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

March 8, 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-Mar-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 8 March 2005 Mardi 8 mars 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

HIGHWAY 3

FARMERS AND RURAL ONTARIO

DEB PELITI

MOHAWK COLLEGE

RURAL ONTARIO

WOMEN OF NIPISSING

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

WOMEN'S SHELTERS AND

SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT

ACT (PUBLICATION OF

CONTRIBUTIONS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE FINANCEMENT DES ÉLECTIONS

(PUBLICATION DES CONTRIBUTIONS)

PROTECTION AGAINST ILLICIT DRUG

GROW HOUSES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE LES INSTALLATIONS DE CULTURE INTÉRIEURE DE DROGUES ILLICITES

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL PUBLIC

INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

POLICE OFFICERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GREENBELT

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

GREENBELT

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

AND SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

WATER EXTRACTION AND QUALITY

GREENBELT

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

HYDRO PROJECT

GREENBELT

LABOUR UNIONS

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

PETITIONS

ONTARIO FARMERS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTRE

MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CONTROL OF SMOKING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

PLACES TO GROW ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR

LES ZONES DE CROISSANCE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Fabry patients have been abandoned by the Minister of Health and by the McGuinty government. By refusing to fund

enzyme replacement therapy, premature death is a certainty for Rick, Sabrina, Danielle, and Fred Sgroi of Richmond Hill, Julia Strauss of Kitchener, Bill Taylor and Carolyn Auger of Ottawa and some

20 other Fabry patients who depend on this treatment to survive.

The minister and this government have heard appeals from patients, their families and members of this Legislature to fund enzyme replacement therapy, and the

minister and the Premier have turned their backs on those appeals. The minister hides behind the shield of the Common Drug Review process and deflects making a life-saving decision to the expert

drug advisory council. This response by the minister is irresponsible, intellectually dishonest and immoral.

The minister knows that the Common Drug Review was never intended to make decisions about rare and orphan diseases. It recommends drugs for inclusion in

provincial drug formularies based on cost-effectiveness. By relying on the opinion of this panel and the expert drug advisory council, this government is basing the decision to save lives on

economics rather than patient need. That is offensive to every citizen of this province.

On behalf of Fabry patients and their families, I call on the minister to exercise his authority and his responsibility to extend enzyme replacement therapy

today. It is a lifeline that these patients need and they deserve as citizens of Ontario.

HIGHWAY 3

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): I rise today to bring to the Minister of Transportation's attention the urgent need to get on with safety

improvements and the planned four-laning of Highway 3 in my riding. This stretch of highway is increasingly becoming known as a deadly one, with two head-on collisions occurring just last month

within days of one another. Over the years, countless people have been injured or even killed while the former government made promises to my constituents that it did not deliver.

I've been pressing the issue of Highway 3 safety improvements with governments of the day for over seven years now. While I realize there are many important

projects to be completed, it's imperative that the four-laning of Highway 3 be a priority. This project has been in the works for far too long and has been plagued by unacceptable delays and

postponements that need to be addressed immediately.

Seven years of waiting is enough. The 24,000 drivers who travel this highway every day need assurance that our government takes the issue of their safety

seriously and that, unlike the former government, we are serious about the four-laning of Highway 3.

I urge the minister to ensure that further studies and information sessions be completed as soon as possible so that improvements to Highway 3 can be added to

the minister's capital construction projects before another of my constituents is injured on this dangerous stretch of road.

FARMERS AND RURAL ONTARIO

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise again today in an effort to try to get this government to listen to the voices of farmers

and rural communities, from my riding and from across Ontario.

Last week, farmers rallied on the lawn of Queen's Park, and tomorrow, farmers and rural citizens will be rallying on the lawn of Queen's Park again. This is

because the government is not listening to them. There is a rural revolution happening in Ontario. It is coming because you are not listening to the voices of farmers and you are not listening to

the voices of rural Ontario. Your policies and inaction have been hurting rural communities and farmers. They have been hurting local communities, and hurting our community halls and our

churches.

Over the past several months, I've been meeting with farmers throughout Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, and they have told me that without a doubt the CAIS program is

not working. They are not getting the money they need to put seed into the ground or to keep their farms viable.

I want to urge you to respond to the plight of the hard-working farmers. They have told you what they need to survive. You have made promises to farmers and

rural Ontarians, but now that you're in charge you're ignoring them. We hope there is money coming for our farmers. So far, this government has ignored their plight. I hope they will listen, and I

hope they will act.

And if there is any financial assistance coming to farmers, do not use the CAIS program to distribute it. Make sure the money goes directly to the farmers who

need it. The CAIS program is not working. Money needs to get into the hands of farmers and farm families now, before they lose their farms and before we all lose the safe, secure access to food

that they provide.

DEB PELITI

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Today is International Women's Day all over the world, and we are honouring women in this country and in

every country that makes up the face of this planet.

Today, I'd like to speak about one woman whom this Legislature honoured last December. That is a woman named Deb Peliti. You will all remember her, because

everyone on this floor gave her a standing ovation. She is the woman who found $40,000 and turned it in to the bank. She is the woman who was on welfare. She is the woman who, with her two

children, has a very hard time making ends meet.

This Legislature chose, and rightly so, to give her a standing ovation for her integrity. You now have a chance, especially the members opposite, to have some

integrity of your own. You let her keep the reward money. You let her keep the $2,000. But every single month since then, you have chosen to claw back the child tax credit from her: $227 every

single month. In that period you have clawed back $700 of the $2,000 you let her keep, and in the next eight months you will have succeeded in clawing it all back.

You should honour her instead by giving her and the 55,000 other female heads of households an opportunity to keep the child tax credit, and you should eliminate

your shameful policy of clawing it back.

MOHAWK COLLEGE

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): Friday was an exciting day for one of Hamilton's premier post-secondary education facilities, Mohawk College.

MPP Jeff Leal, on behalf of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, in conjunction with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, marked the official opening of Mohawk's new

Industrial and Process Automation Training and Applied Research Centre, a $10-million project designed to train students for what the industry says is one of the most pressing needs.

But the measure of this wonderful program was quickly evident when Ray Myler, a student, came to the podium. It's his second time through the Hamilton-based

school. But in a world where jobs change almost overnight, continuing education is the price of staying employed. Mr. Myler spoke without notes and from the heart as he thanked the provincial

government and the various industrial partners. He said this was a wonderful second chance for his success in life.

Mohawk president MaryLynn West-Moynes said in a statement to the Hamilton Spectator, "We are absolutely thrilled at the opportunity that this investment has

created for our students and partners."

This government is proudly encouraging and supporting our young people to be the best they can be. Our future depends on it. On behalf of the students, the

stakeholders and the community, Hamilton says thank you.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): We're hearing some old expressions on the back roads and in small-town Ontario: "One for all and all

for one," and also, "You can hang alone or you can hang together." This has been the winter of our discontent in rural Ontario, and whether it be intrusive landowner restrictions or the need for

help for one commodity or another, a common response prevails, and that is unity.

There are many rural problems, many rural organizations, as we know, and many rural voices. These voices are all sending one message to achieve shared goals.

Those goals are to educate, to inform, and to reach out not only to the Legislative Assembly, but also to people across this part of North America, where the rural way of life is now

threatened.

There are so many issues: sawmills being shut down -- we hope the environment minister will be at the rural rally tomorrow; greenbelt devaluation of property --

we expect to see the municipal affairs minister at Queen's Park tomorrow; community halls and schools closing their doors -- folks are looking for the education minister to be there on Wednesday;

wildlife damage to crops -- that's for our MNR minister; and of course the crises in beef and hogs and tobacco and cash crop -- our ag minister and our Premier need to meet with constituents

tomorrow.

Our plea: Don't divide and conquer. Don't play one crop against another. Don't play one organization against another. And we'll see you all Wednesday.

WOMEN OF NIPISSING

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise today on this International Women's Day to celebrate the wonderful women of Nipissing. Yes, from

advocates to CEOs to international celebrities to unsung heroes, we have too many fabulous women to mention them all, but I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate a few who are

contributing so much to our community and who are providing great role models.

We have our municipal leaders: the mayor of Chisholm, Barb Groves; the mayor of Bonfield, Narry McCarthy; the mayor of Nipissing, Wendy Billingsley; the deputy

mayor of Callander, Virginia Onley; and many, many councillors in a variety of our communities.

We have health care leaders, such as the CEO of our Northeast Mental Health Centre, Jean Trimnell, and our psychiatrist-in-chief, Susan Adams, who are doing

great work. Of course, Lisa McCool Philbin is doing great things at the Community Counselling Centre, and there's our medical officer of health, Catherine Whiting, and Dr. Wendy Graham, a

provincial leader in family health reform. In our long-term-care homes, we have Mrs. Monestine and Vala in Mattawa at the Algonquin, Beth Campbell at Casselhome, Yvonne Weir at Leisureworld, and of

course Laura Pierce, who is the chair of the Mattawa hospital board.

In the area of social policy, the list is almost too long to even start, but I would like to mention the tireless efforts of Lana Mitchell at Low Income People

Involvement, Rev. Elizabeth Fraser, the chair at Community Housing Action Group, Gisèle Hébert at the children's aid society, Christine Woods at the crisis centre, and of course Janine

Lafreniere at Transition House.

All of these women contribute so much to our community. They are role models.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my mom at the very end, another woman I'm very proud to say is a staunch member of the Nipissing proud women

community.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I rise today to speak about the McGuinty government's commitment to agriculture. The McGuinty government

fully supports Ontario farmers and our strong agri-food industry. We understand the issues facing rural Ontario and are working hard every day with our partners to address those issues.

This is a government that has already taken necessary steps, such as exempting the land transfer tax on family farms, investing in increased abattoir capacity

for older animals, establishing a new renewable fuel standard that will require that gasoline sold in Ontario contain an average of 5% ethanol by 2007 to help our corn farmers, and providing up to

$30 million to help the cattle industry recover from the fallout of BSE.

Last Friday, I met with the Wellington Federation of Agriculture to discuss their concerns about agriculture and the agri-food industry. Much like Minister

Peters, who met with farmers at last Wednesday's rally, I firmly believe that the best way to understand agricultural issues is to meet with the farmers who deal with those problems every day.

The McGuinty government is always willing to sit down with any agricultural group that wants to constructively discuss its needs and concerns. All farmers and

farm groups are encouraged to come forward with constructive contributions toward government policies. The door is open, and we are listening.

