water power development, and

we're inviting a second round of applications for wind power on crown land.

Last November, the government called for expressions of interest to identify potential water power sites. Fifty-seven applications were received, of which 18

sites have now been approved for appropriate development. Soon the minister will be receiving detailed development proposals for those sites. I'm pleased to say that these water power sites alone

have the potential to produce between 200 and 300 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power.

We're just beginning to unlock Ontario's enormous potential for clean and efficient electricity generation. Our government will continue to seek and encourage

development of our capacity to generate this power.

Mr. Orazietti: I understand that wind power is the fastest-growing energy supply sector in the world. In Germany, the second-largest

industrial user of steel after the auto sector is the wind power sector. Examples of industrial outputs such as this are encouraging for the future of our province, where we could boast these types

of statistics in the future.

I recall that not too long ago we announced a retail sales tax rebate for renewable energy systems, including wind and small hydroelectric projects. Can you

tell me what else our government is doing to ensure that Ontario is on the leading edge of wind power development?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: About a month ago, I announced a six-month window of opportunity, beginning April 1, for companies or individuals to submit

proposals for wind power development on crown land. This follows closely on approvals given in January for 16 private companies to assess wind power potential on 21 crown sites. It's important to

remember that each of the 21 approved sites must undergo an environmental screening before moving on to wind-power testing. Sites that successfully complete the wind-power testing phase then must

undergo a full environmental assessment before a wind farm is established. Eventually, these wind turbines on both private and crown land could generate enough energy to help reduce our dependence

on coal-fired electricity generating plants.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I put my question on health to the Premier.

Lakeridge Health Corp. is scheduled to release its budget in Port Perry this Thursday. My constituents -- in fact, all the people in Durham -- are worried

about the outcome of the next Lakeridge Health budget, because they are facing a multi-million-dollar deficit. Lakeridge has already announced 308 layoffs to balance its budget in the first

step.

Health care funding in the GTA/905 is less than the provincial average. Every man, woman and child in Durham receives $774 less than the average funding in the

province of Ontario.

Premier, would you explain why you're putting at risk the ability of Lakeridge Health to deliver quality health care to the citizens of Durham?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can tell you that we're very proud that in our first year we have

invested an additional $3 billion in health, and I believe that it's $1.7 billion specific to Ontario hospitals. We've invested an additional $13.6 million in Lakeridge this year, and we hope to be

able to do more in the future.

I know that the member opposite will also understand that we have put together a process -- we're working with all Ontario hospitals to help them find a way to

balance their budget in a way that does not compromise the quality of care. More than half of Ontario hospitals have already found success in that regard, and we'll continue to work with Lakeridge

and others throughout the province to make sure that we can get this right.

Mr. O'Toole: You should know that Lakeridge Health has already removed $18 million in savings over the past two years. In fact, your

platitudes do nothing to the work that has been done by Anne Wright and the volunteer board at Lakeridge Health -- indeed, all hospitals in Ontario. You're asking to take blood from a stone. The

board and staff in the community can't meet the fiscal challenges you've placed on Lakeridge and other hospitals in Ontario. Patients in Durham are asking for your support. Lakeridge Health is a

multi-site facility, serving a rural community with four hospitals and 21 satellite facilities. What is your government doing to bring fairness and equity to funding, not just at Lakeridge, since

they operate such a large rural site, but indeed for the province of Ontario, which you're putting at risk? Today you're telling us you're spending more; I can tell you that in fact we're getting

less. What do you say to the people in Durham about the underfunding at Lakeridge and at hospitals in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: First of all, to the people in Durham, and in particular to those who have committed themselves to the facility at

Lakeridge, I want to offer my congratulations and support as they work on behalf of their hospital and the health and well-being of community members. But again I want to remind people that we've

invested $3 billion more in health care; $1.7 billion more specifically to hospitals. I would ask the members of that community to contrast the approach we're bringing with that member's solemn

commitment to take $2.4 billion out of the health care system. Where would that leave that hospital? Where would it leave other health care services in that community?

Let me tell you, raising that money was not an easy step to take, but we felt it was an essential thing to do. We think it's right for us to increase the level

of funding in our health care system. That's why we've done it, and we stand by that. I ask people in that community and in communities across the province to understand the difference: We're for

investing more in health care and getting quality for the people of Ontario; they want to take money out of health care. That's the difference.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Premier, I was surprised to read today that you and the Minister of Children and Youth Services are refusing

to acknowledge that your party made an election promise to parents to extend IBI treatment to autistic kids over the age of six. So to jog your memory, here is the e-mail sent by Nancy Morrison to

the Ontario Liberal Party on September 8, 2003, entitled "Request for Platform Information Regarding Autism Funding." It says: "We want to make informed decisions on October 2 at the polls.

Therefore, I am requesting each major political party in Ontario to provide your platform to bring more appropriate medically proven treatment for autistic children in Ontario. Please respond with

your platform on our issues by September 12 ... so that the information provided by all parties can be forwarded to all our contacts in Ontario to help us in making informed decisions at the polls

on October 2."

Premier, that sounds to me like a request for your platform on this issue. What do you think?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Today, there are more services

available to children with autism than ever before in this province. We give them services from the moment they are diagnosed right through to the age of 18. We have increased the number of

children under six who receive IBI by 25%. We have reduced the wait lists for assessment by 72%. We have added to an already very generous -- the most generous across the country -- special

education program for these children with a new program. We've done a great deal for these children, and we plan to do a great deal more, as well as for all the children with special needs across

the province. In the supplementary, I'm sure the Minister of Education would like to add his comments as well.

