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

October 25, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Oct-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 25 October 2006 Mercredi 25 octobre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO EXPO 2015

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

LONG-TERM CARE

MARIANNE'S PLACE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

REPORT, OFFICE OF THE

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

CHILD CARE

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

VISITORS

WEARING OF RIBBONS

REPORT, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

VISITORS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

HEALTH CARE

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

WATER QUALITY

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

WATER QUALITY

RENEWABLE ENERGY

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

HEALTH PROMOTION

VISITORS

ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE QUILT

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 26

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

PROPERTY RIGHTS

LONG-TERM CARE

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

LANDFILL

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

LONG-TERM CARE

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGULATORY

MODERNIZATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO EXPO 2015

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): We know the McGuinty Liberal government has broken faith with the people of Ontario, that they will say anything to get elected, that they have broken at

least 50 of their election promises and that they have no plan for the province. Since the House resumed this fall, their answers in question period repeatedly contradict the truth, and they are entirely abdicating provincial leadership by blaming

the federal government for all of their shortcomings.

But surely they will recognize the definite economic benefits that Expo 2015 would bring to the entire province if Toronto's bid meets with success, and surely they will work co-operatively with the city of

Toronto and the federal government instead of pointing a finger of blame, which will only cause the bid to lose momentum.

According to today's press, Toronto Expo 2015 would generate 143,000 jobs in the city and $13.5 billion in economic activity across the country. As the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey said, "The world's

fair would be a huge boost for the city." Not only that, but hundreds of thousands of people coming to Toronto could be encouraged to visit attractions and communities across the entire province, like Elora, St. Jacobs, Glen Williams, Norval and

countless other places to see and to experience.

Obviously, the taxpayers' interests must be guaranteed and all public projects need to be kept within a tightly controlled budget, but let them set aside their partisan differences, prioritize this challenge,

share the responsibility and work together to send the strongest possible bid for Toronto Expo 2015. Let us recognize that the 21st century belongs to Canada, and let us show our best to the world.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to tell you and my colleagues all the good things that are happening in and around the riding of Essex.

Family health teams are going to be established in Amherstburg, Harrow and neighbouring Leamington; stand-alone angioplasty in Windsor to serve our residents; over $8 million in new funding to expand home and

community care in Windsor-Essex; a new satellite medical school at the University of Windsor with 14 additional spaces announced this year; soon a satellite dialysis clinic at Leamington District Memorial Hospital.

In education there is a moratorium on school closures; Harrow high school still open and going strong; over $600,000 to help keep good schools open; $200,000 for Harrow high school in the Lighthouse program;

record investment in school boards in the riding, including millions for infrastructure, and two new schools as well.

Speaking of infrastructure, there is an $80-million announcement for four-laning the Highway 3 bypass, something I worked on for 13 years; six-laning Highway 401; $8.8 million for local municipalities for

transportation infrastructure; and over $14.5 million in funding for municipal infrastructure projects.

The member for Beaches-East York said I needed bolstering down there. Thank you very much, sir; I'm doing well on my own.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): I am pleased to stand in this Legislature today and congratulate my city, the city of Ottawa, for coming to the rescue of the McGuinty Liberals and providing

some more long-term-care beds.

Just last night in this chamber, I stood and spoke to Bill 140 and the lack of adequate long-term-care beds in my city. I pointed out how rushed and inadequate this new Liberal bill was and how many more broken

promises it failed to remedy.

When I brought this issue to the attention of the minister in the Legislature, I was hoping that he would be working on this problem for the people of Ottawa. It turns out that instead the city of Ottawa is

coming to the rescue. As pointed out in the Ottawa Citizen on October 14, the lack of long-term-care beds in Ottawa "has led to cancelled surgeries, crowded emergency rooms and longer wait times for key procedures." The capital region is short 850

long-term-care beds. That is enough beds to fill a community hospital.

I am pleased to point out that the city of Ottawa will be opening up one bed at Carleton Lodge in my riding immediately and five beds at the Peter D. Clark home over the next three weeks. Six beds is a start,

but the problem is far from solved.

If the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care had a real, concrete plan, the city would not have to squeeze a few beds from its already taxed system in order to bail them out. One has to wonder if this is the

same approach that the Minister of Health will depend on to solve other health care problems in Ottawa and around the province.

If the minister is waiting for municipalities to bail his government out, then he should be honest about it instead of hiding behind rhetoric and blaming parliamentary ghosts from years past with this

ineffective legislation.

MARIANNE'S PLACE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): The McGuinty government is neglecting the situation in Guelph-Wellington, which is causing a tragic situation to unfold at Marianne's Place, a shelter for

abused women and children escaping violence in the home. This shelter is run by Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis, which is funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It could close this very weekend.

Last night, shelter workers represented by CUPE rallied to draw attention to the plight of women and children who rely on Marianne's Place as their lifeline. Workers are fighting valiantly to maintain the

collective agreement they currently have, but management wants to ignore their workplace safety concerns, cut bereavement leave and force concessions on wages and other issues. The board is threatening to close the shelter if the workers go on

strike, which they have the right to do as of this Friday at midnight.

Why is the McGuinty government turning a blind eye to this potentially perilous situation? If the shelter closes, what happens to the women and children, and the tangible help and expert counselling they receive

from CUPE workers? I shudder to think. Workers do not want to go on strike. Their union has tried everything within its power to come to a resolution. The McGuinty government has a role to play in ensuring that this urgent labour dispute is

settled by tomorrow so that Guelph-Wellington women, kids and shelter workers remain safe and secure.