WOMEN'S SHELTERS AND

SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): On International Women's Day, it saddens me that I have to talk about women's shelters and second-stage

housing. It is unfortunate that those places of refuge still exist because violence against women is still a dark reality.

That being said, I am proud to rise today to talk about what the McGuinty government is doing to help women and their children fleeing domestic violence. For too

long this issue has been repeatedly put on the back burner. Today's announcement means that the shelters in my riding, like the Women's House of Bruce County and the Women's Shelter, Second Stage

Housing and Counselling Services of Huron, will be better equipped to provide a safer and healthier environment for women staying in their facilities.

This morning on CBC Radio, Darlene Ritchie, executive director of At^lohsa Native Family Healing Services, made a point: "We were down to using one shower

upstairs because, you know, after 14 years of using a shower, the caulking is starting to dry out and we're having leaks. So we'll renovate our three bathrooms in that house to serve those 16 women

and their children."

I am so proud that this government is taking action. As part of the $66-million domestic violence action plan today, 98 women's shelters and second-stage housing

providers will receive a total of $2 million for capital improvements and cost-saving upgrades. This money will also pay for wheelchair ramps and repairs to crumbling buildings, and will invest in

efficiencies so that cash-strapped agencies will see savings for years to come. But mostly, today's announcement means that women and their children will have safer, more secure places to stay at a

very difficult time.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT

ACT (PUBLICATION OF

CONTRIBUTIONS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE FINANCEMENT DES ÉLECTIONS

(PUBLICATION DES CONTRIBUTIONS)

Mr. Arnott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 180,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act to require publication of contributions / Projet de loi 180, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le financement des

élections pour exiger la publication des contributions.

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

Mr. Arnott?

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Members of this House will recall that during question period last Thursday, I signalled my intent to

introduce a bill of this type. Since that time, the government has introduced its own legislation, as has the member for Toronto-Danforth.

This adds another bill to the mix, but mine is different from the other two. My bill amends the Election Finances Act to require that a political party post on

its Web site on the Internet information about contributions of $100 or more at the time it deposits the contributions into its account or that each of its constituency associations, official

candidates or leadership contestants deposit the contributions into their accounts. The information consists of the name of the contributor and the amount of the contribution.

In the case of a contribution to a candidate who is not a candidate of an official political party at an election, the candidate is required to post the

information on the candidate's Web site. A party or a candidate who does not maintain a Web site is required to post the information on the Web site that the Chief Election Officer designates.

This is real-time financial disclosure of political contributions, because it would compel the political parties to disclose the information the very day they

cash the cheque.

PROTECTION AGAINST ILLICIT DRUG

GROW HOUSES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA PROTECTION CONTRE LES INSTALLATIONS DE CULTURE INTÉRIEURE DE DROGUES ILLICITES

Mr. Martiniuk moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 181,

An Act to provide protection against grow houses for marijuana and other illicit drugs / Projet de loi 181, Loi prévoyant une protection

contre les installations de culture intérieure de marijuana et d'autres drogues illicites.

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

Mr. Martiniuk?

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This bill provides that certain powers contrary to grow houses that some municipalities now have be extended to

unincorporated municipalities in Ontario. It also amends the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to provide that a vendor must reveal in any agreement of purchase and sale if the building or

structure has been used to grow any illicit drugs. It goes on to amend the Tenant Protection Act to permit the landlord of any rental unit to enter and view the rental premise to determine whether

it's being used for the purpose of growing illicit drugs.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): We have with us in the speaker's gallery Mr. Philippe Delacroix, the consul general of France in Toronto.

Please join me in welcoming him here.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): Ontarians are proud Canadians. We are proud of our role in helping other

provinces financially, we are proud of our place as the linchpin of the nation and we are especially proud of our country's role in the world. But I can tell you I was not proud of the recent

federal budget's failure to address the $23-billion gap between what Ontario contributes to the federation and what it gets back. The federal budget was disappointing to me and to Ontario because

it continues the unfair treatment that shortchanges this province's taxpayers by billions of dollars.

The issue that concerns me as Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal is funding for public infrastructure. Ontario doesn't get its proper --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Member from Nepean-Carleton, I'd like you to control yourself and come to order.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I can sense that the members opposite are incensed as well that Ontario doesn't get its share of federal funding programs

designed to help maintain public infrastructure like roads, bridges, public transit and water treatment facilities. Ottawa has four infrastructure funding programs. Ontario is getting less than its

fair share under all four. I want to highlight all of them for the House today.

The Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund provides some $4 billion for transit and transportation improvements, urban development and economic expansion. The

federal budget allocates Ontario $92 per person from this fund. The rest of Canada, excluding Ontario, gets $146 per person. If Ontario received its fair share, there would be an extra $670 million

available for infrastructure in this province.

The Border Infrastructure Fund provides some $600 million to improve border crossings. The busiest and most important border crossings in Canada are here in

Ontario, especially in Windsor, which handles 11,000 trucks per day. About 75% of the value of all goods trucked to the US moves through the Ontario border crossings, but these crossings get only

51% of the federal funding. If Ontario received its fair share, some 75% of the funding, there would be an additional $145 million for border infrastructure investments in Ontario over the life of

the program.

The municipal rural infrastructure fund: This fund provides $1 billion to improve infrastructure in smaller municipalities and rural communities Our rural

municipalities desperately need help with roads, sewers and water treatment facilities. Renfrew county, for example, has more than 260 bridges and culverts and must finance major repairs for at

least half of them within the next 10 years. No surprise then that applications from Ontario municipalities for funding under this program are double the money that is available. The federal budget

allocates $24 per person for rural municipalities in Ontario. Compare that with $36 per person in the rest of Canada. If Ontario received its fair share, some $36 per person, that would mean an

additional $150 million available for Ontario rural municipalities over the life of the program.

Under the strategic highway infrastructure program, Ottawa has earmarked $600 million over five years to rebuild and expand the nation's highway system. Any

help, of course, is welcome, but it's not nearly enough. Ontario will invest some $1 billion this year alone for highway rehabilitation and expansion. We have the busiest highways in the country,

and keeping our transportation network in good shape is essential to the economy not only of our province, but of our country. Ontario receives $15 per person under this program. The rest of

Canada, excluding Ontario, gets $21 per person. If Ontario were to receive $21 per person, as is the case with every other province, there would be an additional $74 million available for strategic

highway infrastructure in Ontario.

This government has a plan to invest in the drivers of economic growth, things like high-quality public education, post-secondary education, training and, of

course, infrastructure. Strategic investments in these areas now will pay dividends well into the future. Investments now mean more money to contribute to the rest of Canada tomorrow. Ontarians are

proud Canadians. With help from the federal government, Ontario will be able to continue to assist other provinces, strengthen our federation and, most especially, ensure Canada's place in the

world.

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I rise to address the House on the important issue of women's health and what

our government is doing to meet the health needs of the women in this province. The fact that I am doing so on this particular day is significant. In 1977 the United Nations declared March 8 to be

International Women's Day to call attention to and to celebrate the social and political progress that women have made in recent history. While improving women's social and political status are the

dominant themes you might hear in commentary today, I would like to take a moment to discuss women's health issues, another area in which continued improvement must absolutely be the norm.

The simple fact is that women have health needs that are distinctive and often unique. Historically, in health care, we have not been as responsive to that

fact as we should be. It was not that long ago when clinical trials would be performed on men and the results extrapolated and applied to women, something we now understand to be bad science and

even worse medicine. So while our government is working hard to improve our health care system for all Ontarians, we remain mindful that there are specific measures that must be taken to ensure

that women are receiving the health care they need.

For example, breast cancer continues to be the most common form of cancer for women. Ontario is the first and only Canadian province to provide comprehensive

screening services for those at risk of developing hereditary breast, ovarian or colon cancer. My ministry currently allocates $28.5 million to the Ontario breast screening program, which is

designed to reduce the mortality rate of breast cancer through a comprehensive early detection program.

Cervical cancer is another critically important women's health issue. Just today, our government announced that we are investing $1 million in community labs

for new technology that will reduce wait times for cervical screening test results and improve the accuracy of those tests. This will enable Ontario women to make more informed decisions about

their health care needs sooner.

Violence against women might best be described as a social disease. It is certainly a significant health issue. The ministry provides $15.1 million for 34

approved hospital-based sexual assault treatment centres, which serve more than 4,500 victims annually, mostly women and children.

Midwives provide care to women during normal pregnancy and labour and to women and their newborn babies during the postpartum period. Ontario was the first

province to regulate and fund the midwifery profession as part of its provincial health care system. In 2004, an estimated 310 midwives were registered to provide services through about 50

ministry-funded midwifery practice groups.

Just today, a number of Ontario hospitals announced a joint initiative, funded by our government, called the Fetal Alert Network. This program is designed to

improve health care for pregnant women and their unborn babies with birth defects.

In Ontario, women account for 29% of all new HIV diagnoses. We have expanded the Ontario prenatal screening program to include HIV testing. As a result, all

pregnant women in Ontario are now offered HIV testing, which is provided with appropriate counselling and informed consent. Currently, about 90% of pregnant women receive a prenatal HIV test in

this province. The ministry also funds community-based AIDS groups for HIV-infected women and support for the families.

The ministry funds 334 community mental health agencies, some of which are specifically targeted to address women's mental health issues. One example is eating

disorders, for which we currently provide $8.5 million to support specialized treatment programs.

Young, single, homeless women have mortality rates 10 times higher than women in the general population. The Ontario Women's Health Council has undertaken two

projects: One focuses on service integration for homeless women, and the second explores the development of curriculum for health professionals working with homeless women. The mental health and

addictions branch provides approximately $9.5 million in funding to 48 women-specific addiction programs in Ontario. Other addiction programs also provide services that are specifically for

women.

The early childhood development addictions initiative provides outreach, addiction treatment and ancillary services to pregnant women with addictions.

The heart health program addresses the prevention and control of cardiovascular disease with specific attention to women. Last year's budget announced annual

funding of $30 million to develop strategies aimed at integrating and strengthening aspects of stroke prevention. The strategy addresses gender differences -- in particular, the impact and

prevention of strokes in women.

Osteoporosis is a highly debilitating disease that affects approximately 530,000 Ontarians -- one in four women and one in eight men. The osteoporosis strategy

aims to prevent and manage osteoporosis and reduce disability, pain and suffering. The government recently approved the osteoporosis strategy, with funding starting this fiscal year at $881,000,

and rising to $5 million in 2007-08 and ongoing.

