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

June 7, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Jun-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 7 June 2006 Mercredi 7 juin 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL INCOME

STABILIZATION PROGRAM

CHARITY SOCCER MATCH

HYDRO IN ONTARIO

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

CARDIAC CARE

WEARING OF PINS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

COMITÉ PERMANENT

DE LA POLITIQUE SOCIALE /

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

STREET RACING ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES COURSES DE RUE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

EDUCATION FUNDING

MONTFORT HOSPITAL /

HÔPITAL MONTFORT

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

FEDERAL AGRICULTURE FUNDING

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

HEPATITIS C

FOOD SAFETY

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

AUTISM SERVICES

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

FISH STOCKING PROGRAM

CHILD CARE

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

HIGHWAY 26

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

LABOUR UNIONS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA GESTION

DES SITUATIONS D'URGENCE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL INCOME

STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'd like to welcome the Ontario Cattlemen's Association to Queen's Park for their famous beef

barbecue. They were kind enough to give me some "I love Canadian beef" stickers, which I'll proudly place on my parade tractor this summer.

The cattlemen provide us a great service and the best beef in the world, but they do have a beef with the provincial government. Like most farmers, the cattlemen

are concerned about this government's failure to show leadership on reforming the CAIS program. The federal government has taken the lead on CAIS, adopting changes to inventory valuation, changes

cattlemen have been requesting for some time. But when it comes to the provincial government, cattlemen are saying, "Where's the beef?"

They're telling me that if the province matches federal changes to CAIS, it will be a tremendous benefit to cattle farmers in Ontario. If Minister Dombrowsky

follows Minister Strahl's leadership on reforming CAIS, it would help the cattlemen to be more competitive vis-à-vis other Canadian jurisdictions.

Years after BSE crippled the industry, the cattlemen are still facing hardship. In addition to their lost equity, the border remains closed to cattle over the

age of 30 months. The US border remains closed to breeding stock. There's a problem, obviously, getting animals down to Mexico, for example.

I call on all MPPs to continue talking about the closed border, and I call on Minister Dombrowsky to beef up her commitment to our Ontario cattlemen.

CHARITY SOCCER MATCH

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I rise in the House today to inform all members of the Legislature of a wonderful event that's going to take

place on Sunday, June 25, at 6 o'clock. The Universal Youth Foundation is hosting a charity soccer match between the Canadian women's national soccer team and the Italian women's team. The match

will take place at Etobicoke's centennial stadium. It's sure to be an exciting day, and it's in support of a great cause.

The Universal Youth Foundation does extremely important work in providing educational assistance to some of the world's most disadvantaged children and youth.

This June 25 soccer match provides an opportunity to raise funds for this great cause. This organization trains teachers and builds infrastructure, providing opportunities to learn that otherwise

just would not exist. It isn't simply about building schools but about building opportunity for children to succeed and become leaders in their own communities.

This is an example of how we can all think globally and act locally.

I'm proud to note that three young women from my own riding of Oakville will be suiting up for the Canadian national team and supporting this great cause: Kara

Lang, Amanda Cicchini and Diana Matheson.

I'd like to invite all members to come out and cheer on June 25 for the women's national soccer team as they play the Italian women's national soccer team for a

wonderful cause.

HYDRO IN ONTARIO

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Today marks the 100th anniversary of what many people still refer to as Ontario Hydro. As a

result of the power commission act passed a month earlier by the Conservative government of Premier James P. Whitney, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario was created, with Adam Beck as

its chairman. Beck, who served as chairman until his death in 1925, was a strong advocate for publicly owned electrical generation and transmission.

The first bulk transmission line built from Niagara Falls was completed in 1910 and switched on during a ceremony in Berlin, which is now Kitchener. In 1914,

Beck was knighted by King George V for services rendered to the Commonwealth of Canada.

Beck was instrumental in developing the 450-megawatt Queenston-Chippewa power station at Niagara. At that time, this was the largest power station in the world.

In 1950, the station was renamed Sir Adam Beck 1 in his honour. In the late 1940s and 1950s, the hydroelectric power corporation developed the potential of the St. Lawrence, in conjunction with

American power authorities, during the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway. They also developed stations on the upper Ottawa River. In 1948, Hydro changed and standardized the frequency of its

electrical systems at 60 cycles, ensuring compatibility with neighbouring power systems and overcoming the major obstacle to expansion of its network.

There have been tremendous advancements and developments over the last 100 years as Hydro has been fulfilling its mandate to bring power to the people. To all

those who have served, thank you.

Let us hope that the decisions made today are the right ones, dictated by commitment and not politics, ensuring that the lights will remain on in Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): People for Education came to Queen's Park this afternoon to give a report card on a list of

"incompletes" by the Minister of Education. One of them has to do with the Good Places to Learn, phase 2. The government claims it has spent $75 million for further school renewal and capital

needs, and I want to simply say to you that the government has not even spent the $75 million of the $270 million it promised. In fact, they've spent less than $20 million, based on a report the

minister gave me in response to a question from estimates.

They talk about the alternative diploma. On October 14, 2005, the Premier and the Minister of Education announced that the province would create an alternative

diploma in order to turn around the dropout rate. Instead, in November 2005 the Minister of Education introduced a specialist high-skills major to allow students to complete a minimum bundle of

courses in specific high-skills areas -- arts, business, info technology etc. It doesn't deal with those dropout kids.

Keeping schools open -- the fair funding model for rural schools: They promised this in 2005. It's 2006 and we've still got nothing.

A new funding formula for transportation: We've been waiting since 2004 and we still don't have one. This is not a good track record.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I want to commend the city of London for recently approving an initiative that will see 346 new child care

spaces created at no cost to London taxpayers. This funding is being approved by the provincial government under its Best Start program and by the commitment made by the previous federal Liberal

government.

The creation of the new child care spaces will help shorten the waiting lists faced by parents in London and will provide affordable, accessible and quality

child care for their young children. I am glad that the city of London and the McGuinty government understand that the first few years of a child's life set the foundation for lifelong

learning.

Unfortunately, the current federal government has refused to honour the early learning and child care agreement signed by the provinces and the previous federal

government. This will result in the federal government taking away $1.4 billion intended for child care spaces over the next five years. This negatively impacts the ability of the provinces to

provide quality and affordable child care spaces needed by families.

I hope the federal Conservative government will recognize the importance of quality child care in this province, and I urge them to honour that agreement so that

children in this province can get the best start possible.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): As someone who served as critic of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for many years and as

minister for almost six, I've had the opportunity to work very closely with members of the OPP, from the commissioner level to the front line. I have enormous respect for the men and women of the

OPP who serve us so well, and I'm truly distressed to witness the challenges currently confronting them at Caledonia and the fallout for their reputation and morale.

The OPP finds itself in a no-win situation. The residents of Caledonia and Haldimand are upset with them for what they see as their failure to enforce the rule

of law and their humiliating retreat following a politically correct raid on the occupied property. The OPP's challenge, operating in a McGuinty Liberal environment, is that they cannot, in any

way, shape or form, count on the support of this government. They're constantly looking over their shoulders.

This was driven home yesterday when the minister responsible for policing blamed OPP officers for driving into the occupied property Sunday night and implicitly

endorsed the concept of a no-go zone for the OPP.

These are difficult times for an outstanding police service, and the responsibility for that lies squarely at the doorstep of the McGuinty Liberal

government.

SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): Canadians have traditionally excelled in synchronized swimming. Set to music, our Canadian young women

display their athletic skill, endurance, muscle control, poise and rhythm in the pool. They are judged on the degree of difficulty of the manoeuvres, pool area coverage, and the quality of

execution of the routine.

Samantha Wymes is a 14-year-old Mississauga West resident. In April Samantha was the youngest synchronized swimmer to qualify for Team Ontario, and already has

eight years' experience in synchro.

Samantha will represent Ontario at the Canada Winter Games in February 2007 in the Yukon. She recently returned from the third Synchro Peru Aquatica Cup in Lima,

Peru, where she won a bronze medal in duet, a silver in figures and a gold medal in team for Canada. She beat out competitors from all over South America plus three separate teams from the United

States.

Samantha will compete at the Espoir National Championships at the Etobicoke Olympium in June and hopes to qualify for Canada's national 13 to 15 team, which will

compete in Mexico this summer.

Samantha is living proof of why synchro and competitive swimmers, divers and water polo players need our regional councils to work together and build a 50-meter

pool to serve Peel and Halton region.

We hope Samantha hears O Canada played often when she competes internationally. On behalf of the Legislative Assembly, I wish her continued success in the sport

of synchronized swimming. We're all proud of her.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I rise in the House today to congratulate Katie Pietrzakowski, of my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, and to

comment on our government's investments in promoting research and higher education.

Katie is a member of Team Sci-Tech Ontario and took home a bronze medal at the Canada Wide Science Fair recently in Quebec. Sci-Tech Ontario took home 12 gold

medals, 12 silver medals, 22 bronze and the EnCana best in fair award. Katie qualified for the national competition by winning the Algoma Rotary Regional Science Fair, one of 30 fairs held across

the province.

Support for young scientists is just one of the ways our government is ensuring that Ontario has a well-educated, highly skilled, productive workforce. We have

created the Ministry of Research and Innovation and committed $1.4 billion over five years to allow Ontario's scientific and technical communities to reach new heights and compete on the global

stage. We're investing $6.2 billion in post-secondary education in Ontario, the largest investment in over 40 years.

Last week, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and I had the privilege of participating in the opening of the inaugural northern health

conference at Algoma University. This conference brought together medical researchers from across northern Ontario to find solutions to the unique health challenges facing northerners. It is

largely the result of our $95-million investment to create the new Northern Ontario School of Medicine, the first medical school to be opened in Canada in more than 30 years.