Ms. Martel: I have a specific request for information that was made by the parent of an autistic child and the specific response that came

from the Premier. You see, on September 17, 2003, in the middle of the election, the Premier wrote to Ms. Morrison and said, "Thank you kindly for your e-mail requesting information on the Ontario

Liberal Party's position on IBI treatment for autistic children. I appreciate the vital issues you raised and would be pleased to address them at this time...."

Further in the letter, "I also believe that the lack of government-funded IBI treatment for autistic children over six is unfair and discriminatory. The

Ontario Liberals support extending autism treatment beyond the age of six." The letter is signed "Dalton McGuinty, Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party."

Premier, this was clearly an election promise made to families with autistic children. Why don't you stop trying to run and hide, and actually keep the

election promise you made?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): We're hearing from the members opposite without any reference whatsoever to the well-being of the

children involved. What we did in office was not jump up and down around what would be done but actually did something different. For the first time there's $365 million more in special education,

$130 million being spent right now on children with autism, and it's being done in the best fashion possible.

We believe strongly that the 6,800 --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Could I ask the member from Nickel Belt to come to order, please. Minister of Education?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: The members of the party raising the question did nothing to try to bring in special education services that have been

mandated since 1984. We have, in a short period of time, authorized the funds --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The minister has about 10 seconds.

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: I wish I could say that the argument gets better with sheer repetition, but it doesn't, because compassion isn't built on

that; it's built on consideration for what actually happens to students. In our schools, these students are getting better assistance than they ever have before. If that was your concern, it would

be reflected in the way you put it forward. But we've seen here time and time again that that's not the concern. Grabbing a headline --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Could I ask the member from Nickel Belt to conduct herself in a better manner, especially when members are responding to your question. You have been rather

aggravating in the way you respond whenever the minister is trying to respond.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As the minister knows, food safety is a concern

for all Ontarians, and it instills confidence in consumers when they know that what they are buying is safe.

Yesterday, the minister made an announcement that will further ensure that Ontario's food safety system is a world-class one. Could the minister inform this

House what the creation of an office of the chief veterinarian of Ontario and the realignment of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will mean for Ontario?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I thank the member for his question. I thank him as well because I think we need to

recognize in this House that supporting agriculture and instilling confidence is both an urban and a rural issue, and I appreciate his interest in that.

The announcement yesterday is in direct response to Justice Haines's recommendations. Dr. Deb Stark will lead the animal health and food safety initiatives for

the province. Dr. Stark will also work on assessing the need for a separate animal health act -- something the agricultural community has been talking about for a long time -- developing a strategy

for biosecurity, and working co-operatively with our counterparts in the federal and provincial governments and other ministries. Most importantly, she's going to be there to help coordinate

Ontario's role in response to any potential outbreak of animal disease.

We recognize the critical nature of this job. We've seen the devastation that can happen as a result of BSE and avian influenza. What this is going to do is

allow us to better coordinate our scientific activities, education, inspection, compliance and enforcement to ensure that we do everything possible to bring forward a food safety strategy that is

clear and unconvoluted.

Mr. Milloy: It's great to hear that our government is making the best use of its resources to ensure a safe and healthy Ontario.

As a supplementary, I want to ask the minister about the various announcements coming out of his ministry and the ongoing progress being made by our government

as it works toward fulfilling the recommendations of Justice Haines's report on Ontario's meat regulation and inspection system. Can the minister tell us what he's currently working on that will

further enhance our food safety system?

Hon. Mr. Peters: Contrary to some of the bafflegab that comes out of the mouths on the other side, we are very much conscious of and moving

forward with a clear plan to support agriculture in this province. Part of that, as we move forward, was the report that was completed by Justice Haines.

We are making investments to support the deadstock industry. We're providing farmers and meat operators and further meat processors additional financial

assistance to meet new standards and regulations. We're moving forward on a non-farm food safety strategy for Ontario that was developed in conjunction with the industry and the Ontario government.

Most importantly, the strategy that we move forward aligns us with the federal government to ensure that there is program integration, coordination of administration, and infrastructure program

evaluation. We also have developed a joint government-industry Ontario Traceability Task Force, developing a business model. We signed an MOU with the federal and provincial government to enhance

public safety.

TEACHER TESTING

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question was to the Minister of Education, but I'll direct it to the Premier in the minister's absence. On

April 4, I put a question to the Minister of Education relating to the fact that he cancelled teacher testing, the qualifying test. Now there are 7,000 graduates who will be without a qualifying

certificate. In fact, in my

preamble, I quoted you, as the self-proclaimed education minister, as saying, "I agree that teachers should be tested. New teachers should be tested." And you said that

teachers should be tested "at the beginning of their professional careers in order to be admitted to the profession."

Premier, you're aware that we have 7,000 graduates of education faculties today to whom your Minister of Education has now written to say there will not be a

certificate for them. I want you, as the self-proclaimed education minister, to tell us whether you believe that that is a way to run the Ministry of Education.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I don't think there's any doubt about it: We're bringing a different

approach to public education in the province of Ontario. For one thing, we happen to be committed to it. The member opposite would remove money from our public schools and put that money into

private schools. We're bringing a different approach.

I can say, with respect to the testing, that it's turning out that the overwhelming majority of teachers were passing that test without any problem whatsoever.