Finally, we have the tentative agreement that we have just reached with the Ontario Medical Association, an agreement that was unanimously endorsed by the OMA

board. This deal contains several measures to improve women's health care, including a strong focus on better access to preventive care like mammography screening. In addition, for female doctors

we're expanding the province's pregnancy and parental leave programs.

All of these initiatives are part of the McGuinty government's comprehensive plan to improve health care in Ontario for all Ontarians.

One size doesn't necessarily fit all in health care. Women have certain specific health issues, and consequently specific health care needs. It is our job to

meet those needs, and I am proud to say that our government is working very hard to do exactly that.

In closing, I would just like to touch briefly on another aspect of health care as it relates to women, and that is the extraordinary number of doctors, nurses

and other health care professionals from every health care field who are women. It seems appropriate on International Women's Day that I take this opportunity to salute them and ask others to join

with me in recognizing the excellent job they all do.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL PUBLIC

INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond to the statement by my colleague the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Listen,

we want to see greater federal investment in the province's infrastructure, no doubt about it.

Applause.

Mr. Hudak: I appreciate the minister's applause. But I've got to tell you that it's a little too cute by half, because months ago, the

minister couldn't wait to celebrate the days of wines and roses, this really close, hand-in-hand relationship that he had with his federal colleagues. Now, it's whines with an "h," as opposed to

w-i-n-e-s. The problem here that Dalton McGuinty faces is that he has no credibility. He has no credibility with Ontario taxpayers because of his 40-plus broken promises, and he has no credibility

when it comes to negotiating with the federal government.

Let me tell you why. About a year and a half ago Dalton McGuinty accepted, on bended knee, a bad SARS deal that sold the province of Ontario well short of what

we deserved, and like some Oliver Twist character, he went back and said, "Please, sir, can I have another?" During the first ministers' meeting, Dalton McGuinty -- to put an old Trudeau maxim on

his head -- basically was a head waiter to the Prime Minister and his cabinet. He couldn't do enough to get up close and personal with Paul Martin and his cabinet. And as a result of this weak

negotiating strategy, we are not receiving our fair share.

What's really happening is that they're setting up a straw man. For a year and a half, they tried to blame the previous government. We saw recently at ROMA,

that every minister that tried that old trick got booed and jeered. Now, they've turned tail to blaming Paul Martin and the federal government. Folks, it just is not going to cut it.

Dalton McGuinty has to do one thing: look at himself in the mirror, point his finger straight at his own chest and admit to the people of Ontario that he made

promises that he knew he could not complete. He made promises that he knew he was going to break. The result is that they're looking for somebody else to blame, when the blame rests squarely on

Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal cabinet.

So I'll say to the minister that I appreciate the response. Let's see those investments in border areas like Windsor, like Fort Erie, like Niagara Falls. Let's

see those investments in rural infrastructure -- you mentioned Renfrew county -- or Wainfleet or West Lincoln or the vast part of northern Ontario. But he can't forget that while transit investment

is welcome from the gas tax, there are 340 municipalities that did not get dime one of those funds. We'd like to see that as well.

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I'm pleased to respond to the Minister of Health. I wish he were here to hear this.

The minister announced this morning $1 million of investment in cervical cancer screening. That's federal money, and it's certainly welcome to our hospitals.

We on this side of the House, though, will be watching and following up on every one of those hospitals that received funding for equipment to ensure that they actually have the funds to operate

that equipment, because this government is good at making announcements for capital dollars and announcements for medical equipment but leaving the hospitals high and dry.

I just hope that the nurses who will be operating this equipment aren't dizzy, because they are hiring and then firing so many nurses. Some hospitals have

welcoming parties and going-away parties on the same day for the nurses hired by the McGuinty government. The minister himself admitted that he is firing 757 nurses. That's exactly what the

McGuinty government is all about. They brought in a new health tax, and they're using that money to pay for severance packages for the 757 nurses that they fired.

The Ontario Women's Health Council, an initiative of the Harris government and its former minister, who sits in the House today, has done some great work. We

should acknowledge that effort, particularly headed by its chair, Jane Pepino, who is an incredibly devoted Ontarian who has contributed much to the province, not just in law but particularly in

the area of health care and a special place for women's health. She has devoted much time and energy.

I would have thought that the Minister of Health would have risen and talked about Fabry disease and about the funding that should be coming, the funding that

he promised to meet the needs of patients with that. In Ottawa, we continue to have one or two patients who are suffering deeply from this minister's inaction.

I visited Granite Ridge in Stittsville. I would have thought that the minister would have acknowledged the mistake he's made by cutting off

schedule 5

physiotherapy, where literally hundreds and thousands of men and women -- particularly women -- who need physiotherapy in our long-term-care services will have that service cut by 100% in two

weeks' time. It's clear that this minister has no plan for health care, and it's clear this minister is not up to dealing with the

schedule 5 physiotherapy services for many Ontario women.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I'm responding to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. I'm sitting here listening to the

minister and he's talking about all the money we are owed from the federal government. It made me pause to think, what do we do now with all the money that we actually get from the federal

government?

Every year the federal government gives this province some $220 million to alleviate poverty for the poorest of the poor children in Ontario, and every year

this government chooses to claw back the money from those very same poor children to ensure that they continue to live in poverty. The money that is earmarked for them is not spent on them; it's

spent on some other government program.

Every year the federal government makes $300 million available to this province to build housing. How much housing have we built in this province? Almost

nothing. They give us $300 million. It's there and it's available, and then the government chooses not to line up and spend that money. They promised 20,000 units of affordable housing; they've

built none. They promised 6,000 units of supportive housing; they've built none. The $300 million that is made available is totally wasted.

Even when the federal government makes the money available, you choose to take one of two paths: You choose to spend it somewhere else or you choose not to

spend it at all. Why are you asking for money that you have no intention of using in the first place? If I was in the federal government, that's the question I would ask the McGuinty government.

I'd say, "You're asking for money, but you don't spend it when we give it to you; or if you do, you spend it on something else."

You are saying now that you want to spend it on transit, you want to spend it on border infrastructure, you want to spend it on rural infrastructure and you

want to spend it on highways. But if you get the money, I have to honestly ask you, are you going to spend it in these areas or are you going to pocket the money? Are you going to put it against

the deficit? Are you going to spend it on some other government program or are you not going to spend it at all? That has been your history in this province. That has been what this Liberal

government has chosen to do. If I was sitting up there in Ottawa, I would have to tell you that I'd have a very jaundiced view of what you are requesting today.

WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of our critic Shelley Martel, who can't be with us this afternoon.

She is in her riding for International Women's Day.

I respond to the health minister. Three things -- I wish I had more time; there would be more. First of all, on your announcement on buying the equipment for

cervical cancer testing: It's a very important announcement. We've been demanding that this be done for some time. We're pleased to see you announce it today, but we now of course look forward to

hearing the minister in the coming days -- very soon -- announce the money for the staff needed to run the equipment, because without that staff you can't use it. This was federal money that was

used for this.

Second --

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's for replacement equipment.

Ms. Churley: Whatever -- you had your chance.

Second, the examples of --

Interjections.

Ms. Churley: This is a very serious announcement. I wish you would listen.

The examples of unprotected patient care services -- which we brought up in this Legislature many times once the minister told the hospitals they had to cut

back. We brought up the fact -- and it's still an issue out there; it hasn't been corrected -- that patient care services at risk for elimination because they were not mandated by this government

included most of the special women's health programs in hospitals, like abortion, obstetrics, birth control, fertility clinics, post-partum services and on and on. These services are not protected

under your government. So when you demanded that the hospitals make the cuts, guess what they were going to do from the very beginning? Cut the unmandated services. So the women's programs -- the

ones you are bragging about today -- were on the top of the list of the chopping block.

Minister, the third thing I would like to talk to you about is the need, as demonstrated by your announcement today, to bring forward my adoption disclosure

bill and pass it, because you're quite right that we know more and more now about diseases like ovarian cancer and breast cancer. Studies show that we can now add cervical cancer to that list of

women who have a genetic predisposition to these kinds of cancers. There were programs actually brought in by the previous government on ovarian and breast cancer, and cervical cancer should be

added to that for pre-screening of women who have these cancers in their families. But of course, adoptees have no way of knowing whether these cancers exist in their families, so it's more and

more critical that this bill be passed so those women have that screening opportunity as well. Right now, they are being discriminated against.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent for each party to speak for

up to five minutes on International Women's Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Let me start by wishing a very

happy International Women's Day on behalf of our caucus and all members of the House to the people of Ontario. It is a pleasure, as the minister responsible for women's issues, to stand and note

International Women's Day today, March 8. This is an occasion to reflect on the progress our society has made toward advancing women's equality and to consider the steps we still need to take to

help women achieve their full participation in our society.

In 1977, the United Nations adopted a resolution inviting countries around the world to dedicate this day to celebrating the rights of women and international

peace. It is now a global celebration of women's accomplishments and advancements toward equality. We've come a long way from the days when women could not vote, could not be a member of

Parliament, were denied jobs considered suitable only for men. Imagine what this House would be like if we didn't have women in it. It is so much better a place today because we have women as

members of the Legislature.

Applause.

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I accept that on behalf of all the women in the Legislature today.

The gains women have made, though, have been hard won, but every gain is worthy of a celebration. Last fall, two women were appointed to the Supreme Court of

Canada, bringing the total number on the nine-member bench to four. That makes the Canadian Supreme Court one of the most gender-balanced in the world.

Women stand out in every single field. Businesses that are owned and run by women are growing faster than most parts of the Canadian economy. Women aren't just

creating jobs but creating entire companies at double the rate of the national average. There are now almost 10,000 members of the Women's Executive Network, Canada's most influential organization

dedicated to the advancement and recognition of executive women in the workplace. Women are a key resource in meeting Canada's skill shortages in sectors where they are underrepresented.

Our government's women in skilled trades program offers a pre-apprenticeship training program designed exclusively for women to help them enter a variety of

highly skilled and in-demand technology areas and apprenticeships. Our partners for change program works in partnership with external organizations to develop programs and resources that promote

the participation of young women for careers in math, science and technology, areas where women have traditionally not been highly represented. We also help unemployed and low-income women train

for good jobs in the information technology field through the information technology training for women program.

Our government is committed to creating a prosperous Ontario in which women are able to be economically independent and participate fully in the province's

social and economic life. I'm proud that our government has made advances so we could assist women in achieving this. I'm proud that we have done immeasurable work in the area of domestic violence.