I call on the McGuinty government to show leadership that will keep Marianne's Place open. Do what needs to be done so that the workers can continue to provide services to women and children fleeing violent

homes -- services that are desperately needed in Guelph-Wellington and, unfortunately, across this province.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I rise today to inform this House of the progress and current status of both the Brampton Civic Hospital and the Peel Memorial Hospital. Last Friday,

Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman and his parliamentary assistant, Dr. Kular, visited the site of our new hospital, scheduled to open in the fall of 2007, to announce funding for equipment and furnishings for the Brampton Civic

Hospital.

This timely announcement of $18.9 million will be used to help our hospital purchase such items as medical imaging equipment, lamps and articulating arms for the emergency room, in addition to things like

sterilizers and washers needed for infection control.

I was therefore disturbed to read reports in my local paper in which the leader of the official opposition idly speculated about the future of my existing hospital on Lynch Street. According to the Brampton

Guardian, Mr. Tory asked, "What happens with Peel Memorial Hospital? Is it going to be closed?" Well, let me put the fears of the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey to rest and remind him of an announcement made in October 2005: Minister

Smitherman announced the redevelopment of the Lynch Street site, with construction slated to begin in 2009-10. This capital project was one of several hospitals approved under ReNew Ontario, our five-year, $30-billion infrastructure investment

plan.

I'm proud that for the first time this province has a long-term plan for building and funding our hospitals that will bring much-needed stability and certainty to hospitals and better health care for

Ontarians.

REPORT, OFFICE OF THE

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): As the subject of the Integrity Commissioner's report released today, I want to indicate my respect for Justice Osborne and my acceptance of his

findings. However, I believe there are issues fundamental to our role as legislators that are not referenced or commented upon by Justice Osborne.

Members of this assembly have special responsibilities. From an opposition perspective, it's critically important that we have the ability to exercise oversight of government functions. Justice Osborne's

cautions seem to take issue with at least one avenue of opposition oversight without commenting on the implications. As an example, reference the plea bargain arrangement made with Karla Homolka. Had we, as legislators, known about the deal prior

to its completion, Justice Osborne's

interpretation of sub judice would restrict us from criticism. In other words, as legislators, we can't superintend until it's too late.

Perhaps the most serious issue surrounding the report is the conclusion that sub judice applies outside these chambers. He offers no support for that conclusion. Indeed, Erskine May, Montpetit and others

indicate that sub judice clearly only applies inside the House and within its committees as a restraint on members' immunity. When members leave these chambers and comment publicly, they face the possibility of lawsuits or electoral defeat.

Osborne is now saying members have less right to speak than the general public.

These are important and fundamental questions. I accept Osborne's findings, but to the extent his ruling suggests limits on the rights of legislators to exercise oversight, that I will never accept. My

conscience will be my guide.

CHILD CARE

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): Today is the sixth annual Child Care Worker and Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day. More than 120 municipalities are also marking this important

day, and we join them in saluting these hard-working professionals. Child care workers are people who every day go above and beyond to make sure children across Ontario get the support they need to learn and grow. From education assistants going

the extra mile to those working in child care centres supporting early development, child care workers are on the front lines making sure Ontario's children have a bright future. Through our Best Start plan, we've created 15,000 new child care

spaces with our municipal partners since 2004, helping to make child care more affordable for Ontarians.

Ontario is working hard to support child care workers and early childhood educators, but the Harper government's cancellation of the landmark $1.9-billion early learning and child care agreement with Ontario

also cancelled 10,000 more child care spaces. While the NDP claims to be waging an all-out battle for child care, they chose to sell out Ontario families, voting to cancel the deal as well. Clearly, Prime Minister Harper has a responsibility to

families and to hard-working child care professionals to stand up for Ontario.

On behalf of our government, let me extend a heartfelt thank you to all early childhood educators and child care workers in the province of Ontario.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I was a bit confounded when I read an

article in Saturday's Toronto Star about the official opposition's secret meetings with some of the

landowner associations in the province. I, myself, have had the opportunity to meet with many rural Ontarians. Like the rest of my party, I will continue to work with all legitimate organizations to ensure that farmers' voices are heard and their

views considered when policy is formed.

The fact that the Tories voted against clean drinking water as some sort of awkward gesture to certain groups is a strange move. Rural Ontarians are as interested in clean water as all Ontarians. At least this

explains --

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We did not vote against clean water. I'll call that a lie.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member will have to withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the member for Leeds-Grenville withdraw?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will name the member for Leeds-Grenville if he does not withdraw.

Mr. Runciman: At your direction, Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw.

The Speaker: The member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

Mr. Brownell: Okay, I shall continue.

At least this explains why John Tory didn't register his vote in the House. He obviously feels being a leader means not offending any group nor committing to any policy that benefits the whole.

The truly baffling part of this

article came in the form of a comment from the member for Oak Ridges, wherein he claims that if landowners formed their own party and put forward their own members, they would

"split the anti-government vote." This confusing gaffe has all the hallmarks of a party blowing in the wind. There is no real leadership on that side of the House.

I would suggest the members of the official opposition take a page out of our book and try to work with all Ontarians to implement sound policy, instead of spouting hollow words they think their base might want

to hear. Leadership means taking a stand on important issues. When will the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey realize this?

The Speaker: Members' statements.

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): It was revealed this weekend that on October 5, two MPPs and two of Tory's senior staff held an election-planning meeting with Ontario Landowners. We think

the Leader of the Opposition should come clean. The Landowners group has a law-breaking, inflammatory, hard right wing, Libertarian philosophy. I'm sure the good people in Don Valley West would want to know what values the Leader of the Opposition

is trading for a few extremist rural votes.

Now we know why the Tory caucus voted against the Clean Water Act. There are deals being made in the backrooms with the Ontario Landowners Association and Mr. Tory's team. The group is against clean water, safe

food and supply management. Randy Hillier thinks himself threatening the life of a cabinet minister is a joke.

I think the question people need to be asking themselves is, what else is the Leader of the Opposition cooking up behind closed doors? Are the Tories so desperate that they're willing to make an alliance with

lawbreakers who think violence is a means to an end? They threaten violence because they don't like the law of the land, and they attack police officers on duty on the front line. They're against multiculturalism, public health and equal rights

for all.

We believe there's no place in Ontario for spreading hate or endorsing people who do. We stand up for all Ontarians. We've passed the Clean Water Act. We've invested in our cities and our rural infrastructure.

We've provided support to farm families in crisis.

My parents taught me to be careful who you hang out with, because you'll be judged by the company you keep. That's advice that John Tory should be taking right now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kitchener-Waterloo, I need you to withdraw.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'll withdraw.

VISITORS

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that today in the easy lobby we have a delegation from Siracusa, Italy, led by

professore Vittorio Anastasi. I would like to welcome them here today.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wanted to introduce to the House a wonderful public school grade 5 class who are here from Queen Victoria in

Parkdale-High Park.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent of the House to wear the white ribbon representing concerned citizens against child pornography.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. O'Toole has asked for unanimous consent to wear a white ribbon representing concerned citizens against child pornography. Agreed? Agreed.

REPORT, OFFICE OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the report of the Integrity Commissioner, the Honourable Coulter A. Osborne, responding to

the request of the member for York West concerning Mr. Robert Runciman, MPP, member for Leeds-Grenville.

VISITORS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just rise to recognize Ontario's early childhood educators and child care workers on today, which is the annual

appreciation day in their honour, and to hope that we can get to a point where they are able to maintain their jobs in a very dignified fashion.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on social policy be authorized to meet at the call of

the Chair on Monday, October 30, and Tuesday, October 31, 2006, for the purpose of considering Bill 50,

An Act respecting the regulation of the profession of traditional Chinese medicine, and making complementary amendments to certain Acts.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to

9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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 five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1352 to 1357.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

DiNovo, Cheri

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Tabuns, Peter

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 54; the nays are 8.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Minister, today there are disturbing reports that over the last several years more

than 200 lottery insiders have won prizes in excess of $50,000. Jeffrey Rosenthal, a U of T professor, says that it's "extremely unlikely" these insiders would hit the jackpot that many times. The story, which is going to air on The Fifth Estate

tonight, suggests that two thirds of these insider wins may have involved deception. Minister, can you tell us when you became aware of this issue and whether or not you plan to investigate the matter to ensure that Ontarians are not being

defrauded of their rightful winnings?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): There has been an allegation made, and I want all members to know that I take that very, very

seriously. Ontario Lottery and Gaming is certainly committed to operating a business in a responsible and ethical manner and has some of the most stringent inside-win provisions of any organization of its kind in North America. Regrettably, The

Fifth Estate has chosen not to share their data and their analysis with us so that we can have an opportunity to verify it. But, notwithstanding that, today I have written to the chair of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. and asked for a review

and analysis and for that report to be delivered to me as quickly as possible.

Mr. Runciman: I appreciate the response. We are aware of the steps the OLGC says it takes to make the system secure. We've read their press releases too. The reports today suggest that those

steps simply aren't enough. There's been lots of talk around this place in recent weeks about trust and the OLGC. Duncan Brown, the CEO, justified spending $6 million to drop the "C" from the logo, and he said, "The rebranding initiative was

around a need to fill an information gap, a risk to our gaming operation's integrity and reputation."

Minister, nothing could more damage the reputation of the OLGC than allegations of the kind made in the media today, and yet all the energies were focused on cosmetic changes rather than dealing with the

operations. Given these allegations, do you believe it was more important to spend $6 million to remove a "C" than to invest in security measures?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: In fact, Ontario Lottery and Gaming has significant internal controls, but also measures to protect lottery and gaming players, like freezing the lottery terminals when major

wins are claimed and customer-facing screens that verify results directly to the customers. In fact, we have initiated self-ticket-checkers so that players themselves can check. But it didn't just stop there. One of the leading forensic audit

firms in Canada earlier this year reviewed OLGC practices, and I would quote:

"In addition to our joint external financial statement audit conducted by KPMG and Grant Thornton, OLG takes the additional step of retaining Ernst and Young to audit the internal controls related specifically

to our lottery and gaming system. The audit procedures performed by Ernst and Young are extensive and include a review of our insider-win policy. Ernst and Young has found that internal control processes related to our lottery system are

appropriate. Claimants subject to the insider-win policy are subject to additional scrutiny and interviews by OLG's prize office and, in addition, a review is conducted by OLG's internal audit department before payment is approved."

Mr. Runciman: We know the minister is spouting lines provided to him by Mr. Brown. I wonder if the minister asked Mr. Brown --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. Member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Runciman: I wonder if the minister asked Mr. Brown why the OLGC spent $425,000 to fight Bob Edmonds, a victim of fraud. Did he ask Mr. Brown why the OLGC never apologized to Mr. Edmonds?

Did he ask how long they've known about these problems?

The reality is that this minister has no idea how effective the security measures are. He's taking the word of someone who's protecting his own backside, someone who recently rationalized a $6-million

expenditure on cosmetics rather than security.

Minister, if these allegations are proven true, whose head will roll, yours or Mr. Brown's?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: In regard to Mr. Edmonds, I certainly want to convey my regret at any hardship the claimant endured in resolving the matter with OLG, and rest assured that I take this

incident very seriously. But the member does not need to look very far. In fact, OLGC began its legal ordeal with Mr. Edmonds under the direction of his seatmate, the member from Erie-Lincoln, who was the minister responsible for OLG at the time,

in 2001-02, when the court case with Mr. Edmonds began. So I say to the member from Leeds-Grenville, if he has some criticism of the way that the matter was initiated and handled, all he need do is turn to the member who sits beside him in this

Legislature and level that particular charge.

On the matter that is currently before the courts, I regret that I simply cannot provide any additional answers, but those are the --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question?

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a question to the Minister of Finance. I'll call your attention to a quote in the Sudbury Star from last week:

"Ontario's manufacturing-based economy, reeling from widespread layoffs in the forestry and industrial sectors, has been sharply downgraded to rank last in economic growth among the provinces, according to an

economic outlook by Royal Bank...."

Minister, your high tax and high hydro rate policies are chasing jobs from the province of Ontario. Some 100,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs have fled the province since 2005. The forestry sector is in

crisis. We are the only province in this entire country of Canada to see a growth in the number of unemployed people in our province. The typical working family in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario now pays some $2,000 more per year in higher taxes,

higher user fees and higher hydro. Will the minister admit that he's finally seen the light, and that in tomorrow's economic statement, he'll begin to lower the tax burden, starting with his so-called health tax?

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm glad that my friend is going to be here tomorrow to hear the fall economic update. I simply want to say

to him today, by way of preface, that the Ontario economy continues to perform well, that we continue to create jobs. I should point out to him -- I know he would want to correct the record if he were aware of this -- that even in respect of hydro

rates, industrial hydro rates in Ontario today are now as low as or lower than they were in 2002. This provides an added benefit for our manufacturers, all of whom are dealing with very strong competition from all over the world.

Mr. Hudak: I'm sure that working families will be shocked to hear the minister say that hydro rates have come down in the province of Ontario; in fact, quite the contrary.

The minister will recall -- I'm sure he helped out with it -- the Ontario Liberal financial plan that Dalton McGuinty said would help finance all of his campaign promises. When the minister reviews his own

public accounts for 2005-06, he'll see that he has clawed in some $5 billion more in revenue than Dalton McGuinty said he needed to keep all of his campaign promises, and Lord knows all those campaign promises are far from being kept; in fact, the

majority probably broken. That's some $2.7 billion more in revenue even without the so-called health tax.

Minister, please tell me there's a bone of sympathy in your body for hard-working families and seniors in the province of Ontario, and that you'll finally start cutting taxes in your economic statement

tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I'm not sure if my friend from Erie-Lincoln is as desperate as his leader is in the comments that his leader made earlier today at the economic summit in Niagara Falls.

I will say to him that those additional revenues that have come into the province have gone towards a historic new campaign in building a stronger health care system in hospitals in every corner of the

province. Those new revenues have gone into the transformation of primary care, so that hundreds and thousands of Ontarians now have access to a family doctor. They've gone into the renewal of a school system that, not to put too fine a point on

it, was crumbling when we took government three years ago. Those additional revenues have gone into a historic new program in infrastructure upon which a much stronger Ontario economy is being built, and I know that my friend would want to

acknowledge all the benefits of those expenditures.

Mr. Hudak: As I mentioned, when you look at the minister's own public accounts numbers -- and the numbers are in; the proof is in the numbers -- health care spending from 2003-04 to 2005-06

has gone up 12%. When you look at other spending, you take out health and education and debt interest, other program spending is up some 21%. Your priority in your spending has been in other areas than health care and education. I think the

minister knows that.

They say it's a health tax. It would be just as accurate to say it's a trillium-redesign tax. It would be just as accurate to say it's a juicy-advertising-contracts-for-Liberal-friends tax. It's just as

accurate to say it's a dropping-the-"C"-in-the-OLGC tax, or you could just call it your own version of the GST, the Greg Sorbara tax.

Let's face it, Minister, this tax has nothing to do with health care but runaway spending of the Dalton McGuinty government. It's high time -- starting tomorrow. You've seen the light. Start reducing taxes

starting tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: At least my friend from Erie-Lincoln is entertaining, if not accurate, and I think for that, at least he should --

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Mildly entertaining.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: "Mildly entertaining," says the Deputy Premier, and I guess I would have to agree with that.

You know, I have done some examination of what the John Tory Conservative Party is proposing for Ontarians. They are proposing to close hospitals as they extract billions of dollars in health care, they are

proposing to take your tax dollars and invest them in private schools, and they are pretending that they are going to increase expenditures, lower taxes and balance the budget. I've got a bridge to sell to my friend from Erie-Lincoln and his

leader, Mr. Tory.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Today, while the Premier was spending his time with the business elite in Niagara-on-the-Lake, I met with

working women and men who have lost their manufacturing jobs under the McGuinty government's watch. Working families, those men and women who work hard every day, want to know this: How is it that Ontario, once a manufacturing powerhouse, has lost

118,000 well-paying, community-sustaining manufacturing jobs under the McGuinty government?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I'm going to resist the urge to reflect back on 1990 to 1995, when the province lost so many thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs. But I will say to my friend that

if he would just look at the statistics, he would see that this province, over the course of the past three years, has created some 250,000 new, high-paying jobs. Most of those, I tell my friend the leader of the third party, are full-time jobs

and very well-paying jobs.

I want to say to him, acknowledge without equivocation that manufacturers right across the continent are under pressure. They're under pressure in Canada and Ontario because of the high value of the Canadian

dollar, because of competition from emerging markets. I want to tell my friend the leader of the third party that, in Ontario, we continue to be able to sustain these pressures and see a growing, strengthening economy.

Mr. Hampton: This is incredible. We're losing manufacturing jobs at rates of a couple of thousand a week in this province, and the Minister of Finance wants to hark back and blame the wannabe

leader of the Liberal Party, who happened to be around in 1990.

This is about today, Minister. This is about thousands of working women and men losing their jobs today. Some 118,000 manufacturing jobs, good jobs, community-sustaining jobs, have gone under the McGuinty

government's watch. What people are asking is, does the McGuinty government have any plan at all, any plan to stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs, any plan at all to restore manufacturing jobs in this province? Do you have any plan at all?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would simply direct my friend's attention to the automobile strategy of this government. With the benefit of $500 million in taxpayers' funds, we have been able to generate

some $7 billion in new investment. That means thousands of jobs in the automotive sector, both jobs that have been preserved and new jobs that are being created in new plants with Toyota, Honda and others.

I would point out as well to him the fact that every economist worth his or her salt says that the best way to strengthen an economy is to invest in post-secondary education -- our government has invested some

$6.2 billion -- to invest in research and development, and application of that research and development in new, high-paying jobs. That's exactly what we're doing.

Mr. Hampton: The minister says the McGuinty government has a plan. What we've heard is announcements from the McGuinty government that there might be some new auto sector jobs in 2009, there

might be some new jobs in 2010. The reality is, jobs are being lost now, today: NRI tire recycling plants in Toronto, 425 workers, as they exit the auto parts sector. Tomorrow I expect we're going to get some more announcements out of the pulp and

paper sector, as companies are headed into further trouble.

Here's your record: You voted in favour of a resolution calling for a comprehensive job strategy and then you did nothing. You tell workers in communities like Thunder Bay, Oshawa, Windsor, St. Thomas, St.

Catharines, Sarnia, Chatham that what's happening is just a little bit of contraction. Minister, 118,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs is not a little bit of contraction.

I want to know this: When is the McGuinty government going to come up with a plan to address the job loss now? Stop talking about 2010 --

The Speaker: The question's been asked. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I don't know where my friend the leader of the third party has been over the past three years. If he looks at the tax credit investments that we've made in the film industry,

urged by your former member from the Danforth riding -- and she left, I think, in despair at where her party was going. If you look at the investments we have made in the forest industry -- is there pressure in the forestry sector? Absolutely.

Will the investments that we've made, including almost $900 million in support for that industry, save and protect and strengthen that industry? You bet your bottom dollar. That's part of the plan. I can't imagine why the member, who seems to have

been here for three years, has missed it entirely.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I think we recognize that we'll hear more talk and no action from the McGuinty government on jobs.

To the Deputy Premier: Yesterday you claimed you didn't know about Cleveland Clinic Canada, an American profit-driven private health care corporation that opened up in Toronto. But on September 29, the Toronto

Star reported that your assistant, David Spencer, "says his office is aware of Cleveland Clinic Canada." And on March 17 the National Post said about Cleveland Clinic Canada that Jenna Leblanc, a spokeswoman for your ministry, said, "We monitor

private clinics very closely."

Deputy Premier, why did you tell reporters you didn't know anything about Cleveland Clinic Canada when clearly you do? And why did you allow this profit-driven private health care corporation from the United

States to set up in Ontario in the first place?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The discussion I had with the news media related to the services being provided at the Cleveland Clinic, and

this is clear. The first bill that our government brought in was called the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, which the honourable member voted against. The bill has been successful in preventing the Copeman clinics from coming to Ontario

and in turning Lifeline back at the borders. It establishes in law very clearly that Ontario will not tolerate a circumstance where people are asked to pay a fee in order to access an insured service. I stand in my place and say to the honourable

member that if he has any evidence to the contrary, if he has any evidence that the Cleveland Clinic is operating in such a fashion, charging people a fee to access an insured service, then I ask that he send it along. And I ask him one more time:

Why didn't you support the protection involved in the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act?

Mr. Hampton: Because the evidence grows every day that the McGuinty government's protection of medicare act was completely phony. Here is the proof: Yesterday you said Cleveland Clinic Canada

was fine by you because, according to you, it doesn't let people with thick wallets "pay their way to the front of the line" for publicly funded health services. But we called the Cleveland Clinic to find out if you were right about that or if you

were just making things up the way you usually do. The clinic told us that for $900 someone could buy --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order.

The leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: We called the clinic. They told us that someone with a thick wallet can pay $900 and buy an MRI from a Toronto hospital and get to the front of the line. They told us, "This can

be done within 48 hours so you don't have to wait on the OHIP list." Doesn't this sound like two-tiered health care to you, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The only answer that I will offer to the honourable member in exchange for the information which he offers is that in the absence of my own verification of it, I do not

take it at the face value that it was presented.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, maybe you should do some research. You might find out some helpful information.

The McGuinty government promised to shut down private MRIs. Now it's apparent that someone with a thick wallet can get a private MRI in 48 hours, while other people who don't have thick wallets wait and wait

and wait. The Cleveland Clinic also told us that for $2,500 we could jump the queue and get ourselves an executive physical with all the bells and whistles, including services covered by OHIP like blood tests, ECGs, pap smears and X-rays. Deputy

Premier, that really does sound like two-tier health care. It's clear that your government, or at least your officials, have known about it. It's clear that the McGuinty government has allowed it to happen. Now you're hoping to pretend that you

don't see any of it, that it's really not happening under your very noses. You promised to end the privatization --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The circumstances that the honourable member outlines relate to the possibilities for the purchase of third party insurance related to employment. This circumstance was

created by a regulatory change brought in by that member's party while in office.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. We are now approaching the 240th day of the crisis at Caledonia. In

this fiscal year, we are approaching a full seven months of impact on the OPP budget. It's my understanding that there are always 124 OPP officers at Caledonia on a daily basis. Minister, can you inform this House how much the Caledonia crisis is

costing the OPP budget to date? I don't want some phony answer; I'd like the actual cost, if you could. Thank you very much.

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. I just want to say before I respond to the specifics that I really want to

commend the OPP for the job that their men and women are doing. They're in a very difficult situation, and they're performing in an exemplary manner. I want to commend them, as I said; not only them but their command officers and the

commissioner.

Having said that, the OPP has a global budget. In that global budget, the commissioner has a responsibility to allocate it as the commissioner sees the requirements demand. I have said, the Premier has said,

and we have said from day one, that if there are any extraordinary costs attributed to that, we will certainly address them. You have to understand that it isn't a simple matter of just checking the time clock, because officers are there on an

annual basis, and we're looking at the incremental costs. When we have that information, we will --

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

Mr. Dunlop: Minister, I only asked you a question that a responsible minister of the crown should be able to answer and provide to the citizens of Ontario. How much money is it costing the

OPP? I don't think that's a hard question.

Perhaps you can answer this other question. I understand that the Management Board of Cabinet is considering a request from the OPP to establish a permanent 72-officer detachment in Caledonia. Can you explain

the details of this and how much that detachment will cost the citizens of Ontario as well?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is really saying things that he has no knowledge of. There has been no request to me for a new detachment at Caledonia. As a result, there was no presentation made

to Management Board. You're just dreaming this up. So I can't respond to it because there has not been a request for that at this time.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): My question is for the Deputy Premier. The federal-provincial housing agreement requires Ontario to pay its share of funding for affordable housing

projects. Families and children are sleeping in shelters and on couches in crammed apartments because you're hoarding the money in the bank pending your squabbles with Ottawa. Across Ontario, there are 122,000 households waiting for affordable

housing. When will you stop your jurisdictional squabbles, live up to your responsibility and keep your 2003 promise to build 20,000 units of affordable housing?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I want to tell my friend that we're right on

schedule with the campaign commitments and that affordable

housing is getting built.

The second thing to tell her is that we have received funding from the federal government under trusts established in the last federal budget. As is normally done for accounting purposes, we have accounted for

those as additional revenue and have put the funds in the contingency fund anticipating additional expenditures. Those expenditures will be made in due course on housing.

I just want to tell my friend that if she wants to be really helpful on this matter rather than just political, she could simply assist us in our call for the federal government not to try and pretend that the

money for housing honours its commitment on the Canada-Ontario agreement, which will cost Ontario --

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

Ms. DiNovo: If the government wants to be helpful, they will come through on their promise to build those 20,000 units. They're not anywhere close; 1,635 by your own reckoning have been built.

You are sitting on $400 million to $1.1 billion, depending on which accountant you believe, while people are going without housing. The wait is five to 10 years, and we are dealing with 67,000 households in Toronto alone. Two people die a week on

our streets in this city while this government sits on $400 million, at the very least.

The question again, for which I did not receive an answer, is, when are they going to build the 20,000 housing units promised?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I know my friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will want to comment on this.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): First of all, as this member well knows, because she asked exactly the same question during estimates, currently we have 6,524

units of affordable rental housing stock in place. We also have in place nearly 5,000 units for housing allowances. We have over 1,000 home ownership units and northern housing units that are already in place and either built, constructed or in

the approval process.

The matter with respect to the housing trust has absolutely nothing to do with our commitment to build housing in this province. We're going to build 15,000 new units, and we're going to have a minimum of

5,000 housing allowance units. For the first time in 10 years, this government is taking action on the housing front that is so direly needed.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. It's been almost a week, and I'm still shaking my head -- bewildered, in fact --

at the lack of regard for the health and well-being of Ontarians displayed when the NDP and Conservative caucuses voted against the Clean Water Act last week. It's simple: A vote against the Clean Water Act --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. I can wait.

Member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot.

Mr. McMeekin: We obviously touched a sensitive nerve over there, Mr. Speaker.

A vote against the Clean Water Act is a vote against clean water. Instead of listening to environmental experts like Dr. Rick Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defence, who stated, "This act is an

important step forward in ensuring that the protection of Ontario's source waters is a priority in every watershed," the members of the Conservative caucus chose to stand shoulder to shoulder with Randy Hillier of the Ontario Landowners

Association, who argues, "Landowners have been good stewards of the land," adding that it is cities which pollute the water. Then he added, "That's where the danger (is), not my six acres."

The members of the Conservative and NDP caucuses seem confused. Minister, can you shed some light on this around the burden of --

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I want to thank the member for the question, and for being an incredible advocate for his community and a great champion of the

environment, unlike the members opposite. I too am incredibly disappointed that the members opposite have chosen to turn their backs on clean water. They obviously don't want Ontarians to have some of the best-protected drinking water in North

America.

To speak specifically to your issues, farmers and rural property owners are among the best stewards of water in the province, and they have done a great deal over the past number of years to ensure that our

water is protected and safe. But the Clean Water Act is about preventing contamination, preventing depletion. It is one of the single most important recommendations Justice O'Connor made coming out of the Walkerton inquiry. We will not turn our

backs on communities. We will ensure that communities right across the province, rural and urban, have some of the best water, that they will work together as a collective in those communities --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. McMeekin: I'll drink to that.

Minister, I'm glad to hear you recognize that the Clean Water Act will create a number of new protections for the Great Lakes, since 70% of Ontarians receive their drinking water from the Great Lakes. Perhaps

members of the Conservative and NDP caucuses will now begin to focus on what's best for Ontarians, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with the Ontario Landowners Association, which states in its founding declaration, "Using taxpayers'

dollars, our governments support and promote urban cultures of every form and variety. However, when it comes to the independent, peaceful rural culture in Canada, government support is stifling, suffocating and controlling."

Our government knows that the Great Lakes and the channels that feed them are very important. Minister, a vote against the Clean Water Act not only seems to be a vote against clean water, it also seems to be a

vote against the Great Lakes --

The Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon. Ms. Broten: I'm pleased to have a chance to speak about the Great Lakes, because the Great Lakes are important to those of us who live in rural Ontario and to those of us who live in

urban Ontario. The Clean Water Act acknowledges for the very first time that the Great Lakes are a source of drinking water for the majority of Ontarians. Again, for the very first time, as a result of significant dollars being provided to

communities right across the province -- $120 million in the science and $7 million in early implementation as a down payment -- communities across the Great Lakes are now working together to ensure that the Great Lakes are kept clean and not

depleted, and will continue to serve us well for generations to come as a source of clean drinking water. That's what our government has delivered in the form of the Clean Water Act. We only wish that the opposition parties had joined with us to

ensure the protection of the Great Lakes.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Yesterday, we heard from the Strong Communities Coalition about the gap in funding

for health and social services in the GTA/905. In fact, Dr. Colin Saldanha, a family physician in Mississauga, told us of the failure of the system in the case of a 14-year-old patient in dire need of treatment for drug and alcohol abuse. In Peel

there is a frustrating wait of up to six months for services, and yet doctors tell us that, upon presentation, these youth need a plan of care within 24 to 48 hours.

In 2003, your leader promised to help families struggling with mental illness. Minister, what plan of action do you have to address these unacceptable wait times for youth and children?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): I'm happy to address the question from the member for Kitchener-Waterloo. I'm also quite aware of the fact that there is

more to be done to support children and youth mental health. But I also need to acknowledge that that sector is now receiving $38 million per year more with our government than they received in the past. In fact, the $25-million increase they

received in 2004-05 was the first increase to that sector in 12 years. We are coming from far behind. We have a lot of catching up to do. There's a lot of work being done to support that sector. Certainly, we want to make sure that children and

youth have proper access to the services they need.

Mrs. Witmer: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister: I'm sorry to say that since your leader made that promise to help families with mental illness, the gap has widened. In fact, when I

first got the information today, there were not -- as I learned at the last moment from Children's Mental Health Ontario, there are more than 8,300 children on the waiting list for mental health services today. I was appalled to see the increase

over the three-year period. Family and Children's Services of Guelph says, "There are an unprecedented number of children and youth who are going untreated. Waiting lists for community-based services and residential treatment are unacceptable."

This is from Guelph family services.

Minister, what plan of action do you have to address these unacceptable increasing wait times for children and youth?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: As I've said, the sector is currently receiving $38 million more per year than it was receiving when we came into government. That's a significant increase. We are working

very closely with this sector. With regard to the people who were here at Queen's Park this week, I should say that the regions of Peel, Halton, Durham and York have received an increase of 37.5% since 2003-04. So in those regions we are investing

in children's services to the tune of almost $394 million.

Is there more to be done? Absolutely. But do you know what? Like I said, we are coming from far behind. I wish we could turn the years back, the calendar back, to before these kinds of situations --

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

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Deputy Premier. On the anniversary of the Kashechewan water crisis, the fundamental right -- and I repeat the fundamental right --

of Ontario's First Nations people to safe, clean drinking water continues to be elusive. After years of boil-water advisories, mismanagement, multiple reports -- glaring deficiencies -- First Nations communities still face a serious health hazard

when it comes to their own drinking water.

My question is simply this: If safe, clean drinking water is a fundamental right, as your Minister of the Environment likes to say, why are we still getting skin infections and disease in those communities as

a result of using the drinking water?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): We're going to continue this debate, I guess, with the third party. As he knows, and as First

Nations leadership knows, it's a federal responsibility to ensure that the people of First Nations have clean, safe drinking water. We have just passed the source water protection act, the Clean Water Act, that's going to protect the sources of

that water.

The Minister of the Environment and I have been pushing the minister of aboriginal affairs for this last year, and he has responded in that he understands that safe, clean drinking water is a top priority for

INAC. I will be meeting with him on this issue next week in Ottawa.

It is the position of the government that the federal government has to keep its responsibility, and we work closely with First Nations on this. As you know from the letter we received yesterday, we've been

asked to intervene on their behalf when it comes to Ottawa's responsibility.

Mr. Bisson: These are citizens of the province of Ontario and they have a right to clean drinking water, as your minister stated when she passed the particular legislation you refer to. We, as

New Democrats, opposed it because it didn't include all citizens of Ontario.

We still have boil-water advisories in communities like Constance Lake, Moose Deer Point, Kingfisher, and the list goes on. I'm going to say to you again, your indifference in saying that it's a federal

responsibility is not going to do anything to fix the problem. Our own government invested close to $50 million to put water and sewers in the very communities that are in my riding and in the ridings of other members of this Legislature. If we

could do it, why can't you be part of the solution instead of just finger pointing at the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I'd like to correct the impression that the leader of the third party gave yesterday when he referred to a letter from Nishnawbe Aski Grand Chief Stan Beardy and said that the

grand chief had written to the Premier in regard to this particular situation. What the grand chief had written the Premier about was the Clean Water Act, Bill 43.

As the Minister of the Environment wants to remind me, yes, First Nations communities are included, and that's the important part. We are protecting the water sources for all Ontarians under the Clean Water

Act. That is part of that. The third party doesn't seem to want to understand that, but all Ontarians' source water is protected under the Clean Water Act.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of Energy. This past summer, you announced your very comprehensive 20-year energy directive to help keep the lights on in

Ontario for the next generation. This included very aggressive targets for energy conservation as well as usage of renewable energies going forward. The riding of Huron-Bruce is fast becoming well known as a haven for renewable energy sources in

the province, and several wind farms have already been established, with a high probability toward a higher amount in the near future. What other renewable projects is this government bringing online in its commitment to cleaner sources of power

and cleaner air?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): I want to thank the member for Huron-Bruce for all the good work she has done to bring renewable energy not only to Ontario but to her constituency.

Huron-Bruce has some of the best wind opportunities in the province, with one wind farm already up and running and four under construction. These projects are the result of the McGuinty government's commitment to renewable energy, something that

neither opposition party ever did in their mandate. Since taking office, we have had two successful RFPs that are bringing on over 1,300 megawatts of clean, renewable power: the Kingsbridge wind project in Goderich, which is up and running; the

Hamilton digester gas project, which was opened in July of last year; the Leader wind projects in Kincardine; and the Umbata Falls project in Marathon. Not only are these projects delivering cleaner power to over 300,000 homes, they represent a

capital investment of $2.5 million --

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

Mrs. Mitchell: Minister, I do want to say that I'm very proud of this government's commitment to renewable energy and how Huron-Bruce is doing its part to bring renewable energy on stream so

that Ontarians can benefit from cleaner sources of energy. Unlike the members of the House opposite, who like to dismiss renewable energy such as wind, I'm very glad to see that we see the value in it and that we understand. Minister, what

additional steps is this government taking to ensure that renewable energy sources are sustainable for the immediate and long-term future in small communities across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Beyond the RFPs and the Niagara tunnel project, which the Conservative government didn't move on in eight years -- eight long, painful years. It's under construction now, sir,

and it's going to bring on cleaner and more renewable electricity. We've also done net metering to allow small generators, such as farmers, to produce renewable energy and receive credit for the excess electricity that they produce.

We've introduced the standard offer contract, which will allow hundreds of small, local, renewable energy producers to get into the energy market. Over the next 10 years, this program will help add up to 1,000

megawatts of renewable energy to Ontario's electricity supply -- enough to power 250,000 homes. It will help ease the strain on our system, reduce air pollution, promote reliability, protect the environment and create new, high-skilled jobs.

I was in Fort Erie just two months ago to open the first wind farm manufacturing operation in a closed automotive parts manufacturer. Ontario is going from --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I have a question for the Minister of Health Promotion. Minister, over the past three years your government's increased taxes on tobacco products have

raised the price of cigarettes by approximately 20%. If history proves itself, it's reasonable to expect that as taxes increase, smuggling and the sales of illegal cigarettes also increase. During estimates, we found that your ministry has 140

employees, on average receiving over $80,000 a year, most of them involved with policies. Minister, do you have any studies or statistics on the sale of illegal cigarettes in Ontario?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): First of all, I take exception to, once again, the Conservatives attacking the public service in this province. You had eight years of beating

up and name-calling and calling into question the integrity of the public service. I stand by the 140 dedicated men and women in the Ministry of Health Promotion and the great work that they are doing in the province of Ontario.

Secondly, when it comes to raising taxes on tobacco, I remind the honourable member that during his time in office, they raised taxes November 29, 1996; February 14, 1998; November 6, 1999; April 5, 2001;

November 1, 2001; and June 18, 2002. Maybe the honourable member was absent during those votes, but that took place under his watch.

We made a commitment, as a government, to raise the tax to the national average, base year 2003. We're committed to that. We brought in four increases, not the six that you brought in.

Mr. Sterling: My question was whether you had any studies on illegal cigarettes, and you avoided that. I assume you have none.

It's not one of my favourite companies in the world, but Imperial Tobacco released a study saying that illegal cigