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

April 26, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Apr-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 April 2005 Mardi 26 avril 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

ORAL HEALTH MONTH

NASCAR

SMOKING BAN

NIAGARA REGION

CANADA-ONTARIO MUNICIPAL RURAL

INFRASTRUCTURE FUND /

FONDS SUR L'INFRASTRUCTURE

MUNICIPALE RURALE

CANADA-ONTARIO

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

NIAGARA REGION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

LABOUR DISPUTE

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

SOCIAL SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PETITIONS

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADOPTION INFORMATION

DISCLOSURE ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE

RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): My constituents want some answers from the Minister of Energy. The Ontario Power Authority, which reports to the

minister, has identified northern York region as an area where demand for electricity will soon exceed the capacity of existing facilities.

The power authority recently announced through an ad in my local paper that they would be holding a public meeting to find out what the public thinks about the

issue. So where are they holding this public meeting? At Highways 7 and 404. This means that a public meeting to discuss the energy supply in northern York region is being held almost as far south

in York region as you can go. The OPA seems not to want to go any further north into York region than the first exit from the 404 north of Toronto.

This is not proper consultation. Constituents in my riding of York North, which is northern York region, deserve to have their voices heard. Minister, the

Ontario Power Authority reports to you. Tell them to come up to my riding and start listening to the people who are actually affected by their plans.

ORAL HEALTH MONTH

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): About 30 minutes ago, after eating a very good but messy falafel for lunch, I brushed my teeth, as much

out of sensitivity for my colleagues, who will spend the rest of the evening here with me, as for pure dental hygiene. Nevertheless, I brushed my teeth and, judging by your smile today, Mr.

Speaker, I know you brushed your teeth as well, as you always do. I point that out because the month of April has been declared Oral Health Month in the city of Toronto.

This is the fifth year that the Toronto Academy of Dentistry has worked with the Rotary Club of Toronto-Don Mills to organize Brush-a-Mania. Each year, an

Ontario Dental Association member dentist and a Rotarian have gone to a local elementary school to speak to students about oral hygiene. All students who record each time they brush their teeth for

three minutes over the month of April will receive a Brush-a-Mania club member's certificate, stickers and sugarless gum upon completion.

This year, over 120 schools and 3,500 students will be participating. With your support, through displaying posters in your offices or in government buildings,

speaking to your local school principal or attending school events, we can all ensure that the children of Toronto will find a fun and easy way to maintain the health of their teeth and learn and

adopt healthy lifestyle choices. On Friday morning I'll be attending, with students at St. Rose of Lima Catholic School and students at St. Barbara Catholic School, a discussion on dental hygiene

with local dentists to emphasize the importance of brushing your teeth.

I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage all members to get out to their schools and do the same.

NASCAR

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today, now that the Minister of Tourism is here, to mention plans underway to bring NASCAR series

events to the Mosport International Raceway in my riding.

As some members will know, Mosport has been Canada's home of motorsport for more than 40 years. Racing legends Stirling Moss, Gilles Villeneuve and Bruce McLaren

and stock car racing king Richard Petty have been among the competitors at this circuit. Most recently, president and general manager Myles Brandt and his team have seen crowds increase by 10% to

15% annually in the American Le Mans series. Over the last three Labour Day weekends, over 70,000 fans were in attendance.

A Canadian NASCAR event at Mosport would be an important contribution to Ontario's tourism economy. This event would promote our province around the world. The

region of Durham has unanimously endorsed Mosport as the preferred Canadian site for the NASCAR series expansion.

On behalf of Clarington mayor John Mutton, Clarington regional councillors Jim Schell and Charlie Trim, Oshawa city council and all the local elected officials,

I would like to bring this NASCAR opportunity to the attention of the House. I respectfully ask that the province of Ontario support the Mosport NASCAR bid. I will be following up with further

inquiries of the appropriate ministers, Minister Bradley being one.

Thank you, Speaker, for the opportunity to bring this important issue to the attention of the House today.

SMOKING BAN

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): As the government of Ontario moves swiftly toward making all public places in this province smoke-free, I'm

pleased to announce that as of 05/05/05 -- that is, May 5, 2005 -- the Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga will no longer allow smoking anywhere on the hospital grounds. Smoking will be banned on

the entire hospital grounds, including the parking garages and all outdoor spaces on the hospital property. The hospital is calling this initiative Operation Butt Out!

Banning smoking everywhere on the hospital property will send a clear message to staff, patients and the community that the prevention of cancer, lung disease,

respiratory problems and other tobacco-related serious illness is as important as treatment. I commend the Credit Valley Hospital, its board, its management and its staff for taking this initiative

for the health and well-being of their patients, families, staff, physicians and volunteers.

Smoking causes cancer. Credit Valley Hospital's new state-of-the-art regional cancer centre will be devoted to the treatment, research and ultimate eradication

of cancer. It will open on the very day that tobacco use is prohibited on hospital grounds. I heartily endorse the Credit Valley Hospital's initiative, and I extend my congratulations.

NIAGARA REGION

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): As a Niagara MPP, I'm very pleased and proud to welcome Niagara region chairman Peter Partington, a former member

of this assembly, and various mayors and business leaders, including Patrick Gedge from NETCorp., to the assembly today. Welcome, gentlemen.

I know they've had an opportunity to meet with members of all three caucuses, and are here to speak with one voice on issues of great importance to the people of

Niagara. We are proud of our wineries and proud of the Niagara Falls tourism areas, but we're more than simply wineries and the falls. We're a community that needs greater investment in

infrastructure, particularly to attract industrial jobs -- good manufacturing jobs that have fled the region recently -- to our area.

The greenbelt, for example, as members well know from the debate in the House, will effectively freeze growth in northern Niagara, making the needed investments

in the 406 south and the mid-peninsula corridor all that much more important -- what the region calls their grow south initiative -- to encourage growth down through Thorold, Welland and Port

Colborne, into southern and western Niagara. The region will say that without action and investment, Niagara faces a grim prospect after the greenbelt of a limit of only 1% growth over the next 30

years. So I call on the government to move forward with these initiatives.

I remind the members to enjoy some of the VQA wine and good food at the reception in room 228 beginning at 4:30 this afternoon, and hope that we'll see you

there.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm pleased to join my Niagara colleagues here at Queen's Park in welcoming municipal leaders, elected

officials from across regional Niagara. I know that if Jim Bradley were able to make a member's statement, he'd be on his feet as well saying much the same thing, but he'd far sooner be the

minister -- a small price to pay.

I want to reinforce the message that these people are bringing to Queen's Park, and that is, first, that Niagara has strong leadership; second, that it is

speaking with one unified voice around issues that are relevant to what takes place here at Queen's Park. I appreciate, on their behalf and on behalf of the folks in Niagara, the audiences that

were granted to them by any number of ministers and civil servants here at Queen's Park.

I join in calling for a prompt, speedy four-laning of Highway 406 and its extension down to Port Colborne. That's going to do a heck of a lot more to promote the

greenbelt and save tender fruit land than any legislated scheme ever will. It's also going to do a whole lot to improve the congestion on the QEW right at the Niagara Falls area because, of course,

a whole lot of the border traffic is going to be diverted using the 406 after they get off Highway 3. That's smart planning, that's true smart growth, and I encourage the Minister of Transportation

to take that issue on handily.

I look forward to joining members of the assembly later today when these officials here, including Mayor Damian Goulbourne from Welland, Councillor Bobby Gabriel

from Thorold, Councillor Brian Baty from Pelham and others, of course Debbie Zimmerman --

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

Mr. Kormos: -- and Mike Collins from St. Catharines, ready to greet us.

CANADA-ONTARIO MUNICIPAL RURAL

INFRASTRUCTURE FUND /

FONDS SUR L'INFRASTRUCTURE

MUNICIPALE RURALE

CANADA-ONTARIO

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Il m'a fait plaisir d'être à Vankleek Hill dans le canton de Champlain hier pour

annoncer une importante source de financement pour les municipalités rurales de l'est de l'Ontario.

I was honoured to be in the township of Champlain yesterday to announce, along with our federal and municipal partners, important new funding for eastern Ontario

municipalities through phase 1 of the Canada-Ontario municipal rural infrastructure fund, better known as COMRIF.

The announcement represents over $11 million for my riding, as well as $370 million of investment province-wide. This significant commitment shows our

government's willingness to work with local and federal partners to restore infrastructure in rural Ontario that was so neglected and underfunded by the previous Harris-Eves government.

The township of Champlain, where the announcement took place, has received approval for $8.3 million for the construction of the L'Orignal waste water treatment

plant. Other municipalities in my riding were also successful in their COMRIF applications. The township of South Glengarry received approval for up to $1.6 million to reconstruct Tyotown Road in

Lancaster, and the united counties of Prescott and Russell have received approval for almost $1.4 million to repair the Henri Séguin bridge on County Road 9.

I look forward to COMRIF's second phase, of which our government will unveil details within the next few weeks.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I believe it's the obligation of all members in this House to assist other members in fulfilling

their obligations. One of these responsibilities is to report accurate information to the media and, hence, to the public.

The leader of the official opposition, Mr. Tory, was in my riding last Thursday and made a speech clearly flawed by inaccurate information given to him by his

research staff. According to the Belleville Intelligencer, Mr. Tory stated in Picton that municipalities in my riding will receive $1 million less from our government this year.

Let's look at the facts. Tyendinaga township received $613,000 in 2004 and will receive $613,000 in 2005. That would be the same as last year. Deseronto received

$325,000 in 2004 and will receive $392,583 in 2005, an increase of $67,563. That would be more than last year. Belleville received $5,401,000 in 2004 and will receive $5,877,035 in 2005. That would

be more than last year. Prince Edward county will receive an increase of $588,992. That would be more than last year.

It's also reported to me that while in Picton, Mr. Tory commented more than once that I am "tired." On that one point, he is correct. I'm tired of having to

correct his party's misinformation, I'm tired of his party conveniently forgetting the many errors their government made and I'm tired of Mr. Tory refusing to reveal where the $2.4 billion in cuts

are that he is planning to take out of our health care system.

NIAGARA REGION

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I too am pleased to stand in the House today on behalf of my riding of Niagara Falls, and indeed all of the

Niagara Peninsula, to welcome the Niagara Economic and Tourism Corp., who in partnership with the region of Niagara have joined together to bring the Niagara region to Toronto this week.

As leaders in Niagara, they, like the Liberal government, have taken a long view that Niagara needs a strong economy to prosper. Its partners in industry have

made it clear that they agree. As a result, they have come together with one voice to advocate for the issues that matter most to our communities. I think we could all agree that the economy of

Niagara and its border infrastructure impact the economic viability of not just Niagara, but Ontario. To that end, I'm pleased to say that our regional chair, Peter Partington, other elected

officials, mayors and business leaders, and senior staff from the various levels of government have come to Queen's Park today.

In conclusion, I would like to invite, as my two colleagues have already done, all the members of the House to visit and have the opportunity to meet with all

the elected officials at a reception that's being hosted later on this afternoon by the four members from the Niagara region.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I would ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the first session

of the 38th Parliament.

They are Kyle Anderson from Durham, Dara Bowie from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, Alistair Butt from Ottawa-Orléans, Elizabeth Celentano from Nipissing,

Lindsay Dunn from Northumberland, Owen Fawcett from Nickel Belt, Nathan Gamble from Scarborough-Agincourt, Kaitlin Giesen from Timiskaming-Cochrane, Inderraj Singh Grewal from Etobicoke North,

Derek Kohalmi from Thornhill, Madison Kurchik from Stoney Creek, Jonathan Martin from Cambridge, Sean McConkey from Brant, Taylor Mercer from Parry Sound-Muskoka, Cassandra Muldoon from Oak Ridges,

Trishaala Ninan from Hamilton Mountain, Alexandra Rayment from Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Soyinka Reid from Brampton Centre, Joshua Rosenkrantz from Etobicoke Centre and Paula Sanderson from Don Valley

West.

May we all welcome the new pages.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): May I ask you also to welcome former member Peter Partington from Brock, of the 33rd Parliament, who is in the

House today. I'd also draw your attention to a former member of Parliament in Jamaica, Lawrence Telfer, accompanied by his niece, Norma Telfer, and Altop Telfer in the Speaker's gallery.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, please say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Murdoch, Bill

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 70; the nays are 10.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Premier: I remind you that the Ontario Liberal election promise 104 says, "We will support our

cities," and 225 says, "We will guarantee stable, long-term funding for our rural communities." Premier, in your own backyard, the eastern Ontario wardens' caucus issued a press release today

entitled "Property taxes to jump sharply thanks to province's new funding program." Lanark county alone will lose $1.2 million over the next four years, resulting in a 6% property tax increase.

Premier, rest assured, you've already shattered the record for broken promises. Why are you going to raise taxes in eastern Ontario, and why are you committed

to breaking yet more campaign promises?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this matter, and I know

if there are any further details, the Minister of Finance would like to speak to those in a supplementary.

Let me say that we're very proud, first of all, of the new working relationship we have with Ontario municipalities. Secondly, when it comes to this particular

matter, the subject of the question, we believe our new model is both fair and transparent. We also believe -- we also know, in fact -- that we are investing $656 million in this new program. That

is a 6.1% increase over last year. We're also providing municipalities with $232 million in one-time assistance to transition into the new funding model. I'm proud to say that includes a

$33-million increase after it was first announced, because we listened to the folks in the municipal sector, ROMA and OGRA, in particular, who said that they felt we might be able to work with them

and do something better.

We did that. We are proud of the changes we've made, proud of the new model, proud of the fact that, for the first time, it introduces fairness and

transparency into our partnership with municipalities.

Mr. Hudak: The Premier talks about transparency, but what the eastern Ontario wardens will say is transparent is that this is a raw deal for

eastern Ontario municipalities.

Let's look at Belleville, for example, and Prince Edward county, as well. Last week John Tory caught you red-handed breaking promise 225 with your cuts to

Prince Edward county. You dispatched your member Mr. Parsons from that area to try to defend your honour, saying that there were no cuts, but the decision is -- today we find out that we were

wrong; we actually underestimated the cuts you made to that county. According to this morning's Bellville Intelligencer, "Prince Edward county's chief administrative officer, Dick Shannon, said"

the new formula "takes $600,000 away from the county." It continues, "The new provincial funding formula ... could result in double-digit property tax increases" for the people of Prince Edward

county.

Premier, stand in your place and tell us that you are going to fix this broken formula, that you're not going to cause massive property tax increases in Prince

Edward county.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The member opposite may find it useful to traffic in fiction and scaremongering, but I don't really think that's

particularly helpful.

Let me tell you about some of the facts, because I think that from time to time they can be helpful. According to the facts, Belleville receives $5.88 million

this year; that includes $476,035 more than last year. Prince Edward county receives $5.3 million this year; that includes $588,922 more than last year.

Now, my friend opposite is obviously a defender of the status quo and he would embrace that wholeheartedly. If we were to do that, he may be interested in

knowing that in Port Colborne that would mean a cut of $1 million. If that's what he is saying we should do, then he should stand in his place and say that he defends the status quo and that the

folks in Port Colborne, a community for which he has specific responsibility, should receive a cut of $1 million.

Mr. Hudak: Mr. Premier, with all due respect, what a bunch of nonsense from across the floor. You are saying that the eastern Ontario wardens

are wrong; you're saying Prince Edward county is wrong. But when it comes to choosing between the word of the wardens of eastern Ontario or the people from Prince Edward county against Premier

Pinocchio, I'll side with those municipal officials every single time.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Will members please watch their language in here. I am going to ask the member to withdraw that.

Mr. Hudak: I withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'd like the member to complete his question.

Mr. Hudak: Not only Prince Edward county, not only the eastern Ontario wardens, but the mayor of Cobourg, whom I congratulate for rising to

the occasion and helping his community with the fire, is quoted in a recent

article as saying, "In three years, we" -- Cobourg -- "will lose $624,000." He says the funding will be reduced under

your so-called fair formula, resulting in property tax increases of $10 per household this year, $25 in 2007 and $50 by 2008. Premier, why do you continue to break your campaign promises, causing

property tax increases in Cobourg, Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: No matter how exercised the member becomes, it does not change the fact that he is wrong. He is just plain wrong.

Let me tell you about the riding of Leeds-Grenville. I know that my friend Bob Runciman will be interested in these figures. In Athens township, under the old

model, they would receive $398,000. We're increasing that to $439,199. In Gananoque, under the old fund, $457,000; under the new one, $749,000. Leeds and Thousand Islands township, under the old

fund, $721,000; under the new fund, $896,539.

We are proud of the new relationship we have developed with Ontario's municipalities. We're proud of this new fund. It introduces, for the first time,

transparency and fairness. It is good news for all the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Erie-Lincoln.

Mr. Hudak: That's certainly not what the eastern Ontario wardens are saying. It's certainly not what they're saying in Prince Edward county.

It's certainly not what they're saying in Cobourg, Ontario. They would appreciate it, Premier, with all due respect, if you would respond to the communities that have brought forward these

concerns.

Right across Ontario, mayors, wardens and municipal councillors are upset with your new municipal deal. It's a raw deal for Ontario's municipalities. Hastings

county chief administrative officer, Jim Pine, said they "stand to lose a total of $11 million annually by 2008" across eastern Ontario. United counties warden Alvin Runnalls says of your new

program, "The biggest losers will be our taxpayers, who just can't afford to pick up the bill any more."

Premier, at ROMA, the last time you tangled with the eastern wardens, you backed down within 24 hours. I'll ask you to do it again. Will you scrap this formula

and make sure you put one in place that is fair to our municipalities, not these cuts we're seeing across the province?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I like what the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Roger Anderson, had to say about this. He said,

"Today's ... announcement shows that the Premier is listening to municipalities. The province's decision to pay money owed to municipalities for 2003 and 2004 is good news for property taxpayers

all over Ontario." I think Mr. Anderson is someone who is specifically designated to represent Ontario municipalities, someone whose judgment can be relied upon.

Mr. Hudak: You know what's disappointing is that the Premier well knows that that quote was released before Roger Anderson saw the numbers

that are causing these cuts across Ontario. I know the Premier wants to engage --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Member from Erie-Lincoln.

Mr. Hudak: I know the Premier wants to engage in the game of being fast and loose with quotes, using old quotes. The Premier stands in his

place and says he is the only one who knows the facts,

whereas wardens, mayors and regional leaders across the province are decrying your new funding formula as a broken promise and a raw deal.

More quotes: Shafee Bacchus, Niagara region's commissioner of corporate and financial services, says, "In actuality," Niagara is "losing $5 million," under

this broken formula. The Welland Tribune reports that Niagara Falls "will lose its $3.1-million CRF allocation."

Mr. Premier, who's telling the truth: the officials in Niagara and across the province or a Premier who breaks promises every single day?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, the member would have us return to the status quo; he's very comfortable back there. We've done something different.

We've introduced transparency and fairness and a 6.1% increase. The members opposite are not happy with a 6.1% increase.

Let me tell you again what would happen to some interesting communities were we to have embraced the status quo on a continuing basis. In Caledon, John Tory's

riding, that would mean a cut of $1.2 million. In Kawartha Lakes, it would have meant a cut of $2.7 million. In Port Colborne, as I said a moment ago, it would mean a cut of $1 million. In

Gananoque, it would mean a cut of $302,000. In Pembroke, it would mean a cut of $418,000. In Wilmot, it would mean a cut of $556,000. In Smith Falls -- and I have many more -- it would mean a cut

of $568,000. That is but a short list of the many communities that are benefiting under this.

Mr. Hudak: Premier, you made two very clear and solemn promises to our municipalities that you would fund them fairly. That's what this issue

is all about. Your own numbers from the Ministry of Finance Web site don't match at all what the Premier and his ministers are saying in this assembly. Municipal officials from across the province

continuously say that your numbers are wrong. St. Catharines Mayor Tim Rigby: "Over a period of three years, we'll be whittled down to nothing." The Brantford city council just last night passed a

resolution expressing "extreme dissatisfaction" with your new program. Brantford will be short $1 million by 2008, leaving two grim choices: a substantial property tax hike or a big reduction in

services.

Premier, are you going to keep your promises? Are you going to improve this funding formula, or are you going to force municipalities like Niagara and

Brantford to raise property taxes through the roof? Which is it going to be?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I think it's important to recall how we got into this in the first place. It's because, notwithstanding the Tory

government's claim that this was going to be a revenue-neutral exercise, their downloading left Ontario municipalities in a terrible state. We've worked with Ontario municipalities. We've come up

with a program, with a fund, with a plan that is fair and transparent.

I want to speak to a matter raised in the earlier question about the Niagara region, because here again I think the facts are important. Overall,

municipalities in Niagara region are getting $16.4 million under the new program. That's over $3 million more, or a 22.5% increase over last year. The regional municipality of Niagara itself is

getting a 10% increase. Those are the facts, and they're important to understand.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Ontario's electricity system is already under pressure. A couple of

weeks ago, you were forced to reduce voltage in the system after seven nuclear reactors went out of service. It was either reduce voltage or face the prospect of a brownout or blackout. Now, with

the hot, humid days of summer ahead of us, that electricity transmission system will be under even greater stress. The engineers, the scientists, the maintenance schedulers -- those people who work

at Hydro One and call themselves the energy professionals -- are going to be more important than ever.

Premier, in that context, can you explain to the people of Ontario why you as the sole owner of Hydro One have threatened to lock these very important people

out at the very time when we need them to keep the lights on?

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): My understanding is that both parties will return to the table to continue

negotiations on this collective agreement. There are a number of issues between management and the workers. My hope is that both sides will stay at the table and continue to negotiate and bargain

in good faith to try to resolve the differences that are between them, and to ensure our company works successfully and appropriately for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: That's the answer from the McGuinty government in here. Out there, the head of Hydro One sent all these workers personal e-mails

and told them that if they didn't accept an 11% pay cut, they were going to be locked out, at the very time we need these people to keep the lights on. These are the people who make the electricity

transmission system work. This bargaining tactic sounds very reminiscent of the McGuinty government's bargaining tactic with the doctors, and we know what a disaster that was: "Either take it or

we're going to shove it down your throat." Let me ask you this, Minister of Energy: Are you prepared to intervene and make sure there is a fair offer put on the table, or are you going to continue

down the disastrous road you went down with the doctors?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: We believe the two parties should negotiate an open and free collective agreement. The kind of interference the member

opposite is talking about is exactly like the social contract. I am absolutely astounded that any member of the Ontario Federation of Labour or any member of that party would suggest for one moment

that a government should intervene.

We believe in the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We believe in full and free collective bargaining. We understand there will be differences between management

and union. We understand the best place to resolve those differences is at the bargaining table. My desire and my hope is that both sides will get down to serious bargaining at the table. My

indication from both sides this morning is that they will. My hope is that they will come to an amicable solution to the differences between them over the course of time, and my hope is that both

sides can come together to ensure that our electricity sector continues to prosper and grow in the years to come to help ensure a safe and growing economy for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: Perhaps the Minister of Energy and the McGuinty government missed it, but Hydro One, after having their final offer, as they

referred to it, rejected by 95%, basically said today that the offer remains the same -- no change. And what's that offer? An 11.4% reduction in base pay, and all new employees will face a lower,

two-tier system of pensions and benefits.

Minister, these are the people who keep the lights on. These are the people, especially for the greater Toronto area, who ensure that the transmission system

works, that the electricity produced outside the greater Toronto area is transmitted efficiently and effectively into the greater Toronto area to keep the lights on. What I heard in your answer

was, "I hope, I hope, I hope." Will you send some direction to your boy at Hydro One, Mr. Parkinson, to put a fair offer on the table, since he's clearly doing your dirty work?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: On March 31, public salary disclosure was released in Ontario. This member who stands up and pretends to be defending these

workers -- let me give you the breakdown. Of 1,300 members on public salary disclosure, fully 1,000 of them were in collective agreements, members of bargaining units, one-third of this bargaining

unit. Do you know what Mr. Hampton said on March 31? He said, "These people aren't concerned with providing a service to the people of Ontario. They're concerned about their own salaries." Fully

one-third --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. The members are the ones who are making the noise.

Minister, you've got 10 seconds.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Unlike the member opposite, we believe they have the right to full and free collective bargaining. That member has more

positions on free collective bargaining than the Kama Sutra. You ought to be ashamed of your two-faced positions on all of these issues.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: To the Premier, because at the end of the day, the buck has to stop with the Premier: These are the people who keep the lights

on. Your Minister of Energy talks about public sector salary disclosure. What I find interesting is that you gave the chief executive officer at Hydro One --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock, please. Member from Eglinton-Lawrence, will you come to order, please.

Leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: I'm happy to talk about public sector disclosure, because the McGuinty government gave the chief executive officer at Hydro One a

35% pay increase in 2004. This is basically from $1 million to $1.5 million. Then, of course, he gets a mortgage subsidy on his home, and if he should quit or be fired, he gets two years' pay.

Meanwhile, you're telling these folks who keep the lights on, who make sure the transmission system works efficiently, that they should take an 11% pay cut and

that new hires should accept an inferior pension and an inferior benefit package.

Tell these workers, Premier, how you justify giving your friend at Hydro One, Mr. Parkinson, a $500,000 pay increase while you tell these workers they should

take less.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The Minister of Energy, Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: What I said in the House, and Hansard will reflect this -- I said it at the time, I'll say it again, I said it in a scrum --

is that we leave and entrust the management of Hydro One to the board of directors of Hydro One. That answer is consistent. It is our view at this time that it is appropriate for both parties to

get back to the bargaining table and negotiate a collective agreement that will be in the interests of all workers.

We believe that the Ontario Labour Relations Act, we believe that the board of directors, which was appointed, in fact, by the previous government -- my

colleague opposite reminds me that Mr. Rae, the former NDP Premier of Ontario, is on that board. We have confidence in the board's ability to manage and oversee the affairs of the corporation. We

look forward to both sides getting back to the table to negotiate a fair solution for all concerned.

Mr. Hampton: The Premier ducked the question again, so I'll go back to the Premier. It wasn't just the $500,000 pay increase and the mortgage

subsidy and the $2-million severance package that you've given Mr. Parkinson. Last year, he decided that he had to travel to Las Vegas and Australia on business. He took his wife with him. Hydro

One paid for that. He decided that he needed an expensive membership in Glen Abbey Golf Club. Membership costs close to $5,000. Hydro One paid for that. It seems that he has very expensive tastes

indeed.

So you're saying to Mr. Parkinson that a hefty pay increase is OK, but to the very people who keep the lights on, the very people who ensure the transmission

system works and that we don't suffer another blackout as we did a couple of summers ago, you're saying, "Take an 11% pay cut and accept inferior pensions and an inferior benefit package."

Explain to the people of Ontario, Premier: How do you justify opening the vault to Mr. Parkinson, but sayto the people who keep the lights on, "You take

less"?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Again, under the laws of Ontario, the board of directors of Hydro One has responsibility for negotiating the contracts of

both non-unionized employees and unionized employees. The collective bargaining process has to be allowed to unfold. It's not this government's intention to interfere with free and full collective

bargaining. We believe in the rights of working people to negotiate, both those individuals in the public and broader public sectors and those in crown corporations, or indeed in corporations like

Hydro One and OPG, which have a unique incorporation.

It is in everyone's interests that both sides get back to the table and negotiate and bargain collectively and freely. My hope is that both sides will come to

a solution to this difficult impasse.

Mr. Hampton: Again to the Premier, because the buck stops with the Premier, here's the scenario: Mr. Parkinson even believes that it's

acceptable to take the Hydro One helicopter when he wants to go to the cottage; or when he's at the cottage and he has to go to a meeting, he wants to use the Hydro One helicopter. His bargaining

position to these workers, these essential workers, these people who keep the transmission system working, these workers who keep the lights on, is, "You either take the 11% pay cut and accept

inferior pensions and benefits, or we're locking you out." Does that sound like a reasonable, logical position that the Premier is prepared to defend?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: What has been reasonable and logical is that the board of directors is in the best position to negotiate both management and

union collective agreements and to make those decisions. The government has entrusted those people to do that. We continue to trust their good judgment and the judgment of people like Bob Rae,

who's on the human resources committee. And I remind the workers at Hydro One, the non-management workers, the 1,084 union members at Hydro One who were on public salary disclosure, that that

member said, "These people aren't concerned with providing a service to the people of Ontario; they're concerned about their own salaries."

You'll say one thing one day and another thing another day simply to pander and create a false impression that you care. You're more interested in scoring

cheap political points than finding an amicable solution to a difficult labour situation.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Back in the 1970s, there was a special grant given

out to disability transportation.

Interjection.

Mr. Murdoch: No, you can't transfer it to the -- they're going to transfer it on me, but that's all right. I'll still give you the

history.

In the late 1990s, when the CRF came out, the transportation grant for the disabled was included in that grant as a special item. In rural Ontario, it's really

needed because we have long distances, and it has worked quite well. There are over seven municipalities in my riding that applied for it and have had it since the early 1970s. Now that we have

this new formula called OMPF -- it gets a bit confusing -- is this grant still going to be left on there as a separate item? That's what I want you to guarantee to me today, that this grant for the

disabled transportation will be left as a separate item when it comes to giving the grants to the different municipalities.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I want to express my true appreciation to the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. If he were leading

the questions for his party on our new initiatives on municipal finance, it may well be that we would get a clearer picture of the truth from the opposition party.

I simply want to say to him that I know he personally has been on the phone with my staff over the course of the past three hours, and I think we're giving him

all the information he needs. But I would want to point out to him and to the people of Hanover, and to the people of the province, that under the new Ontario municipal partnership funding program,

Hanover, the host community of this disabled service, is going to be receiving some $958,000. That, for the taxpayers in Hanover, is an increase of some $330,000.

Mr. Murdoch: My question is very easy to answer -- and I appreciate the money that Hanover is going to get: I will applaud that. But what do

you say about all the other municipalities that are not going to get the money? Only two out of the municipalities that I represent got more.

Now, here's where we get into trouble, though. This grant is not tied to CRF or OMPF. It never was; it was a separate grant. What we have to be careful about

is that your ministry doesn't start to tie it there, because most of my municipalities are going to get less money. That would mean there would be less money coming in if you tie it to the

transfers. They would get less money there. That is what we don't understand for next year. Will our grant stay the same? Is it going to go down? Will Hanover's go up? We can't get a straight

answer on that one, so I would like you to give me an answer on that, if you can. If you can't, I would hope you instruct people who work in your ministry to get hold of us and help us out.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I know my friend would have wanted to put on the record that even for those communities, whether in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound or

anywhere in the province, even those communities that are not getting increases -- and remember, we increased this program by some 6.1% -- no municipality will receive less than they received under

the Tory program that we are scrapping. Why are we scrapping it? Because it was part of the awful legacy of downloading and inequity and unworkable municipal financing. I'll tell my friend that I

am aware of the special arrangements that were made for disability transport in the community of Hanover. And as my staff undertook earlier with him by phone, I will undertake here in this House to

pay attention to the concerns that he raised today in the House.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister -- for almost two months I have

been asking to meet with you. There is a crisis in Hamilton for women trying to escape domestic violence and keep their children safe. You promised to fund second-stage housing and then didn't. In

Hamilton, 28 units of transitional housing will be lost because core funding that you promised would help agencies like Family Services Hamilton never arrived. Seven times we called your office for

the meeting. Seven times not one return phone call. Only now that the NDP has alerted the media are you finally agreeing to meet.

Executive director LaFerne Clarke of Family Services Hamilton is here today. My question is this: At the meeting you finally have committed to, will you commit

to providing Hamilton's second-stage services with the core provincial funding that they need to save the precious few units of second-stage housing in my city?

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

answer this. I can tell you that Hamilton has some tremendous advocates, and many of them are in our caucus. One of them is also in our cabinet. I am very proud to say that the minister for

children and the members who come from Hamilton have done a tremendous amount of work on behalf of Hamilton family services. Moreover, we have been working with them for a long time to actually set

a date so that not only will I meet, but I will actually be in a position to go out and visit the agency.

We made a $3.5-million commitment to transitional housing programs, and we made that announcement. This particular agency was not in a financial position to

receive it. I understand that there have been serious governance issues that this new board has been dealing with as it applies to second-stage housing. We are prepared to work with this

organization to find a way, because in the end this government is committed, more than any government to date, to the issues of domestic violence. I think the people in Hamilton know exactly what

that is --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Minister, you didn't answer the question. Safe housing like second-stage is needed so women do not

have to make the decision to stay with or return to the abuser, because homelessness and poverty is often the only alternative for them and their children. It's also a place where they can rebuild

their lives during a time when they are in considerable danger. The risk for spousal homicide increases right after a woman decides to leave the abuser. Knowing all of this, despite the lessons

learned from the Hadley inquest and other reports, you are breaking your promise to reinvest in second-stage housing and, as a result, they are starting to close down. The upcoming budget gives you

the opportunity to make amends. Other housing advocates are here today as well. Will you tell them now that you will keep your promise and restore the funding to second-stage housing?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I'm very pleased to say that our ministry has been working closely with this agency, and what we have to do with this

particular agency is find a way around some serious financial issues that they have had to contend with. Our ministry is going to be sure that when we invest in what we're doing for domestic

violence, it will be with agencies that can deliver. I expect that the new leadership that is now arriving and has been there for the last several months with this particular agency is going to do

very well. They have also been contacted about the meeting that we have already booked with them.

You should know that the local MPP from this area, Judy Marsales, has been in contact with me, as has Marie Bountrogianni, and I can tell you that you have

very strong advocates in the government fighting for the people of Hamilton.

When it comes to the domestic violence action plan of this government, there is no historic government in Ontario that has paid more mind to this issue than

ours. We have made a $66-million commitment, which speaks nothing of the investments in affordable housing that we will work on with our federal counterparts, because when we talk about housing, we

know it is a significant issue and we are determined to make this --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): My question is directed to Minister Pupatello. Contrary to the honourable member from Hamilton East, we

have kept a very important promise. The domestic violence action plan announced by the Premier and by you, Minister, on December 13 was an important promise kept by the McGuinty government to help

women and children suffering from domestic abuse. I know how hard your ministry is working, and I am encouraged about this balanced plan.

My question is, what measures are in place to help prevent violence before it happens and to ensure that victims of abuse get the help they need and not a lot

of hot air?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I do appreciate that this MPP has been recognized in her local community for fighting for these issues. When we tabled our

domestic violence action plan, this member from Hamilton was lauded by those in her own community because she understands the critical importance of the four components of our plan.

We are focused on public education, a $5-million commitment. We are committed to training people on the front line to know how to respond and how we, our

neighbours, our friends and our co-workers can respond to this issue. We are committed to community supports so that when it happens, our communities are ready to respond. Fourth, on justice, we

want to stop this in the first place, but when it happens, we need to be prepared so that our justice system responds accordingly. We are determined for our plan to be enacted, and we are going to

do it well.

Ms. Marsales: Minister, I'm surprised that after years of across-the-board cuts to shelters and traditional housing imposed by both the NDP

and Conservative governments, they continue to criticize our investment of new funds to address domestic violence. We are the first government in Ontario to develop a comprehensive plan to help

women and their children who are fleeing abusive situations.

What funding is being provided for shelters and second-stage housing under this action plan?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: We made a very full announcement that prescribed all kinds of new funding across the board, across those four main areas.

Let me specifically say that family services in Hamilton is currently being provided from our ministry $326,000 for VAW counselling, $98,000 for the broader public sector pay equity and $2,100 for

performance management. We understand that there's more work to do with this particular agency. We want them to be a vibrant, successful agency to be able to respond to the needs of those women who

come to their doors. We are prepared to take that kind of personal time.

Let me tell you that this minister will see to it that we can do everything. The minister for children, as well, and the local members who represent that area

have been determined to see that these agencies are strong.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, I asked the minister

when the cheques for the market revenue payment would start to flow from his announcement of March 29. He said the cheques were already sent, but when we checked with Agricorp, that turned out not

to be the truth.

I have a letter from Shady Lawn Farms dated April 15 and received by them last Friday. It shows their eligi-bility under the March announcement, and it says,

"You will receive a cheque issued by the Minister of Finance ... in the near future." The minister said it was already in the mail. In fact, the note I just quoted from had a letter from the

minister in the envelope. Obviously, he has no idea what's going out or what's going on in his ministry.

Premier, your minister's commitment was to send the cheques in two or three weeks; not a letter, not a note, but a cheque. When can Shady Lawn Farms in

Nanticoke expect their cheque?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, let me confirm once

again that he is doing exceptionally good work on behalf of Ontario's farmers. As a result of his efforts in particular, we were proud to announce an additional $79 million for grain and oilseed

producers, notwithstanding the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves. Payments were processed last week, and I'm proud to say that cheques are being mailed today and tomorrow, April 26

and April 27.

Mr. Hardeman: Mr. Premier, the farmers of Ontario do not share your opinion of your Minister of Agriculture.

Let me give you another example of a promise made and a promise not kept. This one is closer to home. In my riding of Oxford, a local farmer went to the bank

to secure funding so he could buy seed for planting. He called me and told me that, based on the results of last year, his bank said no to his bank loan. After repeated calls to Agricorp to find

out when he was going to receive the money, they couldn't give him a definite date. As of today -- today, Mr. Premier -- Agricorp still couldn't tell him when he could expect his cheque. All he

received was a notice yesterday stating that yes, at some point in time he was going to get some help. Premier, another promise broken.

When is your government going to accept responsibility for the farmers of Ontario, or are you going to continue on with the Liberal broken-promise

tradition?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: If we might place this in some context here -- I find that's always pretty helpful -- farmers found themselves up against

it because of international commodity pricing. We decided that, notwithstanding our financial constraints, it would be important and right that we find a way to help farmers. So we've found $79

million, at the insistence, I might say, of our Minister of Agriculture, who has been doing exceptionally good work on behalf of farmers.

We're proud to make that $79 million available. As I said before, and I'll repeat it, payments were processed last week and cheques are being mailed today and

tomorrow. We're very proud of that.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last Wednesday, you defended your

meetings with high-priced lobbyists by pretending that you also met with ordinary Ontarians. You bragged that you met with non-profit organizations about housing issues and social service

issues.

But we have a letter here dated March 24, 2005, addressed to Dalton McGuinty from Mr. David Lance, who says, "I am a single father living in Toronto and

struggling to raise three-year-old twin boys on OW.... After the NCBS is deducted from my cheque, I receive just $859.60. We would like to meet with you ... to tell you what it would mean to

families if you ended the clawback in this coming budget year."

Minister, you refused to meet with them. The Premier refused to meet with them. If you're so busy meeting with those you call the most vulnerable, why are you

ignoring David Lance, one of the poorest parents in this province?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm just surprised that the member

opposite doesn't parade them in the House to embarrass them like he does most of the time. Let me say in this matter that there are 103 MPPs in this Legislature, and we represent all of Ontario. I

expect fully that the member from the riding of Beaches-East York would be meeting regularly with everyday people, just as I do in my riding of Windsor West and as every one of us does.

When it comes to our ministry policies, we work hard to hear from everyday people, not just their representatives. To begin your question with me by talking

about high-priced lobbyists is absolutely absurd. You are welcome to look at my track record and the kinds of groups and people that I meet with on an everyday basis, including just before running

into this House today. When we talk about welfare issues, we talk about housing issues, social issues, how we're going to deal with addicts who are on welfare. Please don't come into this House and

think for a moment that this government hasn't been serious about making real good social policy changes, because --

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

Mr. Prue: Your record is not meeting with people who write to you directly. I met with Mr. Lance; you did not. Minister, last week you bragged

about meeting with out-of-work Tories. You said: "Tories are bringing people to see me. That's my job." You bragged about meeting with Accenture lobbyists. You bragged about meeting with Phil

Dewan. These are the people that you said, "I'm proud to meet with."

What about the people who don't have the influence that Phil Dewan has, and can't hire out-of-work Tories. What about David Lance? He can't afford the $550 to

attend your lobbying seminar, because you take $1,500 per child off him in clawback each and every year. Minister, how dare you get up in the House and say you've met with the most vulnerable when

you won't even meet with the families whose baby bonuses you claw back from every month.

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I find the kind of question outrageous. All I can tell you is that on a regular basis what we do in our ministry, led by

Liberal leadership from the Liberal caucus, and what our Liberals are most proud of, I think, after health care and education, is that absolutely we have to protect our most vulnerable. We have

made significant changes. The first thing we did was eliminate the cutback on the allowance for pregnant women on welfare, and then we stopped that lifetime ban on welfare for those who have been

convicted in the past.

This member couldn't possibly be opposed to the positive changes we've made. You could not possibly be opposed to the changes that we have made so far. I will

be the first one to admit that we are not where we want to be yet, that it takes major investment and major resources to do everything that we want to do, and we can't do it right away. So we have

very, very difficult choices to make about how quickly we can move forward with change. I'm the first one to say that. I will stand and repeat that again. We want to go further, and we are only

encumbered by the fiscal mess left to us by your party and the government before.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is for the Minister of Education. It was my privilege on Sunday, April 17, to

be with you as you accepted the Upper Canada District School Board's white paper concerning Ontario's small schools. As you know, the small schools summit was held in my riding of

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, and I would like to at this acknowledge the good work of Susan Edwards, David Thomas, Mike O'Donnell, Phil Dawes and all the others who worked on this white

paper.

The majority of high schools in Ontario are small, by which I mean have less than 1,000 students. The schools in my riding are perfect examples of this. These

schools provide education preparedness to the students from the greater part of the province. Unfortunately, under the previous government, funding was allocated to schools by size alone,

discounting distribution entirely. You have time and again explained your desire to rectify the errors of the past. Minister, could you reiterate your commitment to small schools and explain to us

how your ministry will address the problems created by past governments.

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): Thank you for the question and for your advocacy of what is essentially a sound education idea,

which is that we don't close schools simply based on their size. Unfortunately, for eight or 10 years, we laboured under rules that were prejudicial against good small schools, and against most of

the students, by definition, because they are in those small schools. We now have an extra $30 million that we've put out to keep the good schools open.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The member from Trinity-Spadina come to order, please. I can't hear the minister responding.

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: Further, we really want to make sure that people out there understand fully that the school evaluation process we put in

place in February is there to put a value on schools, to really see how a school contributes to the community, to the students, to the system, but ultimately even to the local economy, that that's

a balanced way to look at schools. Particularly, we will see how, as proposed by the small schools summit, kids actually do. The graduation rates are better in small schools; that should be taken

into account. In short, we should value schools by how well they do, not simply by the size they are.

Mr. Brownell: Thank you for clarifying your vision for us. As next week is Education Week, a week to celebrate public education in Ontario, it

is fitting that you express your commitment to Ontario's students. A decent education is a basic requirement in our society. Part of the commitment you have made is to improve graduation rates

dramatically, ensuring that all students have the necessary skills to compete in the job market. Minister, what programs do you have planned to make this vision become a reality?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: I would enjoin all members to take

part in the activities next week. Education Week is a responsibility for everyone in this

House, including the member opposite who takes it lightly. Essentially there is a role now for the members in the Legislature to actually help appreciate the challenge. For example, one of the

saddest legacies of the last government is an increased dropout rate, fewer people with high school diplomas because they mismanaged some of the changes. We need to send a strong signal to those

students that they are going to receive assistance. We started last year with additional help for 120 projects around the province, with extra assistance for thousands of students who would

otherwise have been discouraged and left school. We are now moving forward with a whole range of plans for next fall.

Next week would be a good opportunity for every member of this House to send a signal that you can't drop out of high school. You need to understand that help

is under way in those schools. It really is difficult for people who reach a certain age not to have had success. Under the past government, the help wasn't there; under our government, it is. I

encourage all members to encourage those individuals to finish their schooling and take

part in education --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Labour. During committee yesterday on Bill 144, one of the

presenters expressed concerns about the impact of changes to the Labour Relations Act that have the potential to eliminate the right of employees to the safety and security of their property and

their homes. In fact, he cited a particular situation in the drywall sector where employees were not just harassed, threatened and intimidated to join a union, but had 28 tires sliced. These

threats and the vandalism did not stop on the job site but continued at their homes. Minister, these are going to be the consequences of card-based certification in the construction industry. How

will you guarantee the safety and security of employees, their homes and their property?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): The reforms we've brought forward are fair and balanced. With respect to the question of

intimidation and coercion, that is precisely why, for all sectors, we are restoring the remedial certification power that affects outrageous conduct both by employers and by unions, and the interim

reinstatement power. That is why it is essential to have a remedy in those cases where the vote is interfered with by either the employer or the union, or there is conduct that removes the fairness

of the vote. The member has hit on the very issue.

The member will also know that to get a vote you have to have cards signed, even under her own system. The essential part of fairness in labour relations is:

Provide a remedy so that those who interfere with the workers' right to choose suffer the consequences of their interference. I'm surprised the Tories continue to reject that position.

Mrs. Witmer: It's obvious the Minister of Labour has no concern or caring for individual employees who can be threatened, intimidated and

harassed in the construction sector. I say to this minister, not only do you not care about these individual employees who have no recourse, as you well know, but you are also stripping workers of

their right to a secret ballot vote, which you did not mention. You're trying to confuse the issue. It's you who does not understand.

You are leaving these workers vulnerable to the tactics of unions. You are creating unfairness and you are discriminating against construction employees. A

construction employee will not have a secret ballot vote, yet someone working somewhere else will. Are you prepared to scrap your change for card-based certification in the construction sector or

are you going to proceed to discriminate against and marginalize these construction employees?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: Unfortunately, it's the honourable member's position that discriminates against workers by refusing to support their

democratic right to choose, by rewarding outrageous conduct by employers that effectively removes a worker's right to choose in a vote situation or that rewards outrageous union conduct. She

supports the conduct and she undermines the democratic right to choose.

Of course we had to provide an extra option in the construction sector because of the nature of the industry. The Tories recognized the special nature of

construction when they brought forward changes to the bargaining structure in 1999 in the greater Toronto area residential construction sector. They restricted bargaining rights. Were they trying

to prejudice those workers? I suspect not. Were they trying to reward contractors? I suspect not. They recognized the very special factors that relate to construction, and they tailored the

provisions for it: exactly what we've done. We support --

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

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Before the last election, you promised that you would protect

northern schools threatened with closure. In fact, I want to quote you: "Since 1999, 25 schools in the north have been closed and 18 additional schools are now threatened with closure.... The

Rozanski report recommended an increase in funding for small, rural schools, transportation and schools with declining enrolment...." And then you said, "We will fix the funding formula as

recommended by Rozanski.... We will protect northern schools." That was your promise.

Now, Fourway School near Thunder Bay and five other schools in northern Ontario are scheduled to close in a matter of weeks. Premier, where is the new funding

formula you promised? Where is the new money for schools with declining enrolment? Where is the new money for transportation that you promised? The parents and children of Fourway School want to

know where it is.

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

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): We met today, in fact, with some of the representatives of Fourway School, and they were part of

a group that I met with in October. I can say that they're pleased to know that we have appointed Dave Cooke, a former Minister of Education. We have done exactly what is needed, which is to put in

the situation where we're not having to fight with school boards. What we are going to do is make sure that the children and youth of Lakehead, as well as any other part of the province, will all

benefit. That board did undertake a review earlier, but we're going to make sure -- absolutely sure -- that they do benefit.

I can tell you that the parents who are concerned about rural schools are appreciative of the $30 million we put in, above and beyond Dr. Rozanski's

recommendation, to keep good schools open. They appreciate and they know very well that we've put a value on their schools and their communities which wasn't to be found when the NDP closed 155

schools during their turn in government.

Mr. Hampton: Parents want to know, where is the money for busing? Where is the money for small rural schools with declining enrolment? Neither

the Premier nor the Minister of Education has given them an answer.

They also want to know what happened to the guidelines that the Minister of Education issued in February, when he said that there will be "mandatory public

notice of one year before a school is closed," that there will be "several opportunities for public input, with wide notice in the community. A task force would be appointed, headed by a trustee,

with broad membership to hold public meetings, solicit feedback and gain community consensus."

What these parents have been provided with by the Minister of Education is nowhere near this. It's a whitewash procedure. What they want to know now -- I just

met with them -- is, will you use your powers under the Education Act to prevent the closure of Fourway School, as you promised before the election?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: The member opposite makes a career, and some would say a small career, out of misrepresenting things to people who have a

right to expect straight answers from this House. In fact, he now is even taking the point of misrepresenting some of the people he's advocating for, because I met with the representatives -- I'd

say some very hard-working people who came down here --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I can't hear what the minister is saying.

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: The families that care about Fourway School know that there has to be a means of making sure that their kids will benefit.

They want a government that's prepared to do that. Even though the member opposite dismisses Dave Cooke, we don't. We say instead that the former Minister of Education has the capacity to conduct a

serious review.

As we said in February, and as we say today, we'll make sure the review takes place to make sure the spirit of the new guidelines, which aren't in place yet,

is met, even for decisions that were made before they came out. That is the fairness that they're seeking in northern communities. It's the fairness that we're going to great lengths to make sure

is extended. They do have faith in this government to be able to provide that. I'm not sure they can have faith in the opposition when they continue to put themselves forward in such a slipshod

fashion.

PETITIONS

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

"The unreasonable and inhumane restriction that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) is placing on wildlife rehabilitators with respect to the

release of orphaned animals will eliminate their ability to help wildlife.

"Whereas wildlife rehabilitators provide an essential public service for many thousands of people seeking help on behalf of orphaned and injured wildlife in

Ontario;

"Whereas the unreasonable release restrictions imposed on wildlife rehabilitators for animals in their care by the OMNR will prevent responsible wildlife

rehabilitation, not only compromising wildlife and frustrating the public but forcing it underground and thereby jeopardizing safety;

"Whereas this will incur significant new cost for local governments with respect to bylaw and public health and safety interventions while creating an

emotional and volatile climate because the majority of people in Ontario are simply unwilling to see healthy young animals euthanized;

"We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that the care and release restrictions imposed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources which are in violation

of the international standards will eliminate the provision of responsible wildlife services in our community.

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to work with wildlife rehabilitators to ensure progressive, humane and responsible regulations that reflect

the international care and release standard that states: `Orphaned wildlife should be raised with others of their own species, to learn proper conspecific behaviours, and the group should then be

released together in appropriate natural areas, with the transitional care for those species that require it, generally within the city or county of origin.'"

I affix my signature to the petition, as I agree with it.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition that was given to me by some members of the Mississauga Chinese professional and

business association, a great organization that serves our city very well. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wholeheartedly endorse this petition, and I'll have Nathan carry it down for me.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

public aware of his findings immediately."

I affix my name to this petition.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition given to me by some members of the Lisgar Residents' Association, especially Geoffrey

Smith, Elaine Lord, Therese Ellis and Sandra Fernandes, and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

"Be it therefore resolved....

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

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

Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I'm pleased to autograph this petition and to ask Sean to carry it down for me.

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have a petition here on behalf of many constituents in my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their

consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments, and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely

immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment

and advancement in their intended fields, and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves,

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers; prohibiting

coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences; and establishing penalties for

such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I affix my name to this petition and send it down.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition here given to me by Kuen Tan of Sweetbirch Court, who is one of those helping me to

obtain capital funds for the Credit Valley Hospital. Her petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I support the petition, and I will have Paula bring it down for me.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that is entitled the pay more, get less

health care petition.

"Whereas the federal Income Tax Act at present has a minimum amount of medical expenses for which a taxpayer is entitled to claim a non-refundable income tax

credit;

"Whereas the health and medical expenses of every citizen in the province of Ontario, great or small, affect their overall net income;

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal government moved in their 2004 budget on May 18, 2004, to delist publicly funded medical services such as chiropractic services,

optometry examinations and physiotherapy services;

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

"That the Income Tax Act remove the present minimum amount of medical expenses for which an Ontario taxpayer is entitled to claim a non-refundable income tax

credit."

I'm pleased to sign and endorse this on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Delaney: I'm pleased to read a petition sent to me by a group of Lisgar residents, especially Lee Perrin of Lisgar Drive and Munish Sharma

of Meadow Forest Drive.

The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

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

Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I support the petition, and I'll ask Joshua to carry it down for me.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

facility; and

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

respect to our veterans;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly exempt Legion halls, navy clubs and other non-profit, private or veteran clubs from government smoke-free legislation."

I want to thank Edward Beaven, veterans' services officer of the Royal Canadian Legion, Tottenham branch 329.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Just to share with my friends across the way, I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly for a very

important bill to protect anaphylactic students.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

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

Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I sign my name to this, as Bill 3 is mine.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities;

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

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

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

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

live."

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Simcoe North.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I was going to read a Bill 3 petition, but I don't have any copies of it. I support it. We should pass it

on a voice vote.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): We have some.

Mr. Dunlop: You have some over there? On a voice vote, we could do it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

live."

I'm pleased to sign my name to that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADOPTION INFORMATION

DISCLOSURE ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE

RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Ms. Pupatello moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 183,

An Act respecting the disclosure of information and records to adopted persons and birth parents / Projet de loi 183, Loi traitant de la

divulgation de renseignements et de dossiers aux personnes adoptées et à leurs pères ou mères de sang.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I believe I'll be sharing my

hour's leadoff with my colleagues.

This is about Bill 183, the Adoption Information Disclosure Act, 2005. I'm honoured to stand in the Legislature today and speak about Bill 183, a bill that is

at the centre of Ontario's plan to bring adoption information laws into the 21st century. For many of us who may not have been paying attention when this bill was brought into the House for first

reading, by the time we went to check our e-mails at the end of that day, you knew that Bill 183 had been tabled in this House, because the response was absolutely overwhelming by the community,

both birth parents, adoptive parents and adopted adults who responded when they saw the content of this bill.

This legislation would make us a leader across Canada and the world when it comes to providing adult adoptees and birth parents information about their past.

It will also reinforce a carefully considered balance of the right to information versus the right to a relationship.

We believe that every individual has the right to know about his or her own personal history. We believe that adult adoptees should have the same rights as

non-adopted individuals -- the right to know their identity. We believe that individuals who are involved with an adoption should be able to maintain their right to privacy and not be

contacted.

Currently, there are 57,000 adopted individuals and birth relatives on the adoption disclosure register waiting to be reunited. Right now, searches continue to

reunite families, but that can take up to three years. Last year, only 887 of the adopted individuals and birth relatives on the register were reunited.

We believe that individuals who are trying to learn about their identity and personal history should be able to do so without unnecessary hardship and delay.

Our plan would give individuals whose adoptions were finalized in Ontario the right to know about their identity and their history by the following methods: allowing adoptees over the age of 18 to

have access to copies of their original birth records that will provide them with their original birth name and may identify birth parents; allowing birth parents to have access to birth records

and adoption orders once the adoptee has reached 19; providing the name that the child was given after the adoption; making all disclosure provisions for adoptions finalized in Ontario retroactive

to cover all records; and, in exceptional safety-related circumstances, allowing an individual the right to apply a non-disclosure order to prevent identifying information from being released.

That, essentially, is the bulk of the bill.

I wanted to take a moment now to let you hear, through my office, some of the responses that we had from people who are clearly involved in this issue. So I

wanted to start with the groups, people who wrote and sent e-mails, as I know many of us in this House have received: the adult adoptee.

One of them said, "As an educator, I have had over 30 years in the school system as a teacher, guidance counsellor and principal, and have witnessed the

alienation, shame, guilt and obstacles that deny the adoptee to work through their issues developmentally because of a lack of information about themselves. No other member of society is forced to

deny and to carry the shame of secrecy that adoption presents."

I have to say to this House and to the members in the gallery who are here listening today that I was overwhelmed by the amount of personal information that

people were prepared to share to allow us, as members of this House, to understand what it could possibly be like to have lived in these people's shoes. I think it's important as legislators that

we get the sense of that, and I think they were successful.

This fellow said, "I am actively promoting this bill. I am an adult adoptee. I conducted my own search for my biological parents over a span of 20 years. Due

to the red tape involved with closed files and secrecy, my search was horrendous, filled with mistaken identities, misinformation and much heartache. My birth mother was unsure as to who my

biological father was. She led a very unstable and, frankly, quite different life from mine. This was a heart-wrenching journey. The one thing I came away with that I am absolutely resolute about

is the need for adoptees to know their biological background and/or family members."

We have members in the gallery here from an organization called the Coalition for Open Adoption Records, and these individuals have worked for a number of

years. I'm very pleased that they're here again today for the second reading of this bill. This was a group, and through their membership, which essentially is thousands across this province, that

I would ask some very hard-hitting questions. The letters that I bring to you today are representative of what we heard. So I would ask these folks, "I want to hear what you think. What if you find

out that your father's a murderer? What if you find out the most horrendous circumstances of your adoption? Isn't it fair that you should be protected from this?" The answers were quite interesting

and very informative for us. They said, "When you don't know, you expect the worst. When you don't know, you assume that's where you come from."

I see Michael smiling. He remembers these questions in particular, because it's pretty hard to answer that question when you haven't lived in those shoes.

We've got to talk to people who have lived this experience.

Let me go on: "This is a basic right that most Canadians don't even have to think about. I've applied under the current system to try and obtain anything that

might exist in my file." This person wrote to us from Nepean. I can tell you they come from all over Ontario.

A sister wrote, "I know from experience that if it was not for the help of Dwight Duncan" -- our colleague from Windsor-St. Clair -- as well as her own

mother's persistence, "my sister and mother would still be in the dark about their past." It was quite interesting from the sister's perspective, learning that she indeed had a sister.

"I'm a Canadian adoptee, 64, who was still denied the right to personal information." He went on to talk about his birth parents he wanted to find -- he was

actually assisted in great detail by his adoptive parents, who wanted him to know. "No parent owns their children, be they adopted or not, and the Ontario government has shown the courage,

compassion and insight to put an end to the shameful adoption rules that some people are suggesting ought to be perpetuated." He said that it is because of such unselfish love from his adoptive

parents that he was able to rise to the absolute top of his profession, and he is grateful for that support.

Another from Windsor: "I am an adult adoptee. I desire access to all my personal information. If you've ever been cornered by doctors, an anaesthesiologist

with a grocery list of questions about your family background, with your daughter's life hanging in the balance, imagine how you would feel when you couldn't answer one of the imperative questions

being asked of you." This one gives me some chills, because I met personally with a mom in my community in my constituency office, who brought her little toddler along and shared with me the

experience of being in the emergency room with this child who was ill. This mom had been adopted and knew nothing about her personal history.

Now, we are not in the this bill demanding that medical information be turned over. My own mother doesn't need to turn over medical information to me. We are

not demanding more of one group or the other; we want it to be the same. But without the right to find out who they are, how can they even ask for medical information? So in instances like this, at

least they have an opportunity.

You know, historically, in all of the research we've been able to collect, even when people don't want to be contacted, they are all happy to produce medical

information, and they are all answering the questions about the circumstances around the adoption. I think that they inherently understand that need to have information to allow some of that

closure for people to get on with life, even when they don't want to be contacted.

A fellow named Ron Murdock has been extremely busy on this issue for a number of years. He's the lobbyist to the UN Commission on the Rights of the Child. It

resulted in the written recommendation to Canada by that body to open adoption records. He said, "Adoption is supposed to be in the best interests of the child, not in the best interests of

adoptive parents." He went on to say, "My desire to know of my natural parents has nothing to do with dissatisfaction with my adoptive family. In fact, they support me wholeheartedly in my

search."

I have to say that the lion's share of comments from adopted children, in fact, indicated that their adoptive parents were more than helpful, really wanted to

have that information for the children that they raised.

Interestingly enough, we got e-mails from all over North America. People have been watching this file intently. One wrote to us from the US: "In 1974, I was 18

years old, and six months earlier, I was found by a sister I never knew. My adoptive parents never wanted me to know the truth. The resulting trauma was worse than if my adoptive parents had faced

the truth with me as I was growing up." We have so many circumstances, and this is an example where, clearly, the adoptive parents didn't share that information.

But the fact is that without a system, without a structure, people are finding people, and I hope we'll hear more examples of that as other members stand to

speak. In this new age of information sharing and technology and access like never before, people are being found. When you talk about that fateful call, that's what we're trying prevent somehow,

or somehow government's role is to prevent that fateful call -- in the absence of government leadership on this issue, that fateful call is happening today.

At a minimum, we know that we're able to put in motion a no-contact notice so that they'll get the information they need but they won't get the contact that,

in fact, they don't want. That's why it's so critical to move forward with this bill, because we believe we are including those safeguards.

Let me go on. Another one said, "I'm an adopted child who needs records to obtain Indian status. Even though I know my birth mother's name and have met the

family, I still don't have any records." They need the records, of course, for a whole variety of reasons.

Another said, "I've been successfully reunited with my birth parents and everything has gone extremely well. I am meeting new family members all the time, and

I hope to consult with my doctor in the near future to update my medical history." This person wrote about how thrilled she was to read in the newspaper about the potential of passing a law and

opening up the records.

This one gives her name and says, "My husband and I would like to thank you for your support. My husband spent the last three years trying to locate his birth

mother, and I know the search would be easier if only he knew where he came from."

Another one says, "This bill represents a wonderful change for the better. I just hope it gets passed." She felt compelled to write as an Ontario adoptee, "as

is one of my brothers."

Another one said, "It gives such a ray of hope that so few would understand. I, like so many, await the next steps with bated breath. I'm a birth parent who

has waited 36 very long years to meet his child."

Another one: "Thank you and God bless you and all of you for the wonderful things you're doing for the adoptive community."

This one comes from Kingsville: "I can't put into words how I feel, but I can say that when I watched on Tuesday, I cried, I was that happy." This is a woman

born with cerebral palsy, which affects one side of her body. She went to a doctor who told her that the history would have been helpful in understanding her condition.

Another one from a sister, who said, "My mother lives with the pain every day of not knowing how the child she gave birth to is doing in life. Imagine what she

feels like not knowing. Was his life good? Is he happy, healthy? Is he alive? I search crowds all the time, hoping to see a face like mine, and wonder if he does the same. I miss him and we've

never met."

"I'm a natural mother wishing for the passage of Bill 183. I was never promised or wanted confidentiality," which is another item that we heard repeatedly

through many e-mails. We've tried to bring examples of each of these points. Often we have heard that there was some sense of a promise and there is no record of a promise. The stories are quite

different -- the experiences that these birth mothers have had.

Another person said, "Heaven forbid that an adoptee should ever need to locate his birth family for urgent reasons. If he does, he'll be dependent on a

cash-starved, ineffective, overburdened governmental system." Well, we'll have to talk to him. But he does say, "Adoptees should consider their birth parents their parents. Even though an adoptee

does not wish to have direct formal contact, for many birth mothers, just learning that a child is alive and flourishing gives them peace of mind."

From a brother: "I'm a Queen's University student currently overseas," and he's writing to express his support for the bill. "My brother found our family when

I was nine years old and our family was delighted that he did. It was important for him to know his heritage and important for us to know him. My mother's life-long pain at losing him was

ameliorated," and this through the eyes of a brother. I thought that was quite wonderful.

Another said, "A reunion called up the pain. My daughter looked for me the first opportunity that she had as a freshman in college. She registered on over 60

Web sites. She grew up wondering about me and hoping to know me. We met in 2002 when she turned 21, and our healing from the loss of each other has begun and continues. It is her choice to be

whole, to know who she is, to know where she came from. She's delighted. I'm happily married now for 22 years with five raised children. She expected a street bum. She expected to have me slam the

door in her face. Finding me has helped fill the hole in her heart."

Another, with quite an astounding story that resulted in this individual's adoption, where a mom died shortly after birth, the father was left with many

children, and the youngest then was adopted: "At the age of 49, I can tell you, openness, honesty and respect for all parties in adoption are far better than lies, deceit, fear and hate. I have no

romantic fantasies; I have reality. I love all of the parents I have. They have all contributed to shape the person that I am." I thought that was a remarkable story.

Let me say, on the part of birth mothers and birth fathers as well: Can we even think for a moment what life was like for them? I don't know we can. I just

wanted to let you know from my perspective that it meant so much to see the letter read, that we responded to the Toronto Star: "It means for me that some day I may know something of my 44-year-old

son. Surrendering him to adoption in 1961 is the most painful and difficult thing I've had to do in my 64 years on this earth. Words can't express my gratitude for what you've done. Although I now

live in BC, my son was born in Toronto."

This from Grafton, Ontario: "Please do not give in to the naysayers who are campaigning against this bill. There was no promise of confidentiality to natural

birth mothers. Not one single shred of evidence to support such a promise has ever been produced. It's one of those tired, old-worn urban legends that never goes away. Thank you for having the

courage to right a long-time wrong."

This one came to us from Vancouver: "I opened my newspaper in Vancouver and was emotionally overwhelmed and elated to find that Ontario was introducing a bill

to open adoption records for adult adoptees and birth parents. I cried tears of hope and joy all day. At 16 years of age, I gave birth to a daughter that I carried in my body for nine months but

never had the chance to see, touch, hold or tell how much she meant to me. Please give me this opportunity now. My daughter is in her 30s, and I have been waiting my whole life to tell her the

story of her birth." I think that's quite compelling.

Another wrote, "As for birth mother confidentiality, I can assure you that when I placed my daughter for adoption, I was never offered, nor did I request, that

my identity be hidden from her. It was not even mentioned in the documents I signed. In fact, I fully expected to meet her when she turned 18, as I was promised by the social worker who arranged

the adoption." That makes quite a struggle for people who now have to listen to the notion that there was some level of confidentiality there.

Another wrote, "This new bill will help many others find the joy that I have found on reuniting with my son. This will make many people happy and keep many

more alive with vital medical information. This is also justice for adoption fraud victims. It means a lot to them as well. You will make the UN proud."

Another said, "As a natural mother and one who has helped others reunite with their lost children, I thank you. Your support is deeply appreciated and

heartwarming."

Another said, "It will give me great peace to know who my daughter is, even in the event that she does not wish to meet me. It is very comforting for me to

know that in this legislation, birth parents have not been rejected further or forgotten."

Another said, "I have a number of medical problems that I feel my daughter should know about. Now I may be able to contact her. My mother went to her grave

hoping that one day she would get a knock on her door and it would be her first grandchild. It's too late for my mom, but not for me, my son and the rest of my family to be able to meet the

daughter, sister and niece. My only wish is that she is happy and healthy. If she chooses not to be contacted, so be it."

Another said, "I lost my first-born son to adoption in 1965 in Ontario and was reunited with him in July, through no help of the Ontario government, I might

add. Every person has the right to know his or her roots, and mothers/fathers should have the right to know the whereabouts of their child. No government should hold a control over people such as

has been done with the adoption industry. I hope this bill proceeds and culminates in being passed. It will be truly a victorious day for parents and children affected by adoption laws."

Another said, "I was promised that my child would be able to find me when he was of age." This woman goes on to struggle with the notion that now people are

suggesting that she had been promised confidentiality.

Another

summary of comments:

"Years and years of hard work." "Tears of joy for a job well done." "I watched through tearful eyes as the bill was introduced today." "I wept when watching

this announcement." "Tears of joy and relief." "I think it's wonderful that at last it's no longer a private member's bill, and hopefully it will pass into law. Thank you."

Another said, "I am sooooo excited" -- with about six o's -- "about what is happening today here in Ontario. Last night it was funny, because I knew about

today and I couldn't get to sleep. I was like a child on Christmas Eve. Whenever I think about adoption, I go right back into little-kid mode, wanting to know where I came from. I'm sitting here

crying just thinking about what's happening."

There were a number of other commentaries, much along the same lines, but every story is certainly different. What's important about these next few -- and the

reason I selected them is that it's not just about the children and it isn't just about the birth parents; it's also about the adoptive parents, because they're an extremely important part of this

whole piece, and here is what some of these have said:

"We are adoptive parents of a young child. We just adopted last year in Ontario through the CAS and have an open relationship with some members of our son's

biological family. The information we have gained through these relationships is invaluable to us and our son. I cannot imagine not having this information."

"I'm an adoptive parent. My daughter and son were adopted in the 1960s and 1970s and now are young adults. I believe it's every child's birthright to know

their heritage and their health background. I believe it's a basic human right."

Another said, "As a mother by adoption, I want for our child access to the same information that the rest of us take for granted. Who is he? Where does he come

from? I don't feel that my role is in any way trivialized by a connection with the woman who gave birth to him. In fact, we honour her for her decision." I thought that was very well put.

Another was quite a story about the steps that someone had to go through to finally connect with his family. I think I pulled this because he was adopted as a

child and then became an adoptive parent himself. What was interesting is that he's continued to make all of these connections in the absence of any government leadership. The difficulties that

they face in doing so -- running literally halfway around the world, trying to make these connections with so little information; following any little clue and then finding out the information is

wrong -- it's been a real struggle for people, and they've won anyway. In many instances, we've made it extremely difficult, but in the end, they are finding people. I think it is our job to make

that process easier.

This is from an adoptive parent: "I have witnessed first-hand the remarkable benefits of a growing relationship between our adopted daughter and her birth

mother. We are a stronger family as a result." I thought that was quite important.

We do believe that individuals who are involved with an adoption should be able to maintain their right to privacy and not be contacted. I just have to get to

the balance of my speech. We also have to acknowledge in this that we have had some commentary from the Privacy Commissioner, so I'd like to address that directly.

No-contact provisions are used in British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland. I'd like to point out to the House that we're not aware of any individual

breaching a no-contact notice anywhere in Canada. When a person files a no-contact notice, they would be asked to fill out a form that voluntarily requests family history, medical information and

reasons for filing the no-contact notice.

I'd also like to point out that while an individual would not be required to provide their medical history, it's the right thing to do, and we would encourage

them to do that. Even in situations where an individual does not want contact, we can't find a situation where they still didn't turn over that information that they just knew was going to be

important to that child.

When we were developing this legislation, we did consult with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ann Cavoukian. We did this even though records relating

to adoption fall outside the privacy commissioner's jurisdiction. As a result, we included some changes to our bill. Initially, for example, the proposed legislation didn't allow for limits to the

disclosure. Now, the adoptees would be able to apply for non-disclosure orders if they believe that disclosure could result in significant harm. Furthermore, the provisions have been expanded to

include both physical and emotional harm.

I want to thank the privacy commissioner once again for her remarks. Many have suggested that her remarks were too strong. We have been copied on much of the

correspondence that the privacy commissioner has received. People need to understand that this is her job. It is her role to vet and study every single aspect of anything that has something to do

with privacy issues. So we just have to keep those remarks in perspective. Her role does fall outside of this mandate where adoptions are concerned, but we very much respect her opinion. I

personally believe that we are moving in the right direction.

Let me just finish in a

summary.

Social policy is an opinion. There is no right and there is no wrong. This is very important when it comes to those who are standing up squarely on one side or

the other. Can we acknowledge that it's our opinion, that we think we're doing the right thing? Fifty or 60 years ago, they thought they were doing the right thing, and they were doing the opposite

in terms of where we want to go today.

I believe that people have a right to know where they come from, not a right to a relationship. We've repeated this several times because it's so important.

People have a right to know where they come from, but they don't have a right to a relationship. The privacy commissioner is doing her job when she speaks for a minority, as small as that may be:

those who wish not to be contacted. We've been careful. The no-contact notice has worked elsewhere. The fines are extremely high if that no-contact is ever breached. There is no record of a breach

that we can find.

Ultimately there would be no purpose to this bill if it was not retroactive: I have to stand firmly on this point. Why would we bring an adoption bill in the

House at all if we were not going to contend with 250,000 adoption records already in Ontario? There really wouldn't be a point to this. Adoptions today are virtually well known, the information is

extremely well known and it isn't guarded under that kind of shroud of secrecy, as was the case in the 1920s.

I asked adoptees the hard questions: "What if you're not welcome? What if your history is horrible?" They've given me the straight answers. Currently, with a

lack of information about themselves, that's what they believe, yet overwhelmingly we have heard from people where it's gone very well. There has been a tremendous respect for privacy, and people

who have either been the birth mother or the adopted child understand the secrecy more than the rest of us because they've been living with this for many years. If there's ever going to be a group

that to understands the mechanics of no-contact, I can tell you with some certainty that this is the group.

I know we've all been inundated with calls and e-mails. I want to thank people for their interest. This is really important, and I think it merits the kind of

debate we have to have around these issues. This bill will have hearings. I hope we're going to have good representation and deputations speaking at our hearings. I'm going to welcome additional

improvements. If we feel there will be amendments that can improve this bill, we are prepared to hear them. I say this with an interest in bringing forward good legislation and being prepared to

improve it.

Let me just say that I believe we're moving in the right area in terms of social policy on the matter of adoption. I believe in retroactivity. I believe we

can't have a disclosure veto because it defeats the purpose of allowing people the right to know who they are. I understand those who have made the comparison to trampling the rights of birth

mothers, maybe, but I have to say that at some point people have to understand that for many years we've trampled on the rights of those individuals who have a right to know who they are and where

they come from. I hope all members of this House will do due diligence and help us make this bill law.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? Questions and comments? The member for Simcoe North.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't in my seat. I thought the minister said earlier in her comments that the

parliamentary assistant was also speaking to the bill.

I look forward to the comments from all the members in this House today on this piece of legislation. I know the member from Toronto-Danforth in particular has

had a great deal of interest in this bill. She has brought a number of private member's bills here. In my discussions with the member from Toronto-Danforth, I know she has some very strong concerns

about this legislation and will be bringing forth amendments to the legislation when we get to committee with it.

My comments now are very brief. I just wanted to put on the record that I look forward to further debate and to the government listening to the possible

amendments that come forward.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I think there's an adage that if at first you don't succeed, try, try again, and I tried and I tried.

I tried five times through private members' hour to get an adoption disclosure bill passed in this Legislature. What was really striking to me then, under a Conservative government, was that the

majority of members in the House, all of the times I presented my bill, supported adoption disclosure reform, and yet we were unable to get it passed because of all the funny business that goes on

around here during private members' hour.

What struck me considerably -- and I think it's still the case -- is that the majority of legislators from all parties support moving forward on adoption

disclosure reform. I know that all of my caucus colleagues support the bill. I know that there are perhaps some people still within the Liberal Party and within the Conservative Party who have some

issues and problems. I also know from discussing the issue with most of the members by now and sending them letters and my personal story that there is widespread support for this legislation, and

has been for a long time. In fact, it's a good example of where the legislators overall generally reflect the will of the people, because research has shown that the majority of people do support

moving forward, and have for a very long time, on adoption disclosure reform for all the reasons and more, which I will take some time to outline later when I get to speak. It really is a very,

very happy day for me.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for --

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Prince Edward-Hastings.

The Deputy Speaker: -- Prince Edward-Hastings.

Mr. Parsons: Just remember, "a prince of a fellow."

I could not imagine two years ago that I would stand up and speak in support of this bill. As an adoptive parent and as a fo