I think what this really speaks to is the respect we attach to the profession and to teachers themselves. Just one little example: So far, 16,000 teachers have volunteered for weekend training,

without pay or training in the summer, in order to become lead teachers who are now specially skilled in literacy and numeracy for elementary students. The way you build a strong public education

system in the province of Ontario is by speaking to what is best in our teachers. Sixteen thousand teachers volunteered, have special training and are now helping us get better achievement in

literacy and numeracy.

Mr. Klees: Respect for teachers, Premier, would mean that you would look to ensure that graduating teachers will have their proper qualifying

certificates.

Let me read to you what one of those graduates is saying. By the way, there are hundreds of these letters coming in now every day from the very people you say

you respect. She writes:

"As a teacher candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the current initiative underway at

the Ministry of Education....

"I am concerned that this has been done hastily and without any clear and logical plan for what the replacement evaluation may be...

"I feel that I have been done a great disservice as a new educator in Ontario."

I'm simply asking the Premier today to tell this House why he believes that new teachers graduating from faculties of education should be left without a

qualifying entrance exam, should be left without a qualifying certificate and should be subjected to the kind of uncertainty to which they're being subjected as a result of this Ministry of

Education not doing its job.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The member opposite is just plain wrong. In order for teachers to obtain employment in the province of Ontario, they've

graduated and obtained a bachelor of education. They've had to meet standards and pass exams in their education faculties.

Again, I think what this really reflects is the difference in approach to the profession of teaching and to teachers themselves. You will recall that, in many

ways, our schools, for eight and a half years under the Tories, were combat zones. We've worked hard to introduce peace and stability and higher student achievement into public education.

Again, I refer to the fact that we have managed so far to enlist 16,000 teachers to come and learn more on weekends and during the summer, to upgrade their

skills and to take that special expertise back to the classroom. They are doing that as volunteers, without additional pay, and I think that speaks to the value of the approach that we are bringing

to public education when we value the profession and when we value teachers.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): The question is to the Premier. Premier, before the last election, your Minister of Education promised

to save small and rural schools. Before the election, Mr. Kennedy said: "Schools are the hubs of northern communities, but the Harris-Eves government has failed to support them. We will protect

northern schools."

The Fourway school north of Thunder Bay is scheduled to close in two months. Last week -- and I've got a picture here that I can't show -- parents held a

protest to say that the future of their school is in your hands. They don't want to lose their community hub; they don't want their children on a bus for four hours every day on dangerous highways.

All I'm asking you to do, Premier, is to stop the closure of this northern school. Will you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The member will know that we have done a couple of things in this

regard. First of all, we've found an additional $31 million to support our Keeping Good Schools Open plan, which helps schools in remote communities. We know they have special funding challenges.

With respect to the matter in Thunder Bay -- and I've heard a great deal from my colleagues Mike Gravelle and Bill Mauro on this issue -- we also have made a facilitator available to look at any

school closure orders between December 2003 and February 2005 to make sure that the school closure is done in a way that does not compromise the interests of our students. I know that there is a

great deal of interest in that community and what that board is doing, but we made additional funds available for the plan and we've put forward a good policy which really speaks to the best

interests of students.

Mr. Marchese: As of today, no such review has been launched. This is what the board -- Vice-Chairwoman Beatrice Metzler -- said in relation to

this review: "We looked at all the guidelines and we are living within the spirit of the guidelines."

We've got a problem here. That is why we are asking you to intervene. You told parents they would not lose their local school, but the board says you've raised

no objections with them and have not provided any additional funding to keep the small school open. You promised new guidelines and the new funding and you have not delivered. Now these parents

have been forced into the courts, and they are trying to get an injunction to save their school. Other parents, from Gorham and Ware and Fort William Collegiate, are joining them because your

government is closing their schools as well. You have the power under the Education Act to stop this closure. Premier, will you save this school, or will you break your promise, like you did so

many others?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me say that I know the people want to be reminded that under the NDP government, 155 public schools were closed. And I

know the member opposite, my favourite thespian in the House, would not want to not have the public informed about that. But again, I can say that we have a new funding formula in place that speaks

to the better interests of our students, contrary to the previous funding formula, which was really more of a bean-counting exercise. So we have made a facilitator available, someone who is

prepared and go in and review the school closure proposal and make sure that it does not contravene our new approach.

As I said throughout the campaign and before the campaign, we're not saying that no schools at any time will close ever again in the province of Ontario. What

we have said is, we'll change the funding formula so it speaks to the better interests of our students, as opposed to a dry, bean-counting formula.

MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, many

Ontarians are glad to hear that this government is taking action against residential marijuana grow operations and the criminals who run these grow-ops. However, part of the bill would ensure that

properties identified as grow-ops are inspected by building inspectors, and I want to be assured that we're not inadvertently putting our building inspectors in harm's way by having them do police

work. There's been much discussion and confusion surrounding Bill 128 and the ability of building inspectors to enter a suspected grow-op without a warrant. Can a building inspector enter a

suspected grow-op house without a warrant, and under what circumstances?

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member from Don Valley West for her question. It's an

important question and I'm happy to clarify it.

Under the provisions of Bill 128, which is primarily about community safety, a building inspector may -- as a matter of fact, not only may, but shall -- enter

a building to inspect it, and this is without a warrant, provided he has been informed by the chief building inspector that the police have identified it as a grow-op. In other words, the building

inspector doesn't go in and decide whether it's a grow-op; the police have already done that under a warrant. They have notified the chief building inspector that this is the case, and the building

inspector can go in to make sure that the citizens of Ontario are protected, that they are not moving into a house that is unsafe because of the electricity, because of the mould, because of the

chemicals. This is a very good provision in this act.

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas gasoline prices have continued to increase at alarming rates in recent months; and

"Whereas the high and unstable gas prices across Ontario have caused confusion and unfair hardship to Ontario's drivers while also impacting the Ontario

economy in key sectors, such as tourism and transportation;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario consider an immediate gas price freeze for a temporary period until world oil prices moderate; and

"That the provincial government petition the federal Liberal government to step up to the plate and lower gas prices by removing the GST on gasoline products

and fix the federal Competition Act to ensure consumers are protected and that the market operates in a fair and transparent manner."

As I am in full support of this, I affix my name.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I'm in agreement and would affix my signature thereto.

ANTI-SCALDING DEVICE

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition today from residents in the riding of Peterborough. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has made changes to the building code which requires a master thermal mixing valve (anti-scald device) to be installed upon

replacement or installation of a water heater;

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

"That the installation of the thermal mixing valve (anti-scalding device) should be at the discretion of the property owner and not mandated by the Ontario

building code."

I am in agreement with this and I will affix my signature to it.

SPORT PARACHUTING

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the lives of student and novice sport parachutists have been and continue to be lost to a systemic lack of regulation or accountability on the part of

any currently governing bodies;

"Whereas inconsistent monitoring, a serious disregard for or inability to responsibly and competently police adherence to rules, regulations and manufacturer

specifications on the part of the skydiving schools and the Canadian Sport Parachuting Association creates unnecessary risk to human life;

"Whereas evidence presented at the coroner's inquest of Gareth Rodgers suggests that the current regulatory body (CSPA) has no desire for accountability or

means of enforcing rules and regulations in the sport of parachuting;

"Whereas a system of teaching standards and regulations to safeguard novice and student sport parachutists is grossly deficient;

"Whereas Joe Tascona, MPP Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, has introduced a private member's bill, the Gareth Rodgers Act for Sport Parachuting, to regulate sport

parachuting activities for the safety of student and novice skydivers;

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

"

(1) That the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government immediately pass and implement Joe Tascona's bill;

"

(2) That the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government petition the federal Liberal government to act in a swift and responsible manner in order to ensure that the

lives and safety of sport parachutists, especially student and novice jumpers, are protected by law and that the skydiving industry operates in a responsible, competent and transparent manner;

"

(3) That the federal Liberal government consider immediate and responsible interim measures to suspend these activities until a viable solution to this matter

may be attained;

"

(4) That the federal Liberal government seriously consider the 12 sound recommendations submitted by the jury in the coroner's inquest of the skydiving

fatality of Gareth Rodgers;

"

(5) That the federal Liberal government make the industry both responsible and accountable for its actions and omissions, within strict standards of safety

that must be governed by a competent body whose paramount mandate must be to maintain current equipment, thorough and competent record-keeping, and to ensure that manufacturer specifications are

strictly adhered to and that appropriate safety standards are being observed at all times for student/novice skydivers and the equipment that they use."

I support the petition and sign it.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present my petition on behalf of double-hatter firefighters -- another one. This one is actually

rolling in from people in Niagara-on-the-Lake and St. Davids. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

firefighters and also serve as volunteer firefighters on their free time; and

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters are being forced to resign as volunteer firefighters or face losing their full-time jobs, which is weakening volunteer fire

departments in Ontario;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should support double-hatters and protect the right of firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free

time."

I support it with my signature.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): You just got here.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): Seniority does play a role.

This is a petition from 3,500 people who are concerned about the closing of the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls.

"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 the Rideau 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 the Rideau Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents ... their families, the developmental services sector and the economies

of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of the Rideau 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;

"Therefore we, the" 3,500 Ontario residents "undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep the Rideau Regional

Centre open as a home for people with developmental disabilities and to maintain it as a `centre of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians" who are our most vulnerable

citizens and provide for their needs, "no matter where they live."

I've signed that.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that was submitted by the Richmond Hill Pro Bowl,

located at 10593 Yonge Street in my riding, in Richmond Hill. It reads as follows:

"Whereas 20% of the adult population, or 1.8 million adults in Ontario, continue to smoke; and

"Whereas hospitality concepts like bars, pubs, taverns, nightclubs, Legions, bingo halls, racetracks and casinos are businesses with a high percentage of

patrons who smoke; and

"Whereas more than 700 businesses in Ontario have invested tens of thousands of dollars each to construct a designated smoking room to comply with municipal

bylaws;

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

"Permit properly ventilated and separate designated smoking rooms in hospitality establishments that regulate and control employee and customer exposure to

second-hand smoke."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition similar to the last one I read, this time from the residents of Toronto and

Mississauga. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I'm in agreement, and I affix my signature thereto.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from a group of parents in Lisgar and Erin Mills,

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,

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

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

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

Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

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

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign my name to that.

INSURANCE RATES

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me from Mr. Jean Roy of Alban, Ontario. It's been signed by dozens

of people in Sudbury and Sudbury district east, and it says, essentially:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We have had enough of our insurance companies ripping us off and making senseless profit with our hard-earned money."

I agree with the petitioners. I've affixed my signature to this.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition -- I will abbreviate it so that members have an opportunity -- from Rideau

Regional Centre.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep the Rideau Regional Centre open as a home for

people with developmental disabilities and to maintain it as a `centre of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they

live."