We've begun the important task of providing facilities and resources that allow individuals like Katie, northern medical researchers and others the chance to

offer the guidance, vision and creativity that will lead to new innovations and a stronger economy.

CARDIAC CARE

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I am pleased to announce that our government is improving access to cardiac services in northwestern

Ontario. Last weekend, Minister of Health George Smitherman announced in Thunder Bay that the introduction of a stand-alone angioplasty unit is in the works for Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences

Centre. This announcement will trigger the beginning of a process. Thunder Bay Regional will now develop a plan for the implementation of this service at our hospital to meet the requirements of

the Ministry of Health for the provision of this very specialized service.

I can report that everyone present at the event -- from hospital board chairman Ron Nelson, representing the board of directors, to Dr. Frank Nigro, representing

staff, including nurses and hospital administrators, as well as community members -- was extremely excited by the announcement. I must mention as well the local advocacy group, Mended Hearts, which

first brought this issue to my attention almost three years ago.

This announcement, while being first and foremost a health care announcement, will also be an economic generator for the community. When fully operational, it

will mean an approximate $18-million to $20-million annual expenditure within our community.

All those in attendance were very excited to get started on a capital campaign for the community portion of the announcement. Our government has made a

significant move forward in terms of health care provision for northwestern Ontario. Whenever possible, one of the best things we can do is provide those services closer to home. Three hundred to

500 people who are now shipped out of Thunder Bay to other jurisdictions on an annual basis will eventually be able to receive this specialized service closer to home, with family and friends at

their side.

We have made a major move forward, and I'd love to thank the Minister of Health for coming to Thunder Bay to make this announcement.

WEARING OF PINS

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Given the fact that our friends from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association

are here and fed almost all the members and our staff with a wonderful beef lunch, I ask for unanimous consent to wear the cattlemen's pin today in the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Agreed? Agreed.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

COMITÉ PERMANENT

DE LA POLITIQUE SOCIALE /

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

M. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke-Nord): Monsieur le Président, je demande la permission de déposer un rapport du comité permanent de

la politique sociale et je propose son adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on social policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Projet de loi 102, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'interchangeabilité des médicaments et les honoraires de préparation et la

Loi sur le régime de

médicaments de l'Ontario / Bill 102,

An Act to amend the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act and the Ontario Drug Benefit Act.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1359.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

MacLeod, Lisa

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Scott, Laurie

Tabuns, Peter

Tory, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 54; the nays are 24.

The Speaker: I declare the report to be received and adopted.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Tuesday, May 9, 2006, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its

adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting Ronald McDonald House (Hamilton);

Bill Pr26,

An Act respecting Talpiot College.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

7, 2006, of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

STREET RACING ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES COURSES DE RUE

Mr. Klees moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

An Act to enhance safety on Ontario's roads and to empower police officers to shut down street racing / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant

à accroître la sécurité sur les routes de l'Ontario et à habiliter les agents de police à mettre fin aux courses de rue.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm introducing this bill in memory of my constituents Rob and Lisa Manchester and in honour of their 7-year-old

daughter, Katie Marie Manchester, who was orphaned when her parents' car was hit by a Honda Civic reportedly speeding in excess of 140 kilometres per hour. Street racing was the cause of that

tragedy according to reports. On behalf of all members, I extend our condolences to the Manchester family, their relatives and their friends.

Street racing is an illegal and dangerous activity, jeopardizing the lives of innocent people. In the last six years, there have been 33 deaths due to street

racing in the greater Toronto area alone. Excessive speed continues to be the leading contributing factor in fatal collisions and illegal street racing is reaching epidemic proportions.

The purpose of this bill is to empower front-line police officers to issue on-the-spot licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments to drivers they have reason

to believe were involved in street racing. The bill also bans the connection of aftermarket nitrous oxide fuel systems in vehicles on all public streets and highways, and provides for fines of up

to $2,000 and jail terms of up to six months for convictions.

We can't legislate responsibility but we can ensure that there are serious consequences for anyone who is willing to put innocent lives at risk. Street racing

is a serious threat and our front-line police officers need the authority to deal with this issue. We can't bring back lives of victims, but we can and must send the message through our actions as

legislators that street racing is illegal, dangerous and unacceptable in Ontario.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to

move a motion without notice regarding the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley is asking unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding the standing committee

on finance and economic affairs. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs be authorized to meet after routine proceedings on

Monday, June 12, 2006, for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 117,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for an Ontario home electricity payment.

The Speaker: Mr. Bradley has moved that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs be authorized to meet after routine proceedings

on Monday, June 12, 2006, for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 117,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for an Ontario home electricity payment.

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

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I want members to help me welcome a group in the Speaker's gallery. We have with us a group, the

president of which is Derwyn Shea, a former parliamentarian. I ask everyone to welcome our friends here today.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I'm sure members would want to know that we have visitors here from

Tobago and New York City, or Sears, especially to see question period, and they're looking forward to the entertainment that will ensue.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In the same light, we have a delegation

from Kingston today that's here to watch democracy in action. They're sitting right in the west lobby.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if it will qualify as entertainment or democracy in action, but I have a

question for the Premier. Premier, two days ago, this House voted in favour of our motion on your handling of the Caledonia situation and called for a public inquiry to take place at the

appropriate time so that we as decision-makers could gain a better understanding of what has gone wrong there and how we might prevent it from happening again in the future, as well as an

examination of the land claims process and any helpful advice that independent investigator might offer as to how that could work better as well.

During the last election campaign, you made a lot of statements and several promises to voters about making this place work better and about respecting the

Legislature and its members. Will you live up to your promises and make the commitment to hold, at the appropriate time, a public inquiry so that we can all know what has gone on at Caledonia, get

some advice with respect to the land claims process and respect the will of the members of this House? Will you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm pleased to take the question. The leader of the official opposition

will undoubtedly know that I had the opportunity to speak to this just yesterday when I described this ploy on the part of Conservatives as being nothing more than mischief-making.

In truth, what the opposition objects to, in terms of the approach we have brought, is that we have refused to direct police in any of their activities or any

type of engagement with the First Nations. We will continue to bring forward the same kind of approach that we have brought to date. We will be thoughtful, we will be responsible, we will be

patient, and we will persevere.

Mr. Tory: During the time of the election campaign and during the time before that, I suspect you would not have described, for example, any

of your many calls for public inquiries of various kinds as being mischievous.

What we did in this case was simply take the responsibilities that we have as the official opposition in this Legislature and duly file a motion, which was

then duly debated and voted upon in this House. The motion was voted on and passed. You can describe that as mischievous; I actually thought that was parliamentary democracy. The only mischievous

thing -- and I would describe it, as well, as unfortunate -- is that only seven members of the Liberal Party were in the Legislature for the debate and for the vote. I think that lack of attendance

by itself indicates the degree to which you don't take this issue seriously.

Will you not respect the Legislature and a vote of the Legislature and agree to ask an independent investigator, at the appropriate time, to look into what

happened at Caledonia and how we can learn from it? Why won't you do that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'm going to recommend to the Leader of the Opposition that he take a look at today's Hamilton Spectator, in particular the

editorial found on page A17. The title of the editorial is "Political Theatre of the Absurd." In describing the motion, the Hamilton Spectator describes it as "self-serving political opportunism in

an extremely delicate situation." It goes on to say, "To suggest, as Tory has, that a public inquiry be launched before the standoff is resolved is simply silly." I completely agree.

Mr. Tory: And I would feel just the slightest bit sensitive about that if that in fact was what I had asked for, but if you go back and look

at the press releases from when we asked for the inquiry in the first instance, they all clearly say, as I've repeated today, that you should commit to launching the inquiry at the appropriate

time.

We've asked for it so that people down there will know -- from all corners, in all parts of that community, and indeed people across the province -- that at

the appropriate time, you are willing, as you suggested so often in the past, and that you are willing out of respect for this Legislature, which had a debate and had a vote, to agree to an

independent investigation of this matter so that we might learn from it and find ways we might improve the land claims process and our handling of these kinds of disputes.

My question is very simple. Rather than reading me that clipping which is based on a false premise as to when I asked for the inquiry, why will you not agree

to that kind of independent inquiry? What is it you're afraid of? Is it that it's going to expose your own lack of leadership --

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

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I think it's important for us to be very direct in terms of what it is we're talking about here. The leader of the

official opposition is critical -- there's no hiding that -- of the approach we've brought to dealing with the affair at Caledonia. He's critical because what he wants us to do is to send in the

police. We refuse to do that. At least Mr. Barrett has been very forthright in this regard. He has said, and I quote again, "It puts our OPP in a very bad situation. They're getting obviously no

sense of direction or leadership from this government. There's got to be some kind of direction for the OPP." I couldn't more strongly disagree. I think Ontarians again have a good opportunity for

a study in contrasts here. They would send in the police. They would have the police engage in some kind of action. We choose to negotiate. We choose to take the time to ensure we have a resolution

which is peaceful.

The Speaker: New question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: My question again is for the Premier. And I should say that at no time ever have I said that you should send the police in or

instruct the police to go in -- ever. What I have said --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Agriculture, member for Halton, the Attorney General, come to order. The government House leader will come to

order. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: What I have said is that a very good start, if you want to talk about sending somebody in, would be to send yourself down there; for

a single member of your government to go down there and listen to a single citizen who would tell you about what is going on with the fabric of that community.

Now, yesterday you referred to the Caledonia standoff as being one "without incident." I just want to clarify that you don't consider the following to be

incidents: barricades and tire fires seen for miles; OPP officers wrestling with protesters; an electricity blackout involving more than 9,000 people and all kinds of businesses; numerous brawls; a

security guard's car being burned to the ground; paved roads being dug up by heavy machinery; two OPP officers reportedly being held against their will for making a wrong turn. Why don't you take

this opportunity to explain to the people of Ontario how you can describe this security crisis as being something that's happened without incident.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me remind the leader of the official opposition of what we've done in Caledonia so far by working with the community,

with the Six Nations, with the federal government. First of all, we appointed David Peterson to work through some of the immediate issues. The members opposite will know that we've helped to

negotiate the opening of the Argyle Street blockade. He will know that we've secured the federal participation with the appointment of Barbara McDougall as the federal representative and we've

appointed Jane Stewart as our provincial representative, so that together we can work through the broader Haldimand tract land claims issue. We have helped calm tensions and build trust by placing

a moratorium on the development of Douglas Creek Estates while discussions continue. And just recently, Minister Cordiano was in the community to help the local community with a $500,000 emergency

assistance program for local businesses. We've been there, and we will stay there with the community to ensure that we can resolve this peacefully.

Mr. Tory: I have a slight advantage over the Premier in that I have been there and listened to what the people have to say down there. I've

been there not once, not twice, but three times. Three times I've been there to listen to people, and I have listened to them describe, from the first time to the third time, how much the social

fabric of this community has been torn; how much they regret what has happened by allowing this situation to escalate; how much has happened to tear asunder relationships that have developed over

decades between people who live there from the First Nations part of the community and from other parts of the community.

I say to you again and I ask you one more time, instead of offering some real leadership and actually showing somebody's face down there to communicate with

these people, to show some caring on the part of a single minister of the government, up to and including, I would suggest, yourself, you've chosen to downplay this, to describe this as without

incident and so on.

Why won't you acknowledge the severity of this situation and agree at the appropriate time to an independent investigation of what happened here, and an

independent investigation of how land claims get to this point so we can stop it from happening ever again? Why won't you do that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the official opposition is intent on inflaming this situation. He uses different language, but the basis for

his criticism of our government and the approach we brought to Caledonia is that he's saying over and over again between the lines that it's time for us to send in the police. He says we can't

allow the situation to go on any longer and it's time for us to send in the police.

At least Mr. Barrett is very forthright in this regard. He has said specifically that we should be sending in the police. I understand that that's the approach

they would take. We have a decidedly different approach. It takes time and perseverance. It takes our acting responsibly in a way that will cultivate a basic foundation of goodwill and trust. They

want us to send in the police; we will not do that.

Mr. Tory: I think it is a complete disgrace and beneath the office that you hold as Premier of this province to suggest that by coming in here

and doing the job the Leader of the Opposition is appointed to do, to ask questions about your handling of this affair and to ask you nothing more than something you asked many times of the

governments you questioned, namely to appoint an independent investigator at the appropriate time to look into this -- for you to describe that as "inflaming this situation" I think is

irresponsible in the extreme.

Interjections.

Mr. Tory: I would ask you --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I can wait. The Minister of Health Promotion, come to order. The member for Burlington will come to order. The Minister of

Finance will come to order. The member for Halton will come to order.

I need to be able to hear the questions that are put by members in this place and to hear the responses. About 10 seconds.

Mr. Tory: I would urge the Premier to read the speech that I gave in the Legislature in respect of the motion that was debated on Monday,

because I tried my best to be balanced and responsible about the need for an independent investigation to look into better ways to handle land claims and better ways to handle these kinds of

situations. I simply ask you, why won't you agree to that kind of independent investigation? To ask for it is not to inflame the situation.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: If the leader of the official opposition, as he claims, has a sincere interest in helping us to diffuse existing

circumstances, if he's interested in helping us to lower the temperature, if he's actually interested in helping us to deal with the situation as it obtains at the present, if he has a genuine

interest in helping to us find a way out of this in a way that will ensure that nobody's safety is compromised, then I'm all ears. But I have yet to hear a single valuable, constructive proposal

that would help us deal with this issue today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women's issues): I want to hear from the cowboy in your caucus.

The Speaker: Minister of Education.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Minister of Health will come to order.

This is the final warning to the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I can wait.

New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, the leadership of First Nations across Ontario is so

frustrated with your failure of leadership at Caledonia that the Ontario regional chief wrote to you recently and said, "This is a land rights issue and no forum exists in Ontario to resolve land

rights issues in a timely manner." He then goes on to say, "Ontario can take a proactive role which can ultimately help." He then suggests how a land rights forum could function.

Premier, Regional Chief Toulouse is suggesting a positive initiative on how the Caledonia conflict could have been avoided and future land rights issues could

be proactively addressed. Why has your government failed to heed the advice of Regional Chief Toulouse?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I was pleased to receive the constructive proposal from Chief Toulouse. It's part of an ongoing engagement we have with him

and so many other leaders in our First Nations communities, but at present we find ourselves in circumstances which demand immediate action, so we have elicited the support of the federal

government, and in particular Barbara McDougall, together with Jane Stewart, our provincial representative. We're sitting down and working through the larger, broader land claim issues. That group

will meet again tomorrow.

I can say that Chief Toulouse has put forward a constructive proposal, and we look forward to considering that on a go-forward basis, but at the present time

we are sitting down and working with the federal government and working our way through these very important issues.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, Regional Chief Toulouse doesn't see it that way. He says to you, "I must remind you that the issue at Caledonia began

with a simple occupation of a parcel of land to prevent development." He says, "This is a situation which could be repeated over and over again due to continued encroachments on First Nations lands

and the absence of a process to address First Nations land rights issues."

He then goes on to say that your own negotiators are confused. He says, "However, the mandates of the provincial negotiators remain unclear. Recently I became

aware that an apparent agreement reached at the negotiating table was not honoured by provincial parties."

It doesn't sound, Premier, as if your government is heeding Regional Chief Toulouse's advice or that you're acting with honour and honesty at the table. What

do you say to that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I appreciate Chief Toulouse's advice in this regard. We're getting advice from a host of people around the province,

and there are a number of

interpretations, of course, associated with the different actions carried out by different people. But I can tell you that we bring a tremendous amount of goodwill and

commitment to resolving this matter in a peaceful way.

In addition to the major land claims table, Speaker, in addition to the $500,000 by way of emergency assistance for local business announced recently by

Minister Cordiano, we've also provided $100,000 to set up an interim relief program for the developer and the builders involved on the site.

I can say that we're now fast-tracking discussions with the developers involved so that we can find some way to deal with the land. Again, it's a complicated

matter. We'll bring everything that we possibly can to bear to deal with this in a positive, constructive way that culminates in a peaceful solution.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, you were the one who promised "a new era of good relations with Ontario First Nations." Regional Chief Toulouse is

trying to provide some positive solutions and suggestions, but what he's seeing from your government is issue evasion and confusion.

Consider this: Your government knew for a year that there was a land rights issue here, but you did not engage in serious discussion. Then, after the protest

begins, you start some discussion, but while discussion is happening, in go the OPP. Here, just the other day, the Leader of the Opposition put forward a proposal for an inquiry. Your own members

don't oppose it, so it passes the Legislature, and now you say you oppose that. What we see is confusion.

Premier, Chief Toulouse wants to be proactive and provide solutions. He says if you don't do that, this can repeat itself. When are you going to take Chief

Toulouse's advice and set up --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'll say for the third time, we welcome Chief Toulouse's positive, constructive advice and we look forward to finding a way

to address that on a go-forward basis. But at the present time, we find ourselves caught up in a difficult situation. We have already established a table. I spoke with Prime Minister Harper on the

weekend about that. We are both committed to doing everything we possibly can to work together to resolve this in a peaceful way. We're providing ongoing assistance to the community. We've done

what we can to this point in time to bring down the barricades. I think that kind of issue is now going to be transferred to the main table.

We're going to work with the developer involved. We will continue to work with the community. We will do everything we possibly can to resolve this in a way

that is based on, that is founded on, goodwill and trust and a determination to resolve this peacefully.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question for the Premier: Working families across Ontario want to be sure that your $40-billion

nuclear mega scheme is subjected to a tough, thoughtful, transparent provincial environmental assessment. Yesterday, you refused to make that commitment. Since then we've learned that Theresa

McClenaghan, a key adviser to the environment minister, co-authored a legal opinion that says your government must conduct a proper provincial environmental assessment of your plans for $40 billion

in new nuclear plants.

Premier, is the McGuinty government going to listen to your own advisers and their legal opinion, or are you going to ram through your nuclear power scheme

without a proper Ontario environmental assessment?

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): Let's be clear. The federal government is required to undergo a full environmental

assessment for each new nuclear facility that is built. That's the law. The province would actively participate in each federal EA of any new nuclear plant to ensure that Ontario's environment is

adequately protected and that the health of citizens and the public interest in our province are protected. In addition, any new plant would be subjected to my ministry's approvals processes for

water-taking and waste water discharges, regardless of the fuel source of that facility. I can assure Ontarians that the environment, human health and public interest would be protected by those

processes.

Mr. Hampton: Let's be clear. This is what the Minister of the Environment's own adviser says in her legal opinion: "The forthcoming integrated

power system plan is a public sector `plan' to which Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act applies. The application of the EA Act is mandatory since there are no declaration orders or regulations

which exempt the integrated power system plan from Environmental Assessment Act coverage."

My question to the Premier and to the Minister of the Environment remains the same: Are you going to obey the laws of Ontario and subject your $40-billion

nuclear mega scheme to an Ontario environmental assessment, or are you going to try to water down the Environmental Assessment Act and avoid an environmental assessment of your $40-billion nuclear

mega scheme? Which is it going to be?

Hon. Ms. Broten: I can say that I'm very proud I hired Theresa McClenaghan, a great lawyer, away from the Canadian Environmental Law

Association, where she was acting for a client when she issued an opinion. Maybe the leader of the third party doesn't understand that an opinion could be offered with respect to the entire IPSP.

That decision has yet to be made. A formal request has been made to subject the IPSP to an individual EA. As minister responsible, I have not made that decision, that determination, because it's

important to note that the IPSP has yet to be finalized or released.

Theresa McClenaghan is now recused from all energy work. She's a water expert in the Ministry of the Environment and is working very hard to ensure that we

have the Clean Water Act and that that moves forward.

But it's absolutely critical to understand that the environmental assessment reforms we brought forward most recently have absolutely nothing to do with what

you are trying to link them to.

Mr. Hampton: We will see in due time about your watering down of the Environmental Assessment Act. I simply say to the McGuinty government

again, it is your position that you will conduct environmental assessments into Ontario-built roads, Ontario-built hydro dams, Ontario-built landfills. Your own legal adviser, Minister of the

Environment, says you must subject the $40-billion McGuinty nuclear mega scheme to a full Ontario environmental assessment. Are you going to do that? Are you going to follow the legal opinion of

your legal adviser, or is the McGuinty government going to try to weasel out of an environmental assessment and push its nuclear mega scheme through in the middle of the night? Which is it going to

be?

Hon. Ms. Broten: I'll say it again: It is the law that any new nuclear facility would be the subject of a full federal EA. That's the law of

the land. That's the law we will abide by. We will participate with the federal government in that EA. We will be active participants, ensuring that Ontarians' health and safety is protected. We

have additional approvals processes that would be required. That's the rubric we operate under. That's the framework. We will be meeting our obligations to ensure that Ontarians are protected as we

build any new source of power in this province.

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. The Premier asked a moment ago if there were a couple of

constructive ideas for the things that might be done in respect of Caledonia. I'll start with a letter that your minister received on August 18, 2005, from Chief David General. It specifically

suggested, "We also invite you and members of your staff to travel to our community to tour the area and meet with our community members to better understand the challenges we currently face." The

letter was all about this Douglas estates land development. So that's one suggestion. Why don't you ask your minister to go down there -- or maybe yourself -- and actually have the meeting that

Chief General asked about in August 2005? We might not be having this discussion if that had been done.

The second one is to follow along with what Regional Chief Angus Toulouse said that the leader of the New Democratic Party asked about. He said in the letter

that we have to focus "on ways and means to address First Nations land rights issues in Ontario." Why isn't an independent investigation of the land claims process such as I have suggested in this

House, which could look at other matters as well -- why doesn't that answer --

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): Upon receipt of Chief David General's letter

on August 5 of last year, I had several meetings with the chief and many of his council members. We had reconfirmed a structure called the exploration that we had been working on; in fact, we had

expedited that exploration of the land claims and the accounting claims issues there.

If you speak to David General, he was very satisfied with the progress. What had happened was that some in the community -- you have to remember that this duly

elected chief and council only have the support of about 10% to 12% of the population of the Six Nations -- didn't accept the progress that was being made, became impatient, and especially when

they saw the model home being constructed, the Douglas Creek Estates home, they went out and acted out their frustration. We continue to work with all the leaders in the Six Nations because, as the

Leader of the Opposition must know, there's more than one leadership there.

Mr. Tory: My question is to the Premier, but assuming I'll hear from the minister, we got the letter a year ago suggesting that there be an

on-site visit, to come down and visit. We have the suggestion in the letter from Ontario Chief Toulouse that we have a process put in place to examine the land claims process.

I ask you, because maybe you'll have a different answer as to those two things being suggested, what is wrong with committing today to having an independent

investigation at the appropriate time of these things -- an independent "examination" is a better word -- by someone of repute who can look at these things, both the land claims process as we

suggested in our motion and the situation as it has now unfolded at Caledonia, at the appropriate time? Can you tell me why that's a bad idea, why the Premier rejects it? Well, I won't assume you

reject it, because you're a reasonable man. Can you give me your answer as to why this is categorized as inflaming the situation and mischievous when in fact it is actually a constructive

suggestion to allow us to get to the bottom of how we can make things better?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I've said to the Leader of the Opposition that we're spending all of our time trying to resolve this issue right now. That's

what we're doing, day and night, and everybody in government is trying to do this.

I'd like to comment on Grand Chief Angus Toulouse's suggestion, because it is a good idea. While we sit here in government, that's not to say we always have

the best possible solutions to everything. We know every day we can always do a better job and we're always interested in new ideas and constructive ideas. We look to your caucus for that, and to

the leader of the third party to do that, and Chief Angus Toulouse, who I work with very well.

You have to appreciate, though, that this is the most unique accounting land claim situation in the whole country. It's not a straightforward claim like the

others are, where we have straightforward procedures. In fact, we have about 65 of these ongoing in Ontario. Some are scheduled to be resolved in 2012, like the Algonquin one which involves the

city of Ottawa. They're very complex. They're all scheduled. But this one's very different. It's an accounting claim based on a grant from a crown of 250 years ago.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): To the Minister of Education: Parents from across Ontario are tired of watching their schools languish

and their children suffer while you pretend everything is wonderful in our schools.

Today, the parents' group People for Education came to Queen's Park to grade your performance as minister, and they've given you an incomplete, because while

you promised to address the crises our students face -- and you're very good at making promises -- we haven't seen any action. You promised education grants with an updated funding formula by the

end of May. It's now June. Where are they?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women's issues): I think it's fair to say that some things are really

worth waiting for. I will tell this member opposite that we have been working diligently. In fact, I have spent eight weeks now on this job. In these last eight weeks, I am very proud of both the

ministry's staff as well as my own, and my caucus colleagues who have given me tremendous support so that we can listen well to our partners in delivering education.

In the words of the now Minister of Energy, let me just say this about education: Everything that's supposed to be up is up and everything that's supposed to

be down is down. Graduation rates are going up, literacy and numeracy rates are going up, and we're very proud of that record.

Mr. Marchese: I say to the minister, the students and their parents are tired of empty promises from the McGuinty Liberals. Empty promises

leaky roofs or chase the vermin out of the hallways.

You promised a new and improved funding formula by the end of May. As of June 7, 2006, the grants have not been delivered, which marks the latest date for the

grants in the last nine years. Schools cannot plan properly. When can they expect the grants, Minister?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I know; end of May. It's June 7 today. Give me a break. That's all I've got to say to the member opposite.

What I am telling you is that since 1998, several years through a Conservative government, we suffered with a very difficult formula. I will tell you that this

member in particular -- I believe he was also education critic at that time -- offers no helpful suggestions on how to resolve our issues.

I am, on the other hand, relying on some very tremendous support in my caucus for some very significant changes that are coming to our formula. I will say to

the leaders in education across this province that $2 billion of investment is significant and it is historic. It is the most kind of support that we have had in this short a time period, that we

have seen, since Upper and Lower Canada were joined to form Ontario.

So let me say this: In this new grant round we are going to have support for lower class sizes from JK to 3, more support for student success. We are going to

see support for literacy and numeracy to go way up like we expect them to.

MONTFORT HOSPITAL /

HÔPITAL MONTFORT

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): That's going to be a tough act to follow.

My question is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. As a former president and CEO of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Foundation, I've

experienced a tremendous enthusiasm and concern and interest and support for the health care system in the region. So I want to ask the minister today about the efforts around the Montfort

Hospital, which is arguably well known throughout the province -- well known for its quality of service, well known because the Harris government tried to close it and was not able to do so.

I was happy last July to see the Premier announce our government's commitment to fund this project, and even happier when last Monday he was there for the

groundbreaking program. I would like to ask the minister what this particular project means for the area, and how the government has managed to be able to invoke such a huge amount of capital in

our health care system.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): The Montfort Hospital was under an execution

order from our former Tory government and is one of the over 100 hospital projects to begin construction under ReNew Ontario, our government's five-year, $30-billion infrastructure investment

plan.

The province is going to provide the lion's share of the funding; we estimate some $185 million. What that's going to mean is that when the hospital is

completed some time in 2009, we will double the size of the hospital to more than 700,000 square feet, including two new wings and a renovation to the existing facilities to expand intensive care,

maternal newborn, mental health, ambulatory care and emergency services. When the work is done, the hospital will house 417 beds: 289 for in-patient, 128 for long-term care.

Large hospital projects like the Montfort are being funded under AFP, alternative finance procurement. This is an innovative new tool that allows a board like

the Montfort Hospital to retain full public ownership --

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

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Madame la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones, nous venons

d'entendre des chiffres très interessants de la part de notre collègue. Le nouveau Montfort va doubler sa supérficie. Il pourra ainsi accommoder plus de patients et accorder plus de

soins. C'est une excellente nouvelle pour cet hôpital, qui a connu un passé précaire sous l'ancien gouvernement. C'est aussi une excellente nouvelle pour les gens de ma

circonscription, qui comprend au-delà de 30 % de sa clientèle. Il dessert non seulement les francophones, mais toutes les communautés.

Madame la ministre, en plus d'améliorer de façon significative l'accès des familles aux soins de santé, que représente cet

investissement pour l'avenir de l'Hôpital Montfort?

L'hon. M. Caplan: Merci pour votre question. Madame la ministre for francophone affairs.

L ' hon. Madeleine Meilleur (ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires, ministre déléguée aux Affaires

francophones) : En effet, j'étais bien heureuse lundi dernier d'être à Ottawa à l'Hôpital Montfort avec le premier ministre pour la première pelletée de

terre. On sait que le nouveau Montfort est très important pour la communauté francophone. Alors, je pense que c'est une évidence que l'Hôpital Montfort est un symbole pour la

communauté francophone ontarienne.