Over the past 18 months we've increased Ontario Works benefits, Ontario disability supports. We've begun the increase to minimum wage. Thanks to our Minister of Labour for that.

On December 13, we announced a domestic violence action plan, a significant plan that attacks this issue in four significant areas: public education, community

supports, training and, most importantly, justice; and significant increases in resources to assist French-language services for this area. Thanks to all 13 ministers who participate in our

interministerial task force against domestic violence. Our plan contains a range of prevention, early intervention and justice, all intended to help women who have been abused and their

children.

On February 24, we committed $1.9 million in additional funding to sexual assault centres across Ontario. This includes significant new funding to the

francophone community. Again, thanks to our Attorney General for this.

A $25-million increase in the aboriginal health and wellness program is a significant boon to women and children who are living on our reserves and in our

native communities across Ontario.

Today we're investing another $2 million to help 98 women's shelters and second-stage housing help keep their facilities safe and accessible for women and

Child care: For the first time, our minister for children is investing $57 million of federal money in child care. This helps women. Also today, thank you to

our Minister of Health for the announcement today where we commit $1 million to community laboratories as part of our cancer prevention strategy for women. This $1 million has been earmarked by the

McGuinty government for the introduction of laboratory equipment and new technology for cervical cancer screening.

You will notice across this government a significant increase in the number of appointments to this government's agencies, boards and commissions. We are proud

of that fact. I believe we have made advancements in the issues that are important to women. Let us be clear: We have much more work to do, and it will take all of us in this House to band together

and move the issues for women forward.

Today, for International Women's Day, let us celebrate our achievements and recognize the thousands of women in Ontario who are improving the status of women

every day. Many of them go unsung, and we are proud of the work they do. Let's also consider what each one of us can do in our own communities, in our own constituencies, in our own neighbourhoods,

to promote women as equal partners in our society.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): Today I'm proud to stand on behalf of our caucus and recognize International Women's Day, a day

that was established in 1977 by the United Nations. This is a special day that provides an opportunity to reflect on the progress that has been made to advance women's equality, to assess the

challenges facing women in contemporary society, to consider future steps to enhance the status of women, and of course it's an opportunity for us to celebrate the gains we have made.

The Canadian theme for this year's International Women's Week is You Are Here: Women, Canada, and the World. In Beijing in 1995, member nations of the United

Nations Commission on the Status of Women met to map out guidelines for measuring progress on achieving gender equality. At Beijing +5 in 2000, they met again to review their progress and

achievements and to explore strategies to accelerate action. Beijing +10 brought those members together again to continue to discuss future approaches toward gender equality.

Some of the areas where they have been looking to make progress are in human rights, violence against women and children, health, unpaid work, poverty and

women's diversity. I think what is notable is the fact that the progress toward gender equality can be considered a continuing journey. Although the destination is clear, the route remains a

challenge and, at times, a very difficult journey.

Let's take a look at some of the accomplishments and past achievements in Canada that deserve celebration. Certainly, if we take a look at education, in

post-secondary education the barriers to women getting an education have been all but eliminated. In 2001, women comprised 59% of the undergraduate student enrolment and 50% of graduate student

enrolment in Canada. If we take a look at some of the fields and some of the professions that had traditionally been male-dominated, we see that these fields have opened up to women. Women are

pursuing careers in growing numbers in the fields of medicine, law, business and engineering. In 2003, while women represented only 29% of the total number of physicians in Ontario, they

represented 45% of physicians under the age of 35. A similar trend is found among the representation of female lawyers in Ontario. And by 2003, 53% of people enrolled in the bar admission course

were women.

In business, as the 21st century gets underway, it is expected that about half of Canada's new companies will be started by women. The Institute for Small

Business noted that between 1991 and 1994, Canadian firms run by women created new jobs at four times the rate of the national average. Women are creating not just jobs but entire companies at

double the rate of the national average.

We also know that the pay gap has shrunk. The earnings of women employed full-time in Canada were 71.6% of those of men in 2001. So progress has been made, but

there's more to do.

I heard the minister speak about the Women's Health Council. Our government, under the leadership of Premier Harris, was very proud to establish that Women's

Health Council. We recognized that women had specific health issues, and we wanted to ensure that these women in Ontario were receiving the health care they needed.

However, despite the gains that we've made in Canada, we appear to have hit a plateau or in some cases even moved backwards in the move toward equality in some

areas. In particular, women are missing from the top rungs of the corporate ladder and also from the boardrooms of Canadian corporations.

In politics today, only about one fifth of those who hold elected office are women. In Europe, we have about a third to a half. In fact, when I became an MPP

in 1990, it appeared women were on the verge of a breakthrough to achieving more equal representation in Canadian legislatures, but we have moved backwards then since. Today, for the first time in

about 15 years, none of Canada's political parties federally are headed by a woman, none of Canada's Premiers are women, and none of the mayors of our largest cities are women. The proportion of

women MPs, which had been climbing for 30 years, declined from 21% to 18% in the last federal election, in 2004.

So the challenge remains not just in Ontario but throughout the world. We need to move toward eliminating poverty and violence, and we need to ensure that

there are equality rights for women of every race, language, ethnicity, economic status and ability. We've seen tangible progress on many fronts. So today, let us take the opportunity to rededicate

ourselves to moving forward, to making sure that women have the right to live in dignity, in freedom from want and freedom from fear.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On behalf of New Democrats everywhere, I want to wish everybody a happy International Women's Day. Of

course, as a proud feminist, I behave as though every day is International Women's Day.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Just like Jim Wilson.

Interjections.

Ms. Churley: Yes, just like Jim Wilson here, who thinks we should have that. As John Baird said, "You go, girl," which is what I'm about to

do, because this is an occasion when we applaud our impressive accomplishments in all different areas of society and honour the work of our sisters in our immediate midst and throughout the globe

who are in one form or another fighting for women's freedom from discrimination and violence.

It's an understatement to say that there is a lot of work left to be done, on all fronts and in many places, some more seriously in other parts of the world,

but some issues to be dealt with here locally as well.

In Canada, many mistake women's prevalence in the labour force and post-secondary education as measures of having achieved equality now. Statistics about

females making up over half the student body in post-secondary and entering high-profile fields such as law and medicine in record numbers --

Mr. Bisson: And politics.

Ms. Churley: -- no; not in politics -- are cited as proof that gender discrimination is a relic of a past era. But I've got news for you:

Scratch underneath the surface and you will find obstacles. They have taken on a different form, and we had better address them. Overt discrimination has been replaced with unwelcoming and

sometimes hidden attitudes. Closed doors have been supplanted with more glass ceilings and workplace cultures that deter women from reaching for the door in the first place.

Our Legislature illustrates those different obstacles women face. In the arena of public decision-making, here we are in 2005 and women are still drastically

under-represented. Why at this point are there only 23 of us here? One reason, and there are others, is that our electoral system works against women getting elected. More women are elected under

some form of proportional representation than first-past-the-post. And it is uncertain that in Ontario, given the minister's announcement, we will see the electoral system change to balance the

playing field. The bill on democratic renewal released yesterday by the minister responsible for democratic renewal did not include explicit measures to address the gender deficit, and I can assure

him that I will be addressing that.

Level of safety is another tally measure of women's status in society. Violence against women remains a prevalent and growing crisis, while efforts in some

areas to end it have suffered setbacks. There is a troubling rise in sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Sexual harassment is still not recognized as an occupational health and

safety issue or criminal charge, and as you know, I have a private member's bill that I would like to see passed to address that. The occurrence of sexual assault has also increased, particularly

incidents involving younger women as the victims.

Domestic violence continues to rise, and the Liberal government's strategy to combat domestic violence will not stop that trend. Instead, the plan has too many

broken promises and inadequate policies, in some cases putting women more at risk.

I want to underscore some particularly troublesome parts of the plan, starting with its treatment of shelters and second-stage housing. The lack of housing

options is among the two top reasons that make women remain with or return to their abusers, because there is nowhere to go. But instead of providing sustained increased funds for beds and programs

and more housing, the government has given shelters more money to hire fundraisers and has not kept its promise to build 20,000 new units of affordable housing.

Finally, I want to tell you about a couple of events that are coming up today. There are many to celebrate and honour International Women's Day. Judy Rebick's

book launch of Ten Thousand Roses: The Making of a Feminist Revolution, is tonight, with a tremendous panel of distinguished women at Ryerson University's Jorgenson Hall. I invite all people to go

and hear about the history of the feminist movement in Ontario and Canada.

Also, I want to tell you about what I've done today to mark International Women's Day. I've launched a contest on my Web site called "Who do you think is

Ontario's greatest woman?" because inexplicably, no women made the CBC's top 10 greatest Canadians. So I decided that we would have our own contest here in Ontario to showcase the incredible women

who live or once lived in our great province. I think more needs to be done to celebrate our top Canadian women, and this is an opportunity for women in Ontario to go to my Web site,

www.MarilynChurley.com, and vote for --

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): -- for Marilyn Churley, NDP.

Ms. Churley: No, no. Judy Rebick could be one of those, as an example, but this is a chance for people. I'm piggybacking off the CBC's

Greatest Canadian.

One of my favourite aspects of the CBC's contest was the way it educated and reminded us of the incredible accomplishment of Canadians throughout our national

history and today. I hope this contest will allow us to celebrate Ontario's fabulous women, past and present. So I invite everybody to go to my Web site and vote for your favourite greatest Ontario

woman.

POLICE OFFICERS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous concept for each party to speak for

up to five minutes in memory of the four RCMP officers who were tragically killed in the line of duty. I would ask the Speaker to observe a moment of silence after the tribute.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The government House leader has asked that we have unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): Today we mourn the deaths of four fine young men, all police

officers who died in the line of duty in the small community of Mayerthorpe, Alberta.

The deaths of RCMP Constables Anthony Gordon, Leo Johnston, Brock Myrol, and Peter Schiemann, who was born in Petrolia, Ontario, are deeply mourned by all

Canadians. The fact that these four men were so startlingly young, so filled with promise and hope, and so imbued with a sense of honour and purpose in the careers they loved makes their deaths all

the more tragic and difficult to understand. Their deaths are a devastating blow to their families, to the RCMP, to the community in which they served, to the wider policing community, and to the

country as a whole.