I'm affixing my signature to this.

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): It's a farm petition:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park because of a lack of response from the Dalton McGuinty

government to farm issues; and

"Whereas farming in Ontario is in crisis because of the impacts of BSE, unfair subsidies from other jurisdictions, rising costs for energy and a crushing

regulatory burden on farmers; and

"Whereas current prices for farm products do not allow for sustainable agriculture in Canada, with a 10.7% decline in the number of Canadian farms reported

between 1996 and 2001;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to consult with Ontario's farmers to develop a long-term strategy to ensure the

viability of agriculture in our province that protects our rural way of life, and to work in the short term to alleviate the farm income crisis and listen to the concerns of farmers about the

greenbelt."

I agree with the farmers, and I sign this petition.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I have signed that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND

SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES

ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS

D'ALIMENTS

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 6, 2005, on the motion for second reading of Bill 155,

An Act to amend the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): It's time for questions and comments in regard to the member for Nickel Belt's statements.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I only got to hear a little bit of the member's speech on the previous sessional day; I'll be speaking to

this myself in a few minutes. It's a bill that I know we need to look at very, very carefully. I think it's really important to the members of this House and to the people in our constituency

offices. I don't know if there's a constituency office in this province that doesn't have a lot of FRO calls. That's probably one of the top issues I've faced in my riding, along with birth

certificates. I can tell you that this issue hits close to home because it affects a lot of young children and a lot of spouses of the people who are responsible under the FRO.

I just want to say that I look forward to the remaining time we're going to debate this. I will have an opportunity to speak to it somewhat myself and to give

some comments from our caucus. But in the end I do think that we on this side of the House will be supporting this legislation. Anything we can do to make the Family Responsibility Office work more

efficiently and serve the citizens of our province in a more effective manner is an area I think we have to closely work with.

I thank the member for Nickel Belt for her comments. I know she'll be taking a close look at the remainder of this debate as well, and I look forward to the

remaining debate in the House today.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): In terms of this particular bill, Bill 155, we're talking about the Family Responsibility Office. When I was elected

in 1999, I had a baptism by fire regarding the difficulties this particular portfolio brought to the members, not to mention what the people were going through. When I heard the stories of some of

the tricks and some of the things that were being done to avoid payments to that group of people who so deservedly need those payments, it absolutely blew me away. I learned that we're talking

about $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion and, depending on who you speak to, $1.6 billion of uncollected support.

If I'm not mistaken, the member works extremely hard from that point, as I remember, and I knew that she was concerned about that even before. I laud her for

doing that, because this is a justice issue. It's a simple one. It's a justice issue. I believe that 230,000 children in the province at that time, and probably still the same or more, do not get

that support. That speaks to a justice issue.

Is this the be-all and end-all bill that will solve that problem? I believe not. Is it those wonderful steps we all should be taking in this place to clean

things up? It's a good step. It's a step that starts to point us toward the things that are signalling that we are not going to tolerate this. Did we hear from 1999 to now the various things that

were being done? I would suggest that we need to move forward.

I understand and I'm very sympathetic that the clock is not working, Speaker, so I would like to sit down. I'd never take advantage of a situation like

that.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): As I made comments regarding this issue in the past regarding the FRO, if we're going to clean this up, we

need to ensure it's done right. Some of the key areas, as I mentioned previously, that I hope will be further addressed -- I see the PA is here -- relate to the suspension. Is the suspension

actually on the licence when you're dealing with the outdoor licensing or the outdoor card, or is it the tag, which is very key to a lot of people? Because party hunting is an element within the

natural resources when you're hunting deer or any other species, whether you suspend the licence, which means the individual, or you suspend the tag, those individuals who party-hunt on that tag

will also be under suspension and be penalized for the legislation that has come forward.

I hope that the PA or the minister, when they have the opportunity to address this issue, will be able to inform us on what's going to happen with that. I do

appreciate the time to speak on this legislation.

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It's my pleasure to participate in the debate on Bill 155, the family responsibility bill.

Some of my constituents from the riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale have been coming to me, some of the mothers who are single mothers, and they are having a tough time to collect the family

responsibility allowances from their spouses or previous husbands. As a family doctor, I feel very sympathetic toward these single mothers who cannot collect and they are having a tough time.

This bill, Bill 155, makes some efforts to be able to collect these allowances for those single mothers and for their children. This bill will make sure that

the fathers who are not paying the family allowances to their spouses will have their licence suspended, whether it's a fishing licence or a driver's licence.

I commend the minister for bringing this bill. Definitely, it will help the single mothers collecting family allowances.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Let me thank all the members who participated in the responses. Let me just say a couple of things. I ended

on the last day that I was speaking about this bill talking about my concerns about who will get this computer contract. It was why I raised a question to the Minister of Community and Social

Services on December 15, 2004, because we had seen that Accenture had expressed an interest in being part of the request for proposals for this computer system. We watch with interest to see who

the successful bidder is, but I certainly hope it isn't Accenture, because the experience that the previous government had with Andersen/Accenture was nothing short of a fiasco; it was a

boondoggle. The problem with that computer system at ODSP, and OW today, is still not fixed, and Accenture is still on the government's payroll, so many years later. So I hope, when I see who the

successful bidder is, it's not going to be Accenture, and I hope the government has some ways and means to get the contract under control in a way that a previous contract for a computer system was

not.

Let me just say that I heard a number of government members say that some of the measures that were being introduced are going to help get money to women and

children. I've looked at the measures; I looked at them carefully. I have to tell you that I don't think we're going to raise any money with the measures that they have put forward. Telling people

that they are going to report payers to their professional associations doesn't mean that professional associations are going to do anything to get the money. They can't; there's no obligation in

the legislation. Sending people to jail longer might work, except that the experience seems to be that no one has gone to jail in the first place, so it doesn't seem to be much of an enforcement

tool. There was a reference to third party interests and making sure that people don't shield assets under third parties. That was part of the previous government's legislation in 1996 and that

didn't work, so I don't think it's going to work now.

So I don't think the range of tools that are before us is going to make a lot of difference. Unless and until we have a new computer system and a case

management system at the FRO, this office will not meet its legal obligations to women and children in this province, and that's a shame.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): Some of the very first constituents who came to see me, sometimes in tears, in the early days after the

2003 election spoke to me movingly about their frustrations in collecting child support from partners from whom they had separated or divorced. By and large, these constituents were single mothers

who were the sole supporters of dependent children. Their stories were compelling. In many cases, these parents had obtained judgments entitling them to support from the other parent of their

children.

After my election, I began to hear about the neglect within the Family Responsibility Office. I heard about my constituents who had to take an unpaid day off

work and get up at the crack of dawn to spend literally hours waiting in a telephone queue in order to speak with a human representative from the Family Responsibility Office.

There had been no substantive legislative amendments in the family responsibility and support area for eight years. It's not that the previous government had

had no warning. The Ontario Ombudsman had warned of serious shortcomings in FRO; the privacy commissioner had warned the government about problems in FRO; the Provincial Auditor had written to say

that changes were necessary in the Family Responsibility Office.

I heard in committee hearings that files were maintained on paper and stored in paper boxes. Little had been computerized. FRO local offices had been closed.

The staff were not only seriously under-capacity, but dangerously overworked, not to mention overstressed and overcrowded at work -- and, let me also add, underpaid. People would phone the FRO

office and wait hours to speak to someone, only to find that the last person they spoke with was unavailable, and each person would need to start their entire case all over again with a new person,

a new representative, each time. On top of this, after waiting hours just to speak with someone, the person would be put on hold yet again while the representative from FRO looked for their paper

files in a box somewhere in the FRO office. Only then, after hours of endless, frustrating and needless wait, could anything productive begin.

That is the past, present and future of the Harris-Eves and now the Tory policy toward the lives of so many vulnerable men and women in Ontario. And the

problems are not limited to single parents not receiving their payments from their former partners. Parents who had given up custody of their children and were trying to comply with support

agreements or court orders were faithfully, and are faithfully, paying into FRO accounts and, in too many cases, FRO had simply not accounted for their payments properly. Their drivers' licences

were still being suspended unjustly. Their wages were being garnisheed unfairly. The bad actors were getting away with it; the good-faith parties were being victimized themselves.

This is the Tory philosophy: Ignore it, neglect it, underfund it, mismanage it, maltreat it and hope the problem will go away. I say to anyone toying with

support of the opposition party, look at what they did to see what they will do if they get close to power again.

The Minister of Community and Social Services, the member from Windsor West, has a fresh approach. She toured Ontario extensively. She listened, and listened

some more. She heard from the parents with custody of their children. She heard from the parents paying support faithfully. She heard from the beleaguered staff in the FRO, the people on the front

lines who were trying, and are still trying, to match those who need support with those with an obligation to pay it. She heard from the overseers within our government and our justice system. And

she told everyone that results and hope were on the way. Well, Bill 155 continues the process of delivering those results and restoring that hope.

As someone with IT experience, it boggles my mind that sensitive information was stored in paper files under inadequate security. So the ministry has begun to

design and implement a case management system. People will begin to deal with one representative, a worker who will be able to access information on-line rather than have to find it on paper. The

minister will enforce court orders and track them, penalizing the violators rather than penalizing the faithful payers. The FRO offices will be able to enforce a lesser amount of support when the

number of entitled children decreases, and FRO will be able to demand information from more sources, such as trade unions and professional associations. FRO will be able to demand this information

in order to find people who have concealed resources or who violate court orders to support their dependent children.

This is clear and decisive action on a burning issue, in support of those who need it most. But John and the rest of the Tories will be missing in action on

FRO, because those parents aren't interested in private schools, private health care, tax cuts for developers, horizon-to-horizon sprawl and choking traffic, while vital resources are taken from

those who need them most and given to those who already have the most and want still more.

Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): First of all, I thank my colleague from Mississauga West for the leadoff.

It's our responsibility, obligation and duty to speak out in support of this particular bill,

An Act to amend the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears

Enforcement Act. There are three components with regard to this bill: enforcement, fairness and finding efficiencies. This government and the Minister of Community and Social Services, the

Honourable Sandra Pupatello, with this legislation have shown a level of determination to bring justice to families and children in need.

As some of my colleagues in this Legislature have already pointed out, unfortunately this is a growing problem in Ontario. Something like 230,000 children fall

under the jurisdiction of FRO. Just to give you an idea of some of the numbers involved, in 2003-04 more than $600 million was actually recaptured from deadbeat parents regarding their FRO

responsibilities. I'm pleased to report that, since the initiatives such as the credit bureau initiative, something like $82 million more has been collected, but there's still a huge amount of

money owed, and that is part of the initiative, the inspiration and the incentive for this particular bill.

The inaction of previous administrations actually speaks volumes to the concerns that government paid to the needs of families in Ontario. It was just not on

the radar screen. When this government took office, there had been only the most cosmetic changes to the FRO. This inaction had persisted over multiple warnings from the privacy commissioner, the

Provincial Auditor and the Ontario Ombudsman. The silence on an issue of this significance has to date unfortunately been tolerated, yet all the while it is unconscionable. That is why I'm pleased

to be part of a government that is taking real and meaningful action on this particular bill.

Enforcement, fairness, and efficiencies: Bill 155 has real teeth. It makes FRO into an organization that can aggressively pursue those who fail to make child

or spousal support payments: 230,000 children involved, and I'm told more than $1 billion still owed in arrears.

This bill doubles the maximum jail time, for example, for failing to comply with court orders, increasing it from 90 to 180 days. This tells non-payers that

Ontario is serious, that Ontario is a province that will not shy away from seeing justice done on behalf of the families and children in need.

Fairness and efficiencies: The bill also allows FRO to report defaulting payers to professional licensing bodies and to suspend, as one example, hunting and

sport fishing licenses. These are aggressive measures, and this government makes no pretence to the contrary. It's a serious subject and deserves serious measures. We cannot allow defaulting

parents to continue to force their families into poverty, because it's at risk of forcing these families into institutionalized poverty.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Where's your tuxedo?

Mr. Qaadri: In regard to the heckler, I would like to inform the MPP from Nepean-Carleton that I will be wearing my tuxedo next at his

leadership bid for the federal Tory party.

This legislation specifically targets defaulting payers who deliberately and wilfully shirk their parental and familial responsibilities and support

obligations. At the same time, Bill 155 is designed specifically to ensure fairness to all those who deal with the Family Responsibility Office. For instance, if a recipient refuses to respond to

official inquiries about whether a child is still receiving or should be receiving support payments, the new legislation introduces measures that will allow the FRO to cease enforcement of the

ongoing support.

This legislation introduces sorely needed amendments to the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act. In a very real sense, it patches the

holes in the legislation, faults that have crippled the FRO since the act was first proclaimed in 1997.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to stand up here and comment on the comments of the members from

Mississauga and Etobicoke. Unfortunately, they don't want to go back in history in terms of getting the facts on how this situation arose. Actually, it was Ian Scott who took the measures with

respect to reforming the family law process, where you went to court and got the order, and put in another system -- which did not work, unfortunately. The intent was there, but the fact is that

enforcement was the problem. The bureaucracy that was put in place was put in place by the Liberal government under David Peterson, and for them to come in here today and start complaining about

what other governments did is a bit rich. The leader of the third party was involved in those days, and I imagine he's going to talk about it in terms of the improvements they made to the office,

to get more money. I know the measures that Charles Harnick put in place when he was the Attorney General with respect to enforcement. It's a very difficult issue, and people shouldn't be pointing

fingers in terms of how to deal with it.

There are so many ways you can get around this in terms of if you're looking for another source to try to hide your money, and you won't be able to get at the

source with respect to getting at that money. The driver's licence issue is certainly an important issue, but you can drive that vehicle if it's in someone else's name, if it's a business. You can

get that car, and they can give you the gas card. So it's not that easy an issue. I think the members' intentions are good, with respect, but they were reading from notes and I don't think there

was a lot of thought put into the process.

I didn't stand up and complain that it was against the standing orders because I have respect for debate, but the bottom line is that these members are

basically just voicing the party line. They don't understand the history, they don't understand the problem, and the fact of the matter is that this isn't going to solve it. I don't know why they

put it in with fish and wildlife. This is a joke.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): We know that in 2003, 37% of Ontario's low-income families with children were female lone-parent

families, and the rate and duration of poverty among children in these families is disproportionately high. Also, if anybody looked, they would have seen that Campaign 2000's Report Card on Child

Poverty in Ontario called for a major overhaul of the FRO in order to support these children. What we have before us today are some weak measures that, when you look at them and the kind of

problems that exist and have always existed at the FRO, this is not going to fix the system. What I would call on the government to do today, after listening to some of the speeches about the

changes they're making, is stop the clawback. That would go, perhaps to a large extent, much further than the measures that are being taken in this bill before us today. We all agree that the FRO

needs a complete overhaul, but when you look at the measures that are before us today, they in themselves are not going to correct a lot of those problems, and we need to see a lot more.

Let's look at all the things we need to do to stop child poverty in this province. The number one priority that the government adamantly promised to do before

they won the election was to stop the clawback. That's a simple, clear promise. I wish we were standing here today acknowledging that the government kept a fundamental promise to some of the

poorest, if not the poorest, children and their families in this province.

I will have an opportunity to speak more about the bill, and to put my thoughts on the record, a little later. But I say again to the government, keep your

promise and stop the clawback of the federal child tax benefit.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): This legislation is about increased enforcement, improved fairness and enhanced efficiency. That's

what is being done by the minister with this legislation.

I was at the public accounts committee, and the ADM is on record as saying that the present system costs us $10 million a year in social assistance, because

that's where mothers and children end up when the system doesn't work. If Visa ran this kind of system, where you don't do tracking of non-payments for seven or eight months, they'd be out of

business in a few days.

This legislation is going in the right direction. What I like about it is that we're going to get into the 21st century with the computer system, the case

management system, and that $40 million will return to this province within three years, according to the ADM. But that's not the important part of it. The important part of this legislation is

that we'll be protecting families and protecting children. That is extremely important.

It was interesting to note that the recommendation was made by the auditor way back in 1994. This could have been put in place in three years; it could have

been in place in 1997. That means seven years at $10 million a year. That's $70 million that has been lost while we haven't been protecting our families.

I think it's very important that we move ahead with this. We are moving ahead with this, and the investments are being made. The FRO is going to be something

that, for people who are expecting payments that are generated from court decisions, the payments will be there, the tracking will be done and the system will work. We'll get rid of the support, I

think, by the former government for deadbeat parents. We're going to make sure that the families and children are protected.

Mr. Dunlop: I'm pleased to comment on the leadoff today by the two Liberal speakers.

I think we've made it very clear that we, on this side of the House, are trying to work with the government -- to work with everyone -- to try to improve the

Family Responsibility Office. I think my colleague from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford said it best: This is not an easy issue.

The members seemed to be a little cynical in their response, in that they felt that previous governments had not done enough. I think, as the member from

Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford said, it's a difficult topic and governments should actually work together on this. To point the finger at someone else on previous actions is unacceptable because in this

case we have the lives of children at stake.

On this side of the House and on behalf of our party, I know that we want to improve it. We want to make the system efficient; we want to make it effective. We

want to make sure that people who are irresponsible to their children and to their families are not rewarded in any way but have to pay a penalty for that. We need to make sure that as a society we

try to rehabilitate people so that they are responsible to their families. We want to make sure that people pay their dues, but we also want to make sure that they're important members of their

community and that they receive self-esteem and respect so that, down the road, they can contribute back and not be penalized by a system like FRO.

The Speaker: Would the member for Mississauga West like to wrap up?

Mr. Delaney: I acknowledge the comments from my colleagues in the House this afternoon. To the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, it is indeed

truly rich to try and finger-point blame for a problem that persisted three years into the 21st century and to assign responsibility to a government from the 1980s.

To the member for Toronto-Danforth, the member does appeal to the government to look deeper and to try harder, and I truly do appreciate that. No single

initiative will get resources from hand to mouth and address child poverty more than reform to the family responsibility act.

To the member for Ottawa-Orléans, he acknowledges that this is the time to look ahead, to look into the 21st century and to get on with the job. Ontarians

agree and so does their government.

I say to the member for Simcoe North, who is a colleague I very much respect and whose hard work I acknowledge in this House, this is about former governments'

track records and about ideas, not about individuals. I welcome his support for the bill, and certainly I hope that support persists through his caucus and that the bill is able to pass

unanimously.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure indeed to speak this afternoon on Bill 155, which is

An Act to amend the Family Responsibility and

Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 and to make consequential amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

Throughout the remarks this afternoon I will be using the acronym FRO, which means the Family Responsibility Office. Every member from every party here would

be more than familiar with that term: Family Responsibility Office, FRO.

As my opening remarks, I want to compliment the staff in my constituency office at 75 King Street in Bowmanville. Fern Sargent is the person in my office who

does a remarkable job in a customer-friendly manner of making the connection between persons involved in the resolution of support orders or custody and trying to make sure that the Family

Responsibility Office caseworkers have the needed information between the payer, the recipient, as well as we who are serving the public.

I took the opportunity to look up in Hansard the comments made by the minister, the Honourable Sandra Pupatello, when this bill was first introduced. She's not

here this afternoon to hear these remarks, but I'm sure she will get a copy of Hansard, because we always appreciate it when ministers take the time to hear the input of the lowly opposition.

Often, the suggestion is brought forward. I want to leave the distinct impression that our critic made it very, very clear -- the honourable Cam Jackson, once the minister in this area. I can read

his remarks in response the day this bill was introduced in the Legislature, which was December 2, 2004.

Cam Jackson, the member for Burlington, said: "I'm pleased to respond on behalf of my caucus with respect to the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears

Enforcement Amendment Act, which was tabled by the minister today. As one who has seen the evolution of support order and custody legislation in this province over the last 20 years," which indeed

Cam Jackson has, "I'm mindful that in the late 1980s, when we saw the first legislation in our province, enforcement components were not supported by the then Attorney General of the day, Ian

Scott. We have come, indeed, a long way over the course of the last 20 years, so that meaningful enforcement can occur when, as all members in this House will agree, it is extremely important that

we support those families who rely on their support payments from a parent who is no longer living with them. For that reason our party will very definitely want to work with this legislation and

offer some constructive comments as well as participate in committee in terms of making amendments to it.

"We do have some concerns, and I'm pleased to see the minister has taken a decidedly different tack, now that she is a minister" than when she was the critic

on the other side of the House.

All members would know that support orders by the courts are problematic for lots of reasons, and what they're saying in this bill purports to be

strengthening. The only thing, on reading this rather important bill -- but a technical bill, too, I might say -- is that, as I see it, it's strengthening in what it says here. I'm reading from

page 1 of the bill itself, the explanatory notes:

"The substantive changes chiefly fall into three categories: strengthening the enforcement tools available to the director of the Family Responsibility Office,

improving the methods used for locating default payors and streamlining enforcement procedures."

It goes on to explain in the bill itself, "Some examples of the changes that are intended to strengthen enforcement tools" -- and I will read these, because

it's important to see how small a step this really is, although it's on the record that our party, under John Tory's leadership, will be supporting this bill. The first thing it says is:

"A power to obtain the suspension of defaulting payors' hunting and fishing licences under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, similar to the

existing power to obtain the suspension of the defaulting payors' driver