J'irais même plus loin. Pour moi, l'histoire de Montfort reflète en quelque sorte la progression de la francophonie en Ontario. Vous savez que la

survie et l'avenir de Montfort ont été acquis grâce aux efforts et à la détermination de la communauté francophone, et je voudrais rendre hommage aujourd'hui parce que

vous savez que l'Hôpital Montfort est mon « alma mater ». J'ai fait mon cours d'infirmière là et j'y ai travaillé pendant 14 ans. Je voudrais rendre hommage

aux employés de l'Hôpital Montfort, aux infirmières, aux médecins qui y travaillent, et surtout à M me Gisèle Lalonde, qui a dirigé --

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

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question again is to the Premier. It was reported this week that two OPP officers involved in the

Caledonia incident had their cruiser surrounded and were subsequently detained for a period of time after making, as your minister described it yesterday, a "wrong turn." Can you explain the

concept of the OPP taking a "wrong turn" anywhere within the boundaries of the province of Ontario, within their mandate to carry out the law and protect all of Ontario and all Ontario citizens? I

don't think it's a concept most people in Ontario are familiar with.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. The first

thing I want to do is to commend the OPP for the incredible job they've done.

To answer your question directly, we're in a situation right now that is highly charged. You have raised the issue about the difficulties that are there. It is

a very serious situation, and the slightest miscue can in fact set this thing really at a higher level than it is right now.

These two officers were brought into the area from another area. There was an understanding that nothing would be done to accelerate the tensions that were in

that community, because a movement may be misinterpreted. They made a wrong turn. People on the other side, members of the First Nations, thought that somehow or other something was happening that

wasn't, and that is what created this particular situation.

Mr. Tory: It's what we're here to do, which is to ask questions, because when you talk about that and say there's some sort of an

understanding, then when it comes to the understanding the people of Ontario would have, I believe -- that the OPP have a responsibility, a mandate, that they're charged with the responsibility of

looking after all of the people of Ontario in all parts of Ontario -- they would want to know what is the understanding here about wrong turns and no-go zones. Are there any other understandings

anywhere else with anybody else in Ontario? It's not just about this situation and First Nations people; it's about the very fact there could be and would be understandings as to where the OPP

would go.

What happens if there's a 911 call that comes in from somebody in that area? How does this understanding work vis-à-vis that? That is why it's important

to ask these questions here, to have a discussion here, and indeed to have an independent investigation of this. So I ask you, will you share with us what is the understanding, who is it with and

how many other understandings of this kind exist with respect to what the OPP do and where in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The primary understanding is that public safety is paramount. That is what the understanding is. Every situation is unique.

Surely even you would recognize that this is a unique situation. This is a situation where, given the circumstances, this is what is being done. That doesn't mean that this will now be transferred

to any other situation in Ontario. Every situation is dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and the proper response is tailored to make sure that public safety is maintained, and that is

paramount.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, today women from across the

province came here to plead for your government's help. Too many women are forced to choose between hunger and violence. They are trapped in abusive relationships and can't afford to break free

because of your McGuinty broken promises. Will you stop the clawback of the national child benefit and increase social assistance rates in Ontario like you promised, to help women and children

escape a life of poverty and violence?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women's issues): I will be happy in the supplementary to turn this

question over to the Minister for Community and Social Services, responsible for social services.

But let me just say that about three years ago we received a report, which I believe was started under the former government, by outside groups who created a

report called Walking on Eggshells. It spoke about the difficulty women face when they come from abusive situations and into the welfare system, and what we needed to do in order to change that.

Since that time, we have launched significant training across the government, but especially in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, so that we better understand how we need to treat

women who are coming from very dire straits. But even our funding, through our domestic violence action plan, has addressed in so many ways, across 13 different ministers who sit on this panel, to

be sure that our whole government is focused on bettering services for women when they need them and where. I think this member has to acknowledge, it is a --

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

Ms. Horwath: Back to the minister responsible for women's issues, because the poverty of children is a women's issue and the poverty of women

is a women's issue. So, Minister, notwithstanding the fact that these same women's groups say that your domestic violence action plan has been an abject failure in this province, Ontario is miles

and miles behind on this particular file. In fact, in Alberta, you may want to know, a woman leaving a violent relationship can find immediate and real financial help 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The Alberta fund covers transportation, accommodation, the setting up of a new household, food, clothing and other basic needs for women. Women receive financial help to pay for phone, legal

advice, extended health coverage for their children, even relocation costs if they have to move out of their community to escape the threat of violence.

If Ralph Klein's Alberta can get it right, why can't Dalton McGuinty's Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I am happy to turn this over to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): First all, let me say that

I appreciate this organization's commitment to help women who are in need across Ontario. I share their commitment. This government is serious about addressing the needs of Ontario's most

vulnerable. Violence against women is unacceptable. We will do what we can to help these women in situations of violence. What we have done so far, first of all, is we have raised welfare twice --

not once, but twice -- a 5% raise, and this never happened before.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Clear the west gallery.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, this government has raised the social assistance rate by 5%. Also, what we have done is we have increased

minimum wage twice already, and we will increase it a third time in 2007.

The question that was asked about the national child care benefit supplement: We are permanently flowing through the 2004, 2005 and 2006 increases. We know

there is more to do and we will continue to support those in situations of violence.

FEDERAL AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. On Friday, May 26, I met with

members of the Perth County Federation of Agriculture regarding our government's commitment to a long-term, sustainable agricultural funding formula. While we have asked for a multi-year funding

arrangement on behalf of Ontario farm groups, the federal government's $900-million budget announcement is a one-time payment. Weeks after the federal budget, we still do not know how the federal

program will work, how much it will cost, whether it will support those sectors that Ontario farm groups have said need the most support or what Ontario's share will be. Minister, can you report to

the House on your efforts to find out exactly what the federal government is doing?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the honourable member, who obviously works very hard on

behalf of the agriculture community in his riding. I will say that the day of the federal budget I spoke with the federal Minister of Agriculture and asked to meet with him, and I followed up that

request with two letters.

I'm happy to report that on Monday of this week I met with Minister Strahl. It was an opportunity for me to stress with the minister -- because we have no

details. Like members of the farm community in Ontario, like the producers I've spoken to you, I indicated to him that we're very disappointed that they did not commit to a multi-year strategy. But

I also made it very clear -- and we have no details, and he really didn't have any for me on Monday -- that Ontario is looking for its fair share of those dollars for Ontario farmers.

The second point I made with the federal minister was that we wanted those dollars to flow to farmers as quickly as possible. The third point I made was that

we wanted to --

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

Mr. Wilkinson: Minister, I'm glad to hear that you and our government are pursuing the federal government for a fair deal for Ontario's

farmers. Farmers in my riding of Perth-Middlesex need a multi-year funding arrangement in order to ensure that Ontario's agricultural sector remains productive, sustainable and strong. They'll be

disappointed to hear that we have not been able to secure a multi-year funding formula with our federal partners. We know that the federal government has yet to identify how much money is available

or how that money will be allocated.

Today, we have representatives from the farming community visiting the chamber, specifically the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. That's why it's important to

ask today, when the federal government clearly outlines their plan for Ontario farmers, will the province of Ontario participate?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: We were very happy to see the members of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association here. I was able to be at the reception and

happy to see so many members of this Legislature there.

I want to say to the people of Ontario, with respect to the announcement that was made by the federal government, we are committed to participating in the

program, but we want to make sure that the dollars that are coming to our farmers in Ontario -- that we're getting our fair share, that it's going to be distributed in a timely way and that it's

going to address all of the complex needs that there are in that industry. In fact, I offered to the federal minister that we would be prepared to share with him any of the resources we have to

assist them in making sure the dollars they've committed get to farmers in a timely way.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, as you know, Caledonia and the Six Nations have

experienced traffic chaos over the last 100 days. The former Minister of Transportation was AWOL, so to speak, on this issue, unable to communicate what the Ministry of Transportation was doing to

properly route traffic in and around Caledonia and the Six Nations.

Now, due to the McGuinty government's absence of communications, there is rampant speculation about the barricades: When they are coming down, what was offered

to get Argyle Street opened and whether Argyle Street could be re-blocked, as we've seen in past weeks.

Minister, my question is quite simple: What progress, if any, has been made to facilitate the movement of traffic on Highway 6 north from Caledonia to

destinations south of Caledonia on Lake Erie's shoreline?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): Thank you very much for the question. To the honourable member, it's my understanding --

and I may in fact refer part of this question to the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs -- that the Ontario Provincial Police are involved in re-routing traffic on Highway 6 and have that

situation under control.

If there are additional requests you were looking at, maybe you could give me some other information and I could follow through with you later. But it is my

understanding that the Ontario Provincial Police have the situation under control and that the detour route is Highway 6.

The Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Minister, it's my understanding that you've made no progress. The OPP is rerouting traffic off

Highway 6 and through downtown Caledonia. I can attest that that's a disaster.

I quote from an e-mail: "The traffic situation in Caledonia is increasingly intolerable, likely due to the large number of vehicles coming through town instead

of using the bypass."

Another reads: "With Argyle open and the bypass closed you now have all traffic routed through town, which is causing unbelievable traffic jams... It is

actually worse for us now that only one barricade is down." Minister, you would know this if you would come down to Caledonia -- or the previous minister or any of your colleagues.

My question: Minister, will you finally be straight with people in Caledonia? Specifically, will you provide us with an update on the negotiations to open up

that provincial Highway 6 bypass?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I'd refer the question to the minister of aboriginal affairs.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): Tomorrow, the long-term working group with

Barbara McDougall and Jane Stewart reconvene with Grand Chief Allen McNaughton. We now see that there's a transition from the short-term discussion to the long-term table because it has been very

apparent, as I've said, as of the last few days that the federal government now has the tools of land claim resolution that we think it's going to take to even solve the short-term solution here.

That is going on tomorrow. Those discussions now are merging at that table. We're hoping for a very positive outcome.

HEPATITIS C

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, the government of Ontario recently paid for ads on

hepatitis C that appeared in subway stations and on bus shelters. They read, "Share your works and you could share hepatitis C and HIV." "Share your straw and you could share hepatitis C." "Share

your steroids and you could share hepatitis C." Two of the other ads featured individuals who got hepatitis C from a tattoo and the other from drug use.

There were no ads reflecting the tragic reality that thousands of Ontarians got hepatitis C -- through no fault of their own -- through tainted blood. The

clear impression left was that those who have hepatitis C or those who get it, get it because they use drugs, tattoos or share needles.

Minister, can you tell this House who authorized the ads, and why did they reflect so badly on victims of hepatitis C?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): There's a very different perspective than the one offered by the honourable

member with respect to the issue of finding all of those in our society who have acquired hepatitis C by any means.

The work that was done by the previous government on hepatitis C was found by hepatitis C advocates themselves to have left those who are street-involved and

the like outside of the scope of trying to find them, with a view towards getting them tested, enhance their treatment and pay them any resource that is appropriate. This was a recommendation that

came to our government from the hepatitis C task force which I struck, which has been chaired by John Playter.

I'm the one who authorized them. I'm very, very proud of them because, for once, as relates to hepatitis C, we're seeking to address the reality that many of

those, street-involved and others, are in need of all of the help that the health care system can provide. Many people -- advocates for hepatitis C sufferers -- on the front lines felt like they

had not been captured in earlier efforts. Accordingly, I accepted their advice and am proud to stand by these ads.

Ms. Martel: If I might, the first individual who brought his concern to me about these ads was Mr. Ernie Zivny from Sudbury, who is a

hepatitis C victim from tainted blood, who sits on a subcommittee of the hepatitis C task force. It's very clear that these ads were not shared with all the members of the committee or the

subcommittee.

Let me give you another note from someone else who wrote to me about this, who said: "Can you please view these posters that the government of Ontario are

using depicting hepatitis C as only a drug virus, that you can only contact hepatitis C through drugs or tattoos.... Why are they showing this? Why are they not showing where it first came from --

tainted blood transfusions? Are we being depicted as drug users so we do not get the public support for compensation or for anything? We are laced with the stigma as a result of these posters. Even

my own daughters asked me if I was a past drug user and if this is how I got my hepatitis C."

Minister, these ads undermine people who got hepatitis C through the tainted blood system. Why did you authorize this?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member, with the rationale she advances, seeks of us to operate with amnesia, as if the broad, widespread

knowledge does not exist from the actions, as an example, of the Krever commission with respect to the circumstances associated with how many Canadians were the recipients of tainted blood product.

This is extraordinarily well known and has been very proactively addressed.

We continue to have 60 people a month who make application to the Ontario fund for additional resources. But from all the advice that came along when all those

hepatitis C groups were put together, those who were involved with hepatitis C sufferers on the front lines, people who were experienced with respect to marginalized populations, said that

hepatitis C strategic planning in Ontario had not included those. There's a tremendous risk of enhanced infection related to those populations because they have not been tested and are not

necessarily aware of their status. Accordingly, it is an appropriate public health response, in the circumstance, to move forward. But our sympathy is with all of those, no matter how they

contracted --

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

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a question for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Recently, at the Art in the Park festival

in Windsor, the public health unit inspected the food to be served at the event and subsequently destroyed one of the vendors' products. I know that safety is very important, but this group has

been preparing sandwiches for this event for 20 years without incident.

It seems to me that the health unit acted very aggressively without proper cause. Please tell me that the actions of this particular public health unit are not

the norm and that we are not putting undue pressure on organizations that wish to sell food to raise funds for charity.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to say to the women who were working as Friends of Willistead that

today on radio in Windsor I indicated that I'm going to make a personal contribution to support the work they've been doing, in recognition that across Ontario community comes together, and one of

the things they often come together around is the idea that everybody brings a little something, that there is a contribution of community resource for a wide variety of community fundraising

events. I've characterized as offensive, and in a variety of other ways, the circumstances related to the actions of that health unit, and I stand by those remarks.

We have had a regulation on the books since 1990. Health units have chosen to move forward with various forms of enforcement. I want to let members know that

cabinet has approved an alteration to the regulation, and a communication will be coming forward as that goes into effect on June 15. At the heart of it, public health units will not be spending

their time enforcing the idea of the risks of egg salad sandwiches, but rather helping people to be better informed --

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

Mr. Hoy: It's indeed good to hear that the unique needs of community events are being recognized and that this inappropriate behaviour will

cease.

Public health units, however, play an important role in our communities, and their talents should be put to better use. If public health units are no longer

investigating church suppers and community events, does this mean they will have no involvement in the food being prepared there, and will the public lose out as a result of this?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Obviously our public health units are taking seriously the responsibilities associated with the problems that food can

present -- a little too seriously, I think we would all agree, or far too seriously in the case of the circumstances that are before us.

With respect to farmers' markets, we will exempt farmers' markets from the regulation that had public health officials treating them the same as restaurants

and grocery stores. As relates to church suppers, we're going to adopt the policies that have been used on wild game suppers, which is to give advice to all the people who are there that the food

has not been inspected, and that the notion of the awareness we have of risks with consuming a variety of products -- the common sense associated with that, developed over a period of decades --

ought to suffice.

We will move the energy of public health units to proactive communication -- to assisting people in highlighting risks -- and seriously curtail enforcement

activities that undermine the work of our public health units.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): In the absence of the Premier, I will ask the Acting Premier if he would stand in his place and apologize to the

people of Caledonia, Six Nations and area for the bizarre and insensitive remarks of the Premier yesterday that the 99 days of Caledonia have proceeded without incident?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Quite the contrary. I have the privilege today of standing, proud to support

all the remarks of our Premier on this issue. We represent a government that takes a decidedly different approach than you do. We have witnessed from a variety of members opposite, and most

especially the local member, a desire to send in the police, to get involved in the actual operational nature of police service. Rather, we continue to support the leadership of our colleague the

minister of aboriginal affairs, who has dedicated himself, over a long period of time, to resolving this in a fashion that at the heart of it preserves our belief in human beings. This is our goal,

and this is how we will continue to put all of our energy forward.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature that reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over

the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

It's signed by 518 people who are supporters of the Chateau Gardens long-term-care centre in Elmira. Of course, this petition has my support, and I've affixed

my signature as well.

AUTISM SERVICES

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions sent to me by Michelle Dewar of Ottawa, and they read as follows:

"Whereas the incidence of autism spectrum disorders has dramatically increased in recent years and Ontario's schools lack the required resources to

accommodate this growing number of pupils; and

"Whereas children with ASDs are capable of academic success when they have appropriate support; and

"Whereas under the Education Act of Ontario, children with ASDs are legally entitled to receive appropriate special education programs and services; and

"Whereas many ASD pupils are denied their education rights and are suffering academically, socially and emotionally because of a lack of resources available to

assist them with their disability-related needs; and

"Whereas the resources required to accommodate ASD pupils may include (but are not limited to) educational assessments; educational assistants; specialized

personnel such as behavioural therapists, speech and language pathologists, and occupational therapists; specialized programs and curriculum (including social skills and life skills); transitional

programs; and assistive technology;

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

"

(1) Increase funding for special education, and ensure that this funding reaches ASD pupils to meet their disability-related learning needs;

"

(2) Develop educational best practices and pilot projects for educating children with ASDs so that every student with ASD across Ontario has access to the

best possible programs and services."

I agree with the petitioners, and I have affixed my signature to this.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, sent to me by a number of members of the Canadian

Auto Workers in Brampton, and I thank them for that. It reads as follows:

"Whereas more than 260,000 Ontarians make their living and support their families through their careers in the auto industry in Ontario, which has become the

pre-eminent manufacturer of motor vehicles in North America; and

"Whereas Canada imports more than 130,000 vehicles annually from the Republic of Korea, which imports virtually no vehicles or parts from Canada and does none

of its manufacturing or assembly in Ontario or in any other Canadian jurisdiction, even though Canadian auto workers make the best-quality, most cost-effective vehicles in the world; and

imbalance in the auto sector, and includes no measures to require Korea to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to Canadian-made vehicles, auto parts and other value-added services or

components;

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

agreement contingent on fair and equal access by each country to the other's domestic markets in manufactured products such as motor vehicles and in value-added services, and ensure that Korea

commits to manufacturing vehicles in Canada if Korea proposes to continue to sell vehicles in Canada."

It makes perfect sense. I support it, I'll sign it and I'll ask page Hartford to carry it.

FISH STOCKING PROGRAM

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources' provincial fish hatchery program annually stocks over 10 million fish into over 1,200 water bodies within the

province of Ontario; and

"Whereas provincial fish hatcheries contain unique genetic strains of indigenous fish species; and

"Whereas recreational fishing is a multi-billion dollar industry and a huge contributor to tourism and the economy throughout the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the world-class Great Lakes salmon fishery, as well as many local fisheries throughout the province, are dependent on the Ministry of Natural

Resources' fish stocking program;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario and the Minister of Natural Resources to refrain from any

cutbacks or cancellations to this provincially significant program."

I affix my name in full support.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's been sent to me from Larch Street Kids, a great daycare in Sudbury. It reads as

follows:

"Whereas hard-working Ontario families need affordable, accessible, licensed and regulated quality child care for their young children;

"Whereas child care is under threat in Ontario with the possible cancellation of funding agreements with the provinces for child care by the federal

Conservative government under Stephen Harper and the failure of the McGuinty Liberal government to put the additional provincial investments into child care, as promised in the 2003 Ontario

election campaign;

"Whereas Ontario needs a strong, made-in-Ontario, not-for-profit child care system with or without federal dollars;

"Whereas the province of Quebec is much more able to provide and preserve child care in the face of cancelled federal funding because it has a significant,

strong and sustained base of provincial government funding;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to immediately begin investing the $300 million to create child care spaces for 330,000

children as promised in the 2003 election campaign."

I agree with the petitioners and I have affixed my signature to this.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for York West -- the member for Davenport. The member for York West wasn't standing.

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): I'm going to give that to the member from Davenport.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Davenport.

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, I would gladly give him my time, but the member is giving it to me. Thank you very much.

I keep getting a petition about the dilapidated bridge on St. Clair Avenue West. The petition is addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and the minister of

infrastructure services. It reads as follows:

"Whereas GO Transit is presently planning to tunnel an area just south of St. Clair Avenue West and west of Old Weston Road, making it easier for GO trains to

pass a major rail crossing;

"Whereas TTC is presently planning a TTC right-of-way along all of St. Clair Avenue West, including the bottleneck caused by the dilapidated St. Clair Avenue

... bridge;

"Whereas this bridge ... will be: (1) too narrow for the planned TTC right-of-way, since it will leave only one lane for traffic; (2) it is not safe for

pedestrians.... It's dark and slopes on both east and west sides creating high banks for 300 metres; and (3) it creates a divide, a no man's land, between Old Weston Road and Keele Street. (This

was acceptable when the area consisted entirely of slaughterhouses, but now the area has 900 new homes);

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that GO Transit extend the tunnel beyond St. Clair Avenue West so that trains will pass under St. Clair Avenue West,

thus eliminating this eyesore of a bridge with its high banks and blank walls. Instead it will create a dynamic, revitalized community enhanced by a beautiful continuous cityscape with easy traffic

flow."

Since I agree with this petition, I'm delighted to sign my name to it.

HIGHWAY 26

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

"Whereas the redevelopment of Highway 26 was approved by MPP Jim Wilson and the previous PC government in 2000; and

"Whereas a number of horrific fatalities and accidents have occurred on the old stretch of Highway 26; and

"Whereas the redevelopment of Highway 26 is critical to economic development and job creation in Simcoe-Grey;

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

"That the Liberal government stop the delay of the Highway 26 redevelopment and act immediately to ensure that the project is finished on schedule, to improve

safety for area residents and provide economic development opportunities and job creation in Simcoe-Grey."

Of course I agree with that petition and I've signed it.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I have a petition from the auto workers from Brampton. It says:

"Whereas more than 260,000 Ontarians make their living and support their families through their careers in the auto industry in Ontario, which has become the

pre-eminent manufacturer of motor vehicles in North America; and

"Whereas Canada imports more than 130,000 vehicles annually from the Republic of Korea, which imports virtually no vehicles or parts from Canada and does none

of its manufacturing or assembly in Ontario or in any other Canadian jurisdiction, even though Canadian auto workers make the best-quality, most cost-effective vehicles in the world; and

imbalance in the auto sector, and includes no measures to require Korea to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to Canadian-made vehicles, auto parts and other value-added services or

components;

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

agreement contingent on fair and equal access by each country to the other's domestic markets in manufactured products such as motor vehicles and in value-added services, and ensure that Korea

commits to manufacturing vehicles in Canada if Korea proposes to continue to sell vehicles in Canada."

I agree with the auto workers and I put my signature on it as well.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

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

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

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

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

government-operated services and other sectors;

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

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

live meaningful lives within their community."

I'm pleased to sign this petition and support it, and I present it to Nolan.

CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions that have been sent to me by David Lepage of Northridge Savings and Credit Union Ltd. in

Sudbury and they read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is an urgent need to amend the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994; and

"Whereas the 2004 budget acknowledged that Ontario's laws need to ensure an environment that enables credit unions to take advantage of strategies to

strengthen their national presence and to take account of changes made by other jurisdictions; and

"Whereas the government committed in the 2004 budget to review the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994, with an intent to introduce amendments to

this act and others as necessary by the ending of fiscal 2005-06 or earlier, if needed; and

"Whereas Ontario's credit union and caisses populaires system provides essential financial services and advice to approximately 1.6 million people in the

province and operate in about 40 communities where they are the only financial institution; and

"Whereas insurance professionals are competing directly with credit unions and caisses populaires on wealth management and personal loans;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario immediately fulfill its budget commitment and amend the Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994, to provide credit unions

with:

(a) "A level playing field with other Canadian jurisdictions, such as British Columbia and Quebec, by allowing Ontario credit unions to enter the business of

selling insurance;

(b) "A level playing field with federally regulated financial institutions to allow credit unions and caisses populaires to own part or all of an insurance

brokerage as a subsidiary;

(c) "A level playing field with the insurance industry by allowing fully licensed and accredited insurance retail professionals who are separate and distinct

from other credit union staff to retail insurance on behalf of a credit union;" and

(d) "An amended act that provides the necessary flexibility and provides the credit union and caisses populaires system with the necessary tools to compete in

the constantly changing financial services marketplace."

I have affixed my signature to this. I agree with the petitioners.

LABOUR UNIONS

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

follows:

"Whereas the rights of workers should always play an important role in the workplace;

"Whereas labour unions help promote and foster workers' rights and ensure that they get the best possible benefits when it comes to the work they do;

"Whereas the McGuinty government has always been a champion for the worker and continues to promote workers' rights through other means by increasing the

minimum wage and amending the Employment Standards Act to allow for a more harmonious and just working environment for workers;

"We, the undersigned, support these efforts and encourage the McGuinty government to continue on the course of its revolutionary initiatives to enhance

workers' rights and encourage the McGuinty government to make it easier for workers in other sectors of the economy to unionize."

I support this petition, affix my signature to it, and give it to page Gregory, who is with me here today.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I want to thank Dr. R.W. Banting of Niagara Falls for sending me this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

of the Ontario Historical Society; and

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

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

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

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

come."

I agree with that petition and have signed it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA GESTION

DES SITUATIONS D'URGENCE

Mr. Kwinter moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Emergency Management Act, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi

56, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la gestion des situations d'urgence, la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi et la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les

accidents du travail.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Kwinter, the floor is yours.

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant for

community safety, the member --

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe a quorum may not be present.

The Deputy Speaker: Can we check for quorum?

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? Mr. Kwinter.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to start again just so that we make sure everybody understands that I'll be sharing my

time with the parliamentary assistant for community safety, the member from Scarborough-Rouge River.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 56, the Emergency Management Statute Law Amendment Act, legislation that, if passed, would make Ontario

even safer for its residents.

It is important, as we review this legislation, to remember that Ontario is the only province in Canada that doesn't have emergency powers legislation, and

that leaves us vulnerable. Let me begin by saying that the McGuinty government is on the side of Ontario families concerned about crime and safety. That's why Bill 56 is an important step in our

efforts to provide a strategy for emergency powers and improve the safety of everyone in the province.

Bill 56 would make Ontario's legislation more consistent with modern emergency powers legislation in other provinces and other jurisdictions worldwide. If

passed, this bill would provide the effective emergency powers necessary for quick action to protect Ontarians in case of an emergency. In addressing this need, we are creating opportunities for

stronger and safer communities and a stronger economy.

How we view safety, how we respond to emergencies and how we safeguard our prosperity must change to meet new challenges.

In an ideal world there wouldn't be a need for this legislation. Unfortunately, as everyone now knows all too well, the world as we know it is far from ideal.

The tragic events of 9/11, SARS and the power outage in 2003 clearly demonstrated the need for a review of provincial emergency powers legislation. We need this bill because we must be prepared for

emergencies no matter what their origin.

SARS presented us with a new and unknown threat. One of the most important lessons learned from it was that the challenge is not in planning for the knowable

but in planning for the unknowable. The people of Ontario deserve effective measures that will allow their government to best protect them during emergencies, and they deserve to have those

measures as soon as possible.

Bill 56, if passed, would give government officials the authority to make tough decisions quickly and in the best interests of the people, with the knowledge

that legislation exists to support them. The question isn't whether the province is ready for an emergency; it's whether or not it has the tools it needs to ensure that it can act quickly and

effectively when an emergency occurs.

With the passage of this emergency powers bill, we would put in motion the reforms needed to provide a comprehensive strategy for emergency powers. The

government's current emergency response powers and responsibilities are set out in the Emergency Management Act passed by this House in 2003. That act is designed primarily to ensure that

appropriate municipal and provincial infrastructures are in place to deal with a local or provincial emergency. It ensures that communities and provincial ministries have emergency programs and

plans in place, and that they are tested and updated regularly. It also authorizes cabinet to assign planning responsibilities to ministers. The 2003 act was a good first step, but it doesn't go

far enough to protect Ontarians in the case of emergencies.

Bill 56 is a fair and equitable bill that would protect the citizens of Ontario while ensuring the government is held accountable for its actions.

Ontario is Canada's economic engine. It drives the national economy and is home to a significant segment of the Canadian population. We are also on the border

with the United States and have to protect our interests in that area as well.

We have taken the lessons learned from the committee that drafted Bill 138, the predecessor to Bill 56. Many of the details in this bill have been carried over

from the previous Bill 138, which was drafted by an all-party committee of this House and introduced on November 1, 2004, by the Chair of that committee. But we have also incorporated a number of

improvements to ensure that Bill 56 strikes the right balance between government protection of Ontario and the civil rights of all of its citizens.

By introducing Bill 56, the McGuinty government has taken a giant step forward in protecting Ontarians. The bill would be used only during defined provincial

emergencies and would not relate to everyday occurrences in the province. Provincial emergencies by definition are not, nor should they be, dealt with through statutes designed to address normal

situations. The tools that Bill 56 would give us are the tools we may need in order to save lives when other measures are unavailable or inadequate.

If passed, these emergency powers would allow the Premier and cabinet to make emergency orders that would promote the public good by protecting the health,

safety and welfare of the people of Ontario in a manner that respects the rights of individuals.

Every emergency situation needs to be managed. Bill 56 would give the government the authority and the tools it needs to effectively manage provincially

declared emergencies. Those tools -- the emergency orders in the bill -- are ones that we hope we never have to use.

Even legislation designed to deal with events such as environmental spills deals with situations that can be reasonably anticipated. Such legislation does not

really address the catastrophic event that would call for a provincial emergency to be declared. It is the nature of an emergency that no one can plan for all eventualities or anticipate all

possible scenarios or individual issues that may arise. Another reason for considering general powers rather than changing existing legislation is that powers in existing legislation may not go far

enough to cover the emergency situation at hand.

This bill contains comprehensive powers that balance the need to protect Ontarians from the effects of potential emergencies with the need to maintain

accountability for the government calling upon those powers when necessary. For example, we have the ability to establish facilities, to construct works and to procure goods. In order to do many of

these things under existing legislation, we need to follow sets of rules that, in many cases, are very onerous and would not be practical in an emergency. Existing legislation is simply not

designed for the quick response needed in an emergency. Clarifying the powers available to emergency officials in advance and having them in a single document would help them carry out their

functions quickly and with assurance in an emergency.

Bill 56, if passed, would improve the province's ability to act quickly, decisively and in the best interests of the public. We have said all along that if

passed, Bill 56 would make the government accountable for its decisions and would ensure transparency in its handling of emergencies. There are stringent requirements the government must follow.

The bill would require the government to report to the public during an emergency. It also would require that the Premier table a report in this House within 120 days after the termination of a

provincial emergency. That report would have to specifically address any emergency orders made and provide justification for those orders.

This House would have an important role under the bill. The bill provides that this assembly may disallow a cabinet declaration of emergency. Further, only the

assembly could continue a declaration of emergency beyond the time limits set out in the bill.

Bill 56 would make the government accountable for its actions prior to, during and after an emergency. Accountability and transparency are the necessary

complements to the exercise of emergency powers. We are all accountable for our actions.

Accountability is paramount in Bill 56. The powers listed in Bill 56 have been well considered and have appropriate checks and balances in place. This is a

balanced bill that offers similar protective measures to those in other jurisdictions. Since the legislation was introduced last December, we have met with many stakeholders, including the Ontario

Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Ontario Nurses' Association, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario and the Coalition of Family Physicians. We have heard

their views, and, as a result, we have clarified a number of sections in order to make Bill 56 easier to understand and use.

For example, some concerns have been raised about the duration of a leave of absence that may be available in a declared emergency. The proposed amendments

clarify that the duration of the leave can be extended by regulations made under the Employment Standards Act. In addition, amendments are made to ensure that the timing of the leave of absence is

consistent with the timing of emergency orders, whether they be extended or made retroactively. This amendment clarifies the job protection scheme.

There are a number of similar changes we have incorporated to alleviate the concerns of various stakeholders. Again, an important point to remember is that the

point of this legislation would be to give the government certain powers to respond to a provincially declared emergency. The point is not to punish people. Let me be clear about what the proposed

legislation would not do. It would not force any worker, health care or otherwise, to work if they chose not to. Bill 56 would not compel physicians to treat patients during an emergency, nor would

it give the province the power to conscript workers. Far from it. In fact, the last thing we want to do is to make it more difficult for health care workers to do their jobs in an emergency.

What the legislation would do, if passed, is to authorize reasonably qualified persons to provide services where willing, and that is the key: where willing.

It does not compel service; it allows service. For example, it would enable Ontario to reach out to Manitoba, Quebec or other jurisdictions to send us qualified physicians to help the province deal

with an emergency for the duration of that emergency only. That is not conscription; that's co-operation. It would also permit licensed drivers to operate vehicles such as a full-sized bus, even if

they were only licensed to operate an ambulance or a small bus. Again, other provinces, including Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Saskatchewan, all have

these types of powers.

The bill would permit the government, if necessary, to close public or private places where large numbers of people routinely gather; for example, closing all

public beaches and parks, or shutting down businesses or schools situated close to an emergency site. If a mass evacuation of one community became necessary, the powers of Bill 56 could be used to

establish an emergency shelter at, for example, a community college gym in another community. Alberta, BC, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have this

authority; Ontario does not.

Orders under Bill 56, if passed, could be used to prevent people from entering or passing through a specified geographic area. Orders could prohibit vehicular

and pedestrian traffic on a given highway within a specified distance from a particular facility. This would be particularly useful in the case of a nuclear emergency, for example. Again, in this

regard, Ontario's current legislation lags behind the federal government, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.

This is one of the reasons why Bill 56 is so important. It is our hope that, should an emergency occur, everyone affected will do their best to minimize the

impact of the emergency and allow the proper authorities to deal with the emergency as best they can.

We need to learn from our past experiences and be even more prepared for the next time, because you can be sure there will be a next time. Bill 56 confirms our

commitment to work in partnership with our stakeholders to manage emergency situations in a timely manner. It's an important part of our vision for the future.

Through the efforts of each one of us, we will rise to the challenge. It's no exaggeration to say that what is at stake is the safety and well-being of our

families, our friends, our communities, even the world. Our future depends on how well we do as a society to address those threats, seize the opportunities we have, and prepare for and respond to

emergencies, regardless of their source, whenever and wherever they occur. Clearly, we all share the same goal: to ensure the safety and well-being of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough-Rouge River): I want to thank the minister for sharing his time and allowing me to contribute to the debate on

Bill 56.

As the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services said earlier, Bill 56 is a valuable piece of legislation and deserves all-party support in this

House. Bill 56 is all about making Ontario an even safer place to live and work. If we're going to protect the interests of the people of this province, Ontario must catch up to the rest of Canada

in its ability to respond to emergencies.

It is important to remember that the point of Bill 56 is to give the government certain powers to respond to a provincially declared emergency. As the minister

stated, the government's current emergency response powers and responsibilities set out in the Emergency Management Act don't give the government officials the authority to make tough decisions

quickly in the best interests of the people as a whole. That act is designed primarily to ensure that the appropriate municipal and provincial infrastructures are in place to deal with a local or

provincial emergency. It ensures that communities and provincial ministries have emergency programs and plans in place and that they are tested and updated regularly.

But that isn't enough to protect Ontarians in their time of greatest need.

Before I review the bill in greater detail, I would like to remind the House of the other measures the McGuinty government has taken to protect the citizens of

Ontario and support our emergency workers.

In August 2005, we launched the Safer Communities-1,000 Officers partnership program to help police services across the province hire 1,000 additional

officers, with funding of $37.1 million. We accelerated the program so that if police services choose to hire their full allocation, all 1,000 new officers will be trained by the end of this year

-- one year ahead of schedule. As well, we extended the funding for the previous government's 1,023 officers program to make it permanent. That means we will be providing $68 million in funding

each year for more than 2,000 police officers, in perpetuity.

In March 2005, we announced the Ontario fire service training program grant. This $30-million initiative provided funding for fire services across Ontario, to

assist them in meeting training needs and, where appropriate, to purchase equipment. The funding will further the cause of emergency management. It will ensure that firefighters have the training

and tools they need to do their job and help minimize the risk of personal harm. No previous government has ever given fire services $30 million for equipment and training.

That's just the beginning. Today, our government has taken the next step to achieve a safer, stronger and more prosperous Ontario. Bill 56, if passed, will

enable Ontario to catch up to other jurisdictions in Canada when it comes to protecting its citizens and responding to emergencies. I would like to take a few minutes to review in greater detail a

number of important aspects of the bill.

First, under the proposed legislation, cabinet or the Premier could declare a provincial emergency if the resources normally available to government were

insufficient to respond adequately to a crisis. This declaration would last for only 14 days unless renewed by cabinet for a further 14-day period. Under Bill 56, cabinet would have the power to

make emergency orders. However, cabinet may delegate the power to a minister or to the commissioner of emergency management. Orders made by the commissioner would only last for two days unless

confirmed before then. Failure to comply with an emergency order or interfering with a person acting under an emergency order would lead to fines of up to $10 million for corporations, half a

million for corporate directors and officers and $100,000 for others. We need these strong deterrents to assist our emergency workers to do the crucial work, and these penalties will apply to those

who refuse to comply with emergency orders.

Bill 56 will provide authority to the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make emergency orders, including restricting travel or ordering evacuations;

establishing facilities, such as emergency shelters or hospitals; and quickly purchasing and distributing much-needed supplies such as water, food or medicine.

Bill 56 would widen job protection for people who are unable to work due to a declared emergency. The bill will also require the government to report to the

public during an emergency, and it would require the Premier to table a report in the House within 120 days after determination of an emergency.

With Bill 56, the Emergency Management Statute Law Amendment Act, we are putting in motion the reforms needed to provide a comprehensive strategy for emergency

powers. Bill 56, however, is not the McGuinty government's only initiative in the area of emergency preparedness. Under the Emergency Management Act, every Ontario municipality was required to have

an emergency response plan and have it filed with the emergency management office by the end of last year. I'm proud to say that every Ontarian lives in a community where such a plan exists. A

majority of communities have achieved what is referred to in the emergency planning business as the essential level and many are well on their way to achieving the enhanced level of

preparedness.

But it does not stop there. Last July, the Premier, after consultation with key government officials, mandated that all provincial ministries develop business

continuity plans by December 31, 2005. I'm pleased to point out that every ministry in the government met the deadline. In fact, some ministries already exceeded the minimum requirements. This

year, ministries will inform all Ontario government employees of the plan, and they will practise them to ensure they are complete, effective and understandable. In this way, should an emergency

occur, whether it be natural, human caused or even

an act of terrorism, the government will be well-positioned to continue to provide citizens with continuity of services. This is something the

people expect and something they deserve.

In addition, Emergency Management Ontario developed and conducted Exercise Darlington 2005. It was a full-scale nuclear exercise involving hundreds of

participants from Durham, Toronto, Peterborough, Ontario Power Generation, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada and many provincial ministries, as

well as the Commissioner of Emergency Management.

Emergency Management Ontario also developed and conducted Exercise Influenza Pandemic 2006, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. This

exercise involved 365 municipal, First Nations, federal, provincial, health NGO and private sector stakeholders.

Last month, Emergency Management Ontario participated