Their deaths are also a terrible reminder of the dangers that all police officers face as they go about their duties. Every police officer knows and accepts

the risks involved with his or her job. They put their lives on the line every time they report for duty. Police officers know first-hand the dangers that accompany their sworn duty to protect the

public. Each officer realizes the dangers and rewards associated with this profession. Those rewards come from making a real and profound difference to the safety and security of the communities in

which the officers serve, from knowing at the end of the day that the place they call home and the people who live there are safer because they did their job. Unfortunately, it is often only when

tragedy strikes that we realize just what that job entails. It humbles us and reminds us of the debt that we owe.

A note attached to a bouquet of sunflowers left outside the RCMP detachment in Mayerthorpe said it simply and said it best: "Thank you for protecting our

community and our people. You're not just Mounties. You're our friends and family and you will be greatly missed."

As we offer our deepest sympathies to the families of Constables Gordon, Johnston, Myrol and Schiemann, let us take a moment to thank all the fine men and

women who put their lives on the line each day to keep us, our children and our communities safe. On behalf of the government of Ontario, I offer our profound and heartfelt condolences and

thanks.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On behalf of our leader, John Tory, and our caucus, I'm honoured to take

part in this special tribute here

today.

Last Thursday, a tragedy occurred in Mayerthorpe, Alberta, that shocked our nation. Four RCMP officers were brutally murdered. The incident was the worst spree

of killing of Canada's law enforcement officers in over 120 years. The four officers, Constable Tony Gordon, Constable Brock Myrol, Constable Leo Johnston and Constable Peter Schiemann, were all

members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The RCMP, or Mounties, have one of the most storied histories of any police service in the world, and that, of course, includes agencies like Scotland Yard and

the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The RCMP, an organization symbolic of our nation, are known for their colourful uniforms and Stetson hats. They are also known for their legendary musical

rides. Known as the North-West Mounted Police when they were created in 1873 by Sir John A. Macdonald, the Mounties helped to colonize western and northern Canada using a peaceful strategy.

The RCMP have always held a special presence wherever they appeared. I can think back to the summer of 2000, when an RCMP officer accompanied the Millennium

Trail participants throughout central Ontario. Wherever the participants stopped for a dedication on the trail, the RCMP officer was inundated and swarmed with requests for his photo to be taken

with the participants and onlookers.

The Mounties have always had a special place in the film industry. It is my understanding that the Mounties have been involved in more than 400 films and set a

tone in Hollywood.

Even a week ago last Saturday night, I had the privilege of attending a retirement dinner for Chief Fantino, and one of the keynote speakers was RCMP

Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli. Commissioner Zaccardelli spoke about the wonderful partnerships between the police services in our country and indeed even international policing. The common tie

to our Canadian police services is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force. You can imagine the pain on the face of Commissioner Zaccardelli last Friday when he discussed with the media the tragic

loss of his four young officers.

In the coming weeks, there will be so many questions surrounding the horrible ambush that took the lives of these fine young officers. I'm confident that the

answers to these questions will bring forth timely recommendations. A tragedy like this can never happen again. As legislators, we must provide our officers nationwide with the resources they need

to be equipped for every conceivable incident.

On behalf of our caucus, I want to take this opportunity to pay respect to Constables Gordon, Myrol, Johnston and Schiemann. A very special thank you to their

families for allowing their young men to serve and protect our nation. And finally, condolences and a thank you to the Canadian police family for continuing to make Canada a safe and secure

society. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, the men and women of our Canadian police services put their lives on the line so that we can all raise our families knowing

that our communities are protected and secure. In closing, I would like to acknowledge the fact that our Sergeant at Arms, Dennis Clark, spent his career with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On behalf of New Democrats, I want to recognize the incredible sacrifice of Constables Brock Myrol,

Leo Johnston, Peter Schiemann and Anthony Gordon.

Every time police officers and other emergency workers go to work, they take an incredible risk, and there is no way we can repay the debt we owe to an officer

who is killed on the job. The loss of these four officers is made all the more tragic by the youth of the four men. The oldest, Constable Johnston, was 32. The youngest, Constable Schiemann, was

25, a rookie. Their tragic deaths remind us of the sacrifice that so many other police officers have made while serving and protecting the public and they remind us of the proud legacy of the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police.

We can never repay the debt we owe them. We will, however, note the legacy that these men leave behind. It is a legacy of service to their community, service

to their country, service to their families and service to their colleagues. We can never make up for what has happened, but we must acknowledge this incredible sacrifice and do all we can to

ensure that their sacrifice was not in vain.

We extend our condolences and our sympathies to their families, their colleagues and their friends.

The Speaker: Would all members and guests please rise to observe a moment of silence in memory of the four fallen officers of the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GREENBELT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On February 25, you said

that you purposely did not meet with individuals who had interests in the greenbelt. Yesterday, in a staggering display of befuddlement, you said that maybe you did; you couldn't remember; it could

be. Then, after a developer came forward thanking you for meeting him and exempting some of his lands from the greenbelt, you admitted you had met with the developer. After question period, you

couldn't answer the simple question of what other developers you met with privately. It's been 24 hours, Minister. You've had time to check your daytimer. What other developers have you met

with?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): To the best of my knowledge and belief,

since the Greenbelt Act was first introduced here on October 29, and the draft plan, I have not met with any other developers in a meeting. I may have met them socially somewhere or what have you,

but I have not met with any other developers at all to discuss the greenbelt.

Mr. Runciman: When the minister made his commitment on TVO, he had no qualifications whatsoever: no timelines, no social meetings. He simply

said he purposely didn't meet with developers.

The minister seems to have a strange relationship with the facts. The minister said yesterday that he met Silvio DeGasperis during game seven of the hockey

playoffs and that the greenbelt wasn't a topic of discussion. Of course, those of us who are hockey fans know there was no game seven last year. Minister, we now know that in fact you had a private

meeting in your office with Mr. DeGasperis on May 4, 2004, along with your political staff and Mr. DeGasperis's personal planner. In your final maps, Mr. DeGasperis had a $15-million parcel of land

exempted from your greenbelt. What science was this $15-million land exemption based on?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Yes, you are correct: It was the sixth game of the Stanley Cup playoffs, not the seventh game; you're right. But it was on

May 4 last year. I met with him for about --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: May 4, I believe it was, last year. He wanted to meet with me to specifically talk about the agricultural preserve in

Pickering, and he did so. He wanted to know whether or not we would take out of our campaign commitment to preserve it for agricultural lands, and I told him we were not going to do that. It was a

commitment we made to the people of Ontario and a commitment we were going to give. He didn't get his way, and that's the end of that particular story.

It's kind of interesting that the MZO with respect to the agricultural preserve was actually put on by David Young, a member of your government, back in 2003.

What did the then finance minister, Janet Ecker, say? She said, "Pickering made a deal to protect these lands. The agricultural reserve is a valuable resource. If it's developed now, it's gone

forever. That cannot be allowed to happen." Do you want to know something? We agreed with Janet Ecker.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Final supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: I don't think too many Ontario taxpayers would agree that a $15-million exemption is not getting your way. It's becoming

increasingly clear that there was no scientific basis for this $15-million exemption. So far, the only evidence we see supporting the exemption was a $10,000 cheque from Mr. DeGasperis, payable to

the Liberal Party of Ontario, and a private meeting with Minister Gerretsen on May 4, 2004.

Since you were unable to recall which developers you met with and you've refused to release any science supposing your $15-million exemption, will you release

today your full

schedule from the time you initially proposed your greenbelt, December 2003, until now, revealing the name and nature of discussions for every developer you met with? Will you do

that, Minister: release the information?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As part of the consultation process, as I've indicated before in the House, I met with a number of municipal officials and

their planners. I received two letters from the mayor of Vaughan, dated November 29 last year and January 28 this year. He specifically asked us to take a look at these lands and see whether they

should be included in the greenbelt. We took a look at the lands. We met with the Ministry of Natural Resources people -- when I say "we," I mean the ministry. The natural resources scientists

determined that the natural heritage systems of the streams and rivers should be protected and that the tableland, in effect, could be developed. We did exactly what we were asked to do by a

council resolution from the city of Vaughan as per the request of the mayor of the city of Vaughan in two letters to us.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Runciman: The mayor takes issue with that as well, but we don't have time to get into that today. We know this story doesn't end with

Minister Gerretsen.

My question is to the Acting Premier. We've learned that not only did Mr. DeGasperis meet privately with Minister Gerretsen; he also had private meetings on

four separate occasions, between February 9, 2004, and September 8, 2004, with the Premier's top political adviser, David MacNaughton. This is the same David MacNaughton who engineered the McGuinty

broken promises on the Oak Ridges moraine, giving developers the green light to build 6,000 houses after the Liberals promised that no houses would be built.

Acting Premier, how can you still claim the greenbelt was based on science when there is so much obvious political involvement in the process?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): It is really unfortunate that the opposition is engaging in tactics to smear the

greenbelt. That's what this is all about. It's about smearing an initiative that is going to protect over 800,000 more acres.

Interjection: It's 8,500.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I'm sorry, 8,500 more acres. We know that the opposition wants to pave the greenbelt. We know that they are advocates

for people who want to pave the greenbelt. Our government has committed to the greenbelt. We said it during our election campaign. We told the developers this is what we were going to do. We've

passed the legislation. I know they're not happy, but we're proud of this greenbelt initiative.

Mr. Runciman: This is not just unfortunate; it's unseemly. In today's Globe and Mail, Murray Campbell characterized this issue as "a whiff of

scandal." Now there is a stench about this Liberal government and their dealings with developers.

Acting Premier, your boss isn't here today to answer the tough questions. After claiming all along that the greenbelt was based on science, we now find out

that his top political adviser, David MacNaughton, has met with at least one developer four times. Worse, he met with at least one developer during the final drawing of the greenbelt maps and,

coincidentally, at least one developer received an exemption worth, in this one case alone, at least $15 million. How many other developers did the Premier's principal secretary meet with? Will you

release his personal

schedule today?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: This is obviously a campaign to smear a very progressive initiative this government committed to and has followed

through on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

The Acting Premier.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: They've asked for the science. It's on the Web site. The Premier sent the science over to them yesterday. They don't

want to pay attention to the science. They claim that the developers have had a hand in the shaping of the greenbelt, an area that has only expanded in its scope since we came to office. It has

gone beyond our commitment. They're suggesting that somehow developers have benefited from this. I would suggest that developers are in fact the ones who are most unhappy with the fact that this

government has had the intestinal fortitude to go beyond our election commitment and to preserve green space in the greater Toronto area.

Mr. Runciman: We've heard the science referred to as voodoo or culinary or political science, certainly not real science. We have guidelines,

not real science applied.

Let's review the facts as we know them. We now know that both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Premier's top political adviser, David MacNaughton, had

private meetings with at least one developer while the final greenbelt process was underway. We know several developers met with Premier McGuinty and Minister Sorbara at a private, swanky

soirée at the Sorbara household in exchange for $10,000 donations to the Ontario Liberal Party. The stench now reaches to the highest levels in the Premier's office, yet you continue to refuse

to release any science behind the one exemption we know about. Acting Premier, if your government has nothing to hide, will you now agree to a full legislative inquiry into this growing

scandal?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: Our government has nothing to hide at all. We're very proud of what we have accomplished with the greenbelt, an

initiative that was talked about by Bill Davis, and there has been no government since Bill Davis's that has had the strength of purpose to move forward and protect green space around the greater

Toronto area.

I also want to remind the members opposite that the developer they have identified stands to lose far more with the preservation of the Duffins agricultural

preserve than block 41, and that's his issue. Block 41 is a red herring. This developer has sour grapes for this government. We protected the land that he wanted out of the greenbelt and we're not

going to apologize for making sure that that land was included, as we said it would be.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. May I ask the members to come to order. Can you stop the clock for a minute, please. The member for Oak Ridges and the

member for Durham, I'm going to ask you to come to order.

New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Acting Premier and it's about Premier McGuinty's secret $10,000-a-head

fundraiser for big developers. We know that big developers contributed $10,000 each to the Liberal Party so they could have the Premier's ear before the greenbelt boundaries were drawn up.

Yesterday, we learned the Minister of Municipal Affairs exempted lands from the greenbelt after holding secret meetings with a developer. But today my question is about other lands that you

exempted from the greenbelt. They are called the peach fuzz lands, about 68,000 hectares of prime farmland wedged between Lake Ontario and the greenbelt's southern boundary. Can you tell us what

science exempted this prime agricultural land from the greenbelt?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): The lands the member refers to are currently designated rural or agricultural

lands. We've done the studies with all of the regional planning commissioners, who have signed off on the population, household and employment targets that we are going to have to accommodate. We

expect some 3.7 million people and some two million jobs in this greater Golden Horseshoe region, and we want to have a conversation with municipalities about what the future of those lands should

be: if they should be protected or if they should be used for residential or commercial-industrial purposes.

Mr. Hampton: Here is the contradiction: The Christian Farmers say the peach fuzz lands are better farmland than the land you've included in

the greenbelt. Environmental groups like the Pembina Institute, Ontario Nature and the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance all say that the science determines that the peach fuzz lands should be in the

greenbelt, but they're not in the greenbelt. Why? What we know is this, that $10,000-a-head secret meetings with the Premier, secret meetings involving the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

developers, and presto, land comes out of the greenbelt. I ask again, where's the science that supports excluding the peach fuzz lands, prime agricultural land, from the greenbelt? We've heard

excuses. Where's the science?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: There is no mystery to this whatsoever. In fact, our commitment was to include some 600,000 acres in the greenbelt. We've

exceeded that with over one million acres in the greenbelt.

We recognize the need for future growth. I know, of course, that my friends in the New Democratic Party do not believe our province should grow. That's a

difference of opinion we may have. We are expecting 3.7 million additional residents in the greater Golden Horseshoe and over two million jobs to be created. We think it is important and prudent

that we engage municipalities in the future of what those lands should be used for.

Mr. Hampton: This is what the public sees: The public sees a government that keeps talking about science, but here you've got prime

agricultural land, some of the best agricultural land in Ontario, and for no scientific reason it's excluded from the greenbelt. What do people see? Questionable secret land deals, swanky,

high-priced fundraisers for developers, and backroom decisions on what land gets excluded. Yesterday you tried a little manoeuvre to divert public attention. You brought in your real, watered-down

financial disclosure legislation, but your legislation contains a loophole that allows riding associations to continue to accept huge donations from developers, and none of it is disclosed.

Can you tell me, there's no science supporting the exclusion of the peach fuzz lands, what is the science that supports excluding contributions to riding

associations from developers, a practice you yourself say is nefarious?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: What the public of Ontario sees is 1.8 million acres of protected lands, the first time that's happened in the province of

Ontario.

It's ironic. When the New Democrats were in the government, they wanted to put landfills on top of these lands. We don't think that's acceptable. We think they

should be protected. We think Ontarians ought to have that kind of legacy. I understand that we have a different vision than the folks on the left or the folks on the right. We see the ability to

be green and to grow, to accommodate an expanding population and an expanding economy, contrary to the views my friends in the New Democratic Party have. I can certainly appreciate that. My friends

in the Conservative Party want to pave it all. You don't want to grow. We think you can both green and grow at the same time --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: -- and we believe we have struck the right balance.

Our plans in fact are supported by the regional planning commissioners, by municipal officials, by industry --

The Speaker: New question.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Acting Premier again: What the public sees are big developers paying big bucks and getting

their land excluded from the greenbelt.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The question is to?

Mr. Hampton: To the Acting Premier.

What they see is that your so-called financial disclosure legislation is going to allow developers to continue to make those big dollar contributions through

the side door.

Claridge Homes, Sakto Corp., Trinity Development, Homestead Land Holdings, CH2M Hill Construction, the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Construction Association:

These are developers or development interests that all made big contributions to a certain riding association in 2002 and 2003. Which riding association? Dalton McGuinty's riding association. And

your legislation would continue to allow this to happen.

If you don't have any science for excluding the peach fuzz lands, can you tell us what's the science for allowing corporate developers to continue to have

these kinds of financial loopholes?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I think that it's important that we identify for the Legislature, for the people who are

listening today, that the minister introduced a bill for consideration yesterday for real-time disclosure. When you talk about a loophole, the legislation that he introduced would require any

donation of over $100 to be disclosed within a certain period of --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Would you come to order, please? Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: The minister responsible has responded to a campaign commitment, to requests from individuals in this Legislature that

we would have legislation for real-time disclosure. He introduced that yesterday.

If you want to talk about loopholes, the NDP have introduced a private member's piece of legislation where they would allow $500 donations to go undisclosed,

so I don't think that they're in a very good position to accuse this government of loopholes.

Mr. Hampton: I want to draw the Acting Premier's attention to an

article in the Toronto Star in May 2003, where the Toronto Star pointed out,

"The Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals have funnelled parts of large donations through riding associations in order to evade the prescribed limits." In fact, the

article notes that the

former Conservative government was able to raise $1 million by funnelling it through riding associations, which otherwise wouldn't be available, much of that money coming from developers.

Now we look at your financial disclosure legislation, and what's it going to permit? It's going to permit that same kind of backdoor evasion. You say that this

is about protecting green space, and then you tell us that your financial disclosure legislation is about making it all transparent. What is transparent about allowing developers to continue to use

the side door and funnel big contributions and never have to disclose them?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I'm very proud to say today that, with the legislation that was introduced yesterday by the minister, this will make us

world leaders when it comes to transparency and accountability. They're talking about what they claim to be a loophole. I would draw their attention to the loophole in the legislation that they

introduced. They think it's perfectly acceptable to have donations of $500 and less exempt from this qualification. We believe it's important that the people of Ontario have access to that

information. That is the legislation that the minister introduced yesterday, and we're very proud of it.

Mr. Hampton: Well, the Toronto Star pointed out that this is a pretty nefarious loophole to allow someone to evade financial disclosure. In

fact, someone named George Smitherman, commenting on the article, said, "We think there is too much money in Ontario politics, and we're very committed to reducing that." Then we see your

legislation, and it permits exactly the kind of backdoor evasion that you were critical of.

Minister, I've got a simple question for you. We see the same sorts of things happening now that you used to criticize the Conservatives for, the same sorts of

things where developers give big money and, presto, suddenly their development land isn't in the greenbelt any more. I think the people of Ontario deserve complete answers to this. Will you support

a legislative committee to look at this from A to Z, the financial contributions and what land went into the greenbelt?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I would suggest that the leader of the third party read the bill that was introduced yesterday, because in the body of

the bill there are provisions for a citizens' jury and the citizens' jury will be charged with reviewing election finances reform. So I would suggest to the member opposite that if he is serious

about having the people of Ontario review the donation practices for political parties in the province of Ontario, he support this legislation immediately so that we can have a citizens' jury and

look at reforms, perhaps the ones that the honourable member is speaking of.

But this legislation, in my opinion, responds to many of the questions --

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm going to warn the member from Niagara Centre. The next time, it won't be a warning.

New question.

GREENBELT

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It concerns the greenbelt exemption to the

developer in the city of Vaughan which, curiously, was just described by the Acting Premier as some sort of balance, some sort of quid pro quo. He didn't get his way in Pickering, but boy, oh, boy,

he got one heck of a deal in the city of Vaughan, a $15-million windfall.

Minister, the assembly is aware of the following facts: Despite your claims to the contrary, you had at least one secret meeting with developers, maybe more,

including the developer in question. Ongoing meetings took place with your political staff. We found out today that at least four meetings took place with the Premier's top political adviser, David

MacNaughton. We know the developer in question attended a $10,000-per-person soirée fundraiser. The neighbours didn't get an exemption, but this developer got an exemption big-time, a

$15-million windfall.

Surely, Minister, in light of these facts, you went back to your office last night and said to your staff, "Give me the science. I've got to answer the

questions." Where's the science behind this particular exemption in the city of Vaughan in the finance minister's riding?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): As I mentioned earlier, as part of the

consultation process, I met with the political leadership and the planning officials of the various regions and areas. In addition to that, we got two letters from the city of Vaughan, from the

mayor of the city of Vaughan, dated November 20, in which he asks us not to put these lands in the greenbelt, and a letter dated January 28. In that letter, it states that the rural and

agricultural lands proposed to be designated as greenbelt are of marginal agricultural quality and are fragmented to smaller landholders. Then he goes on to say, "We don't think that they should be

in the greenbelt."

We then took this information -- the ministry did -- and went with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the science that was approved and suggested and developed

by the Ministry of Natural Resources and that was part of the Greenbelt Task Force recommendations. We took another look at these areas and determined that what really needed to be protected from a

natural resource viewpoint were the waterways -- the streams, the rivers, etc. -- and that's what we did. We did exactly what the city of Vaughan wanted us to do, and it was confirmed by the

science of the Ministry of Natural Resources. That's exactly what the consultation process is all about.

Mr. Hudak: The letters we've received from the city of Vaughan say something else entirely. We want the science. The minister claims that this

plan is based on science.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I'd like to hear the member from Erie-Lincoln's question.

Mr. Hudak: Surely the minister would have brought forward the detailed science, referenced a stream that was misplaced, a wetland that was

misplaced, some way of demonstrating through the science that you claim is behind the greenbelt why this exemption was granted. You have failed to answer those questions despite two days of

questions here in the assembly.

Minister, this is looking more like a greenbotch and not a greenbelt. It undermines your credibility; it undermines the credibility of the plan. Any minister

worthy of the title would have gone back to his office, raised bloody hell, brought forth the science today and answered these questions. Minister, answer the questions. Produce the science

today.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: The science that has been used by both the Ministry of Natural Resources and in the LEAR system by the Ministry of

Agriculture in fact was put in place by that party when they were in power, and we used the science to determine what should be protected from an agricultural viewpoint and what should be protected

from a sensitive-environmental-lands viewpoint.

We followed that process here and elsewhere. We met with the municipal leadership, who after all are the elected councils for their particular areas and who

are the people who speak on behalf of the public interest in that area. We took that information, we did exactly what the consultation process is all about, and I'm very pleased to report that we

added an extra 8,500 acres of land to the greenbelt area as a result of the entire consultation process that has taken place over the last four or five months.

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

AND SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, you've honoured

International Women's Day by re-announcing money promised by the Tories to shelters and second-stage housing, to use for repairs. It's time for you to honour the promises you made to these groups

and Ontario women.

Housing for women fleeing domestic violence is in scarce supply. As a result, women in shelters are forced to choose between returning to an abusive home or

homelessness. You promised to reinstate core funding for second-stage housing programs, but you never kept that promise, and second-stage housing programs are now in even greater crisis.

I've talked to many of them, Minister, and so should you. They have a message for you: Please keep your promise. Today, on International Women's Day, will you

finally listen to them and reinstate funding, as promised, to second-stage housing in this province?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I was very happy today to have a

province-wide $2-million announcement for our second-stage housing providers and shelters across the province. Some 98 agencies have benefited from new funding, not the last government's funding.

The facts you have are simply incorrect. Yes, the last government provided $8 million over five or six years for new shelters across the province, over the course of several years. This is new

money, and the shelters and second-stage housing providers are well aware that it's new money. It is for refurbishing. It speaks to the security measures that some of these places need: in some

cases, bullet-proof windows, enhanced security systems, better lighting; in some cases it's just fixing up the place, like any of us would do with our older homes.

These places have appreciated this. They appreciate the fact that the Ontario government has brought second-stage housing providers back into the fold for the

first time in many years. Does this sector need additional help? Of course they do. Are we working toward moving a step forward for women every day? Of course we are.

Ms. Churley: Minister, you're breaking your promise to second-stage housing. Just admit it. You said in the election, and before, that you

weren't going to reinstate the odious policy made by the previous government, and you're doing it. Just admit it.

A lack of housing is another broken promise, and it's the prime reason women and their children return to an abusive home. A library of coroners' reports has

said there needs to be more affordable housing so women don't have to make this terrible choice. But your government has not put any shovels in the ground to build the 20,000 affordable housing

units you promised. Instead, you are holding up construction by not matching the $300 million in federal funds. These stalling tactics are costing women and children the housing they need to be

safe.

Minister, seize the day today. Keep your promise. Will you build this affordable housing? Will you announce that you're putting shovels in the ground

today?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: My colleague, the minister responsible for infrastructure, is desperate to answer this question.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): A little over a year ago, I was with Andy Mitchell, the minister responsible

for CMHC, and Toronto Mayor David Miller, and at that time we announced tens of millions of dollars for new affordable housing projects right across Ontario -- in fact, so far, in a little over a

year, some 3,400 units of affordable housing. I don't know where the member gets her facts from, but it's probably from the same research that indicates absolutely a lack of understanding about

what we've done. In fact, I attended a groundbreaking just one month ago for a 230-unit affordable housing project. My colleague in London --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I think as one starts to address the other, colleagues and members don't want to hear the question.

We're going to go to a new question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let's get some proper decorum in the House, please. The member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

WATER EXTRACTION AND QUALITY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Last Wednesday, thousands of farmers from

across Ontario assembled here on the grounds of Queen's Park, and a lot of those people are constituents of mine. They came to express their concerns about issues like the BSE crisis, low commodity

prices, environmental issues, farm incomes and support programs.

I walked out among those farmers and spoke to them, and I know you did the same. Some of the farmers I spoke with have expressed concerns about the $750

application fee that accompanies the new water-taking regulations that were introduced earlier this year. They did not dispute the importance of protecting Ontario's water. As farmers and well

owners, their livelihoods and personal health are dependent upon the availability of safe and clean water. However, they believe that the introduction of this fee amidst all their other business

challenges now belies the government's commitment to address their concerns. Minister, what assurances can you give these farmers that the government's commitment to address their concerns includes

re-examining the need for this application fee?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the demonstration we had last week by the

farmers. I want to congratulate the organizers. They were able to make their points very succinctly and very peacefully.

I did have an opportunity to walk among them and hear their issues, and you're right: The permit to take water application fees was an issue. I know as well

that the elected representatives of farm organizations have made that point with the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture.

I'm very happy that as a result of these meaningful consultations, I am able to say today that the Ministry of the Environment is going to cancel the

application fees for farmers. We thank all of the farmers who assisted us in working toward this.

Mrs. Van Bommel: That is certainly great news, and I know the farmers in my constituency, and as a matter of fact all the farmers across the

province, are very happy to hear that.

Minister, another issue, while I have your attention, is that I continue to hear --

Interjections.

Mrs. Van Bommel: I'm going to go for more.

Another issue that I hear a lot about from people in my riding is the potential impact of the drinking water systems regulation, regulation 170, that has an

impact on community halls and small businesses in rural Ontario. The previous government introduced regulation 170 without consulting the people it would affect. Therefore, I know that you, as

Minister of the Environment, ordered a review of regulation 170 last spring. That review included public consultations in 12 rural communities across Ontario last fall, and that included

Chatham-Kent, which is in my riding. I know that you provided an update of the review of regulation 170 at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association conference in February. Can you update the members

of the Legislature and the public in rural Ontario about this review of 170?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: Indeed, I have heard a great deal about regulation 170. I've got a copy of that regulation, which was signed by Bob

Runciman actually, and there's no question -- I am very happy, though, that the Advisory Council On Drinking Water Quality was able to provide its recommendations to me. We look forward in the near

future to posting those regulations on the EBR. We have also received recommendations from the AMO-ROMA task force.

There is a common thread to many of the recommendations that have come. One of the key areas where we see some commonality is that the recommendations we are

considering now will involve the public health units. We are going to consider that perhaps they can resume a greater role in providing testing services, particularly for community halls and small

businesses, for which the cost of the water testing regimen that's in place now has been very prohibitive.

We look forward in the weeks ahead to working out a regulation that is going to be workable, particularly for people in rural Ontario. We're very appreciative

of all the people who have helped us to build and improve this drastically flawed regulation.

GREENBELT

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: The minister said that it was not proper --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I'd like to hear the member from Erie-Lincoln's question.

Mr. Hudak: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: You said it was not proper for you to meet with developers during certain periods

in the greenbelt consultations. Why, then, is it okay for your political staff and the Premier's top political adviser to do so?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Once again, I met with Mr. DeGasperis on

May 4 last year, during the time the Greenbelt Task Force was setting up the criteria they reported on in August of last year. Following that time, I made a decision personally that I was not going

to meet with any particular landowners within the greenbelt. I didn't do that. I met with their duly elected councils, with planners. I took various trips around to take a look at some of the

areas.

We had 1,200 submissions from individuals, from municipalities, from different interest groups etc. They were all looked at by the ministry people, taking into

account the science that was adopted both through the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture, to see whether or not we had the greenbelt right. I'm very pleased to report

that at the end of the day we got it right, because we got over a million acres of land for permanent protection added to the 800,000 --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Hudak: A very puzzling answer, quite frankly, by the minister. I asked a very simple and direct question. If you set a standard that said

it was improper for you to meet with developers during a certain time period, why then is it not improper for your political staff, your representatives, for the Premier's top political adviser,

his principal secretary, Mr. David MacNaughton, to meet with the developers? Why the double standard, and why are you avoiding this question?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I have no knowledge as to who else met with whom with respect to the greenbelt. I know that some of my staff people and

some of the ministry people certainly met with the 1,200 people who made submissions to our greenbelt consultation process. Consultation is to make sure you've got it right, and I believe that the

end result of this entire process is that we do have it right. We, as a matter of fact, added an additional 8,500 acres from the draft plan, the draft mapping, that was produced at the same time

the legislation was introduced on October 28.

This is something future generations can be proud of. This is really all about the ag preserve. I would like to know where the Tories stand. Are they in favour

of the greenbelt or not? They voted against it. Do they really want to pave over the ag preserve? Is that really what it's all about?

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): In the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services, my question is to the Acting Premier.

Madam Acting Premier, today is International Women's Day. We've heard all of your lofty goals, we've heard your ideals, but what I want to hear is what you're not saying, and what you're not saying

is that you're going to end the clawback of the national child benefit supplement. That's what you're not saying. There are 91,000 Ontario families affected by your non-action, and fully 60% of

those, or 55,000, are led by single mothers.

If there was one thing you could do to help women in this province today, it would be to end that clawback. Today, on International Women's Day, will you show

some integrity, will you show some action to your lofty words? Will you end the clawback?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I am very happy to report that the

moment this government took office almost a year and a half ago, we immediately changed the policy. All new funding from the federal government through the national child benefit has been flowing

directly to families in this province. The total in that first year was $7 million.

What we acknowledge is that we have a $200-million issue. We are one of eight provinces across the country that continue to claw this back from that initial

allotment from the federal government. We know this. We also understand that we were not delivered a balanced budget like we were promised by the last government. That has had a huge effect on the

amount of time it takes for us to deliver on everything we want to do for families in Ontario.

So let me be clear: The moment we took office, we changed that policy, so that funding is flowing through to families. We hope we can continue to do that. As

we move forward, we take a step forward every day in helping families that need help in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The member for Hamilton East.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): The bottom line, Madam Minister, is that where I live in Hamilton, eight out of 10 single mothers with

children under six are living in poverty. They're going hungry because you claw back their child benefit supplement by $122 per child every month, enough to keep those poor families from going to

the food bank. How can you claim to be an advocate for women when you continue to discriminate against women in our province who are living in poverty? You promised to end this clawback. You broke

your promise. Women and children need to eat.

New Democrats today are calling for an immediate end to your clawback. Will you advocate for children? Will you agree? Will you end it now?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I think it is not a fair characterization of the significant work we have done for a year and a half; in a very short

time, let me tell you. For the first time, families -- including in Hamilton, as this member has mentioned -- have benefited by $57 million of federal child care money finally going into child care

to help all families, especially moms and children in this province; millions more dollars in nutrition programs, in breakfast programs --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Nepean-Carleton, I'm going to warn you this time: Allow the minister to respond to the question.

Minister?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: One of the first things we did was reinstate the nutritional supplement for moms who are on welfare, something that never

should have been taken away. In addition, we have funded healthy babies programs like never before: millions of dollars in breakfast programs to feed children across this province. We have made a

3% increase to families on welfare and ODSP. It's not enough, but we know it's a start. We have continued from day one to change some very difficult policies in this ministry to make life better

for people who need it. I stand on that record, and I will continue to work for the --

The Speaker: Thank you.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Energy. For quite some time, my constituents in Markham have been extremely

concerned with regard to Hydro One's proposal to run high-voltage transmission lines through high-density residential areas. Many people, including municipal councils, school boards and residents,

have raised these concerns, and I support them 100%. As you are aware, I have raised these very concerns with the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Leona Dombrowsky; the Minister of

Education; and with your staff at the Ministry of Energy. I have been asking, on behalf of the people of Markham, that a proper examination of more feasible long-term alternatives take place. It is

also imperative that a responsible process be implemented to ensure that any and all health and environmental implications are addressed. Hydro One has demonstrated reluctance in examining possible

alternative solutions to the energy demands of York region and in addressing the concerns of my constituents. Minister, is the government prepared to look at alternatives to Hydro One's proposal

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. Minister of Energy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I want to thank the member for the question and for the hard work he's done

for the last year, advocating on behalf of the people of Markham.

Under Bill 100, we have given the Ontario Power Authority the ability to do regional plans as well. Accordingly, the Ontario Power Authority and the Ontario

Energy Board are beginning a process to review the electricity needs of York region. The process will survey a variety of options for the region. I expect the OPA will consult, but, most

importantly, I can tell the member that Hydro One has informed me that it is withdrawing its application to the Ministry of the Environment, pending the outcome of the OPA's review. I know the

member will want to assure his constituents that the process that's set up will allow them to have fair hearing to be heard on a range of issues, and will allow York region to look at things other

than transmission lines, including distributed generation.

Mr. Wong: Minister, that is great news for the people of Markham. I have listened to the people in my riding and have worked to bring forward

their legitimate concerns. The people of Markham are entitled to know that their community's energy needs will be met, without having to sacrifice their health or that of their children or

environmental safety. I have consulted with many of my constituents and a number of groups that are concerned about these very issues, and I have committed to ensuring that their concerns are heard

and addressed.

As you know, I have raised our concerns over the failure to examine alternative options to the Hydro One proposal on numerous occasions, and I am pleased to

hear that these options will now be explored.

Minister, can you tell me and the people of Markham what specifically the mandate of the OPA will be with regard to examining the power needs of York

region?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: The OPA's broad mandate is to be responsible for ensuring long-term adequacy of supply of electricity, including medium- and

long-term demand and supply forecasting, conservation and load management. The OPA will assess the electricity needs of York region and provide the Ontario Energy Board with recommendations on how

to meet these needs. This process will look at transmission options and generation options, including distributed generation and demand-side management. It's anticipated to take about 10

months.

I want to thank the member for his very passionate representations on behalf of his constituents that will allow us to have a better look at what the future

needs of Markham and York region are with respect to power. He deserves an enormous amount of credit for the hard work he did on this file.

GREENBELT

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You ask us to trust you that the greenbelt

borders are based on the best science and the best planning advice that was available, even though you cannot provide any real science. You ask us to believe that the greenbelt boundary has been

drawn fairly and impartially, yet we find you are holding meetings with developers about the greenbelt after you said you would not.

Minister, this is not the first time you have asked us to trust you. On September 20 of last year, I questioned you in committee about new powers your Planning

Act changes would give to the cabinet and you to intervene in OMB planning decisions. What was your response? You told the committee, "I, for one, certainly don't intend to abuse" these new

powers.

Minister, when you said that, I took you at your word. Now we find out you are meeting with developers when you said you wouldn't, and that boundary lines can

be changed with no basis. Will your government call a full legislative --

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

Could I explain the rules again. When I do stand up as the Speaker, I would require that the members sit down; therefore, your time for the question is over

because I have given a minute in which to ask the question. I know that if we stop giving speeches and ask the question, it may be more helpful.

Minister?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I have great respect for the member opposite and all the work she does. But let me just say this: The science that has

been used was recommended to us by the Greenbelt Task Force. They specifically talked about what systems should be put into place to determine the limitations of the greenbelt through environmental

protection rules, agricultural rules, natural resources rules, culture, recreation and tourism rules and transportation infrastructure rules. We used that. We used the best possible scientific

information that was developed by them when they were in government, by both the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture.

We did that and, yes, there were some boundary lines changed with respect to the greenbelt. For example, the headwaters of the various streams and rivers were

included as part of the naturally protected area. That's what the greenbelt is based on and that generations in the future will thank us for preserving for them.

The Speaker: The member from Simcoe-Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): Minister, I just want to say that nobody believes you. You're trying to leave behind an environmental legacy

called the greenbelt in your one-term government, and what you're probably going to leave behind is an environmental scandal of the worst kind in Ontario history.

Minister, it appears that what we do know --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would like to hear the member from Simcoe-Grey. I'd ask the minister --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The Minister of the Environment and others have been quite boisterous and I cannot hear what the member from Simcoe-Grey

is saying. Would you put your supplementary?

Mr. Wilson: Minister, we know you haven't produced the science and you're refusing to do so. We know that if a developer has a meeting with

you and then drops $10,000 into the pockets of the Liberal Party of Ontario and meets with the Premier and the finance minister, you get your worthless piece of land worth $15 million overnight.

The maps change overnight.

This has the smell of scandal. You have the integrity and honesty of your government at heart here. Why won't you call a full legislative inquiry and get rid

of the impression that your government can be bought?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As I mentioned before, the meeting I had with Mr. DeGasperis was well before we even started the greenbelt process because

we hadn't received the Greenbelt Task Force report yet. The ministry didn't start working on that until some time in July or August, months after this meeting took place. The meeting specifically

took place because he wanted us to remove the agricultural preserve from our commitment in our platform during the election campaign. He did not want us to honour that commitment. He wanted to see

that land developed and we said, "No, the agricultural preserve is going to be preserved for farmland." Not only that, we went one step further and put it into the greenbelt to make sure that it is

protected for generations to come.

I would like to know, what is John Tory's position on that? Does he want the agricultural preserve or not? That's what I'd like to know. What's their position

on that?

LABOUR UNIONS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Labour: Wal-Mart is the most anti-union boss in North America. It will go to any length

to destroy unions in its workplaces and deny its workers the right to freely, collectively bargain as members of a trade union. You know that a strong, clear majority of the working women and men

at Wal-Mart in Windsor have signed union cards joining up with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. You also know that Wal-Mart will go to any length to attack, undermine and destroy their

union bid. When a clear, strong majority has signed union cards, like those women and men at Wal-Mart, why won't you let them take advantage of card certification to organize into a labour

union?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): As the member knows, the Minister of Labour would not be commenting on any matter that is

before the board. What I am pleased to report is that in the amendments that we have introduced in the Labour Relations Amendment Act, there are two amendments that apply to all workers to ensure

-- not commenting on this case -- that the process of a worker choosing whether or not to be a member of a union will be absolutely scrupulous and fair.

Those two amendments, applicable to all workers, are, first, remedial certification: For those cases in which an employer seriously breaches the Labour

Relations Act and removes the workers' effective right to choose, and for which there is no other remedy, the board would have the power, if these amendments are passed, of certifying the union.

Second, there is an interim reinstatement power to ensure that if a worker is disciplined or fired because of their involvement in a union organizing drive, the board would have the power to

reinstate them on an interim basis to ensure that the process is fair.

Mr. Kormos: Wal-Mart will go to any length to undermine union organization in its workplaces. We've already seen them shut down stores to deny

workers their right to freely collectively bargain as members of a trade union.

Card-based certification is hardly a radical proposal. It was the law in Ontario for decades under NDP, Liberal and Conservative governments. You're prepared

to give it to construction trades workers, but you exclude retail and other sector workers, showing absolute contempt for those working women and men. And I tell you, in the retail sector, they're

mostly women, mostly new Canadians and, in places like Wal-Mart, at some of the lowest possible wages.

Minister, please show the courage that workers expect and restore the laws that even existed under Bill Davis. Why don't you pass NDP Bill 151 and give all

workers in Ontario the same right to join a union with the same process?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: I thank the member for the supplementary. We look forward to his support of the labour relations amendment act, which will

ensure fair and balanced legislation in the province of Ontario.

We're actually very proud of our legislative record to date for assisting women, for assisting all workers, for assisting the most vulnerable workers in

Ontario. Whether it's the first two minimum wage increases in nine years, the family medical leave legislation, the end of the 60-hour workweek -- the list could go on -- we're very proud of our

record in assisting all workers in the province -- women, the most vulnerable -- in ensuring a fairer workplace system in Ontario.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The member for Oak Ridges has a point of order.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I rise on a point of order pursuant to standing order 97(d).

You will recall that on March 1, I brought a matter to your attention. At that time, there were seven specific questions that I had put forward to the Minister

of Education. There was an undertaking on that day by the House leader -- I refer to Hansard -- in which he rose and made the statement, "It is my understanding that those questions will be tabled

today."

Speaker, to this day, I have only received two of the seven responses. I appeal to you again to use your authority to ensure that the Minister of Education

complies with the standing orders of this House. I don't know on what basis the House leader undertook and committed that those would be delivered that day, but it hasn't happened.

Interjection.

The Speaker: My understanding is that all the questions have been responded to. Maybe you might check with the --

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Check the Orders and Notices.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition that's entitled "Protect Our Farmers."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers and rural Ontarians have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park due to the lack of response from the

Dalton McGuinty government; and

"Whereas the Rural Revolution believes that rural Ontario is in crisis, and will be demonstrating their resolve and determination at Queen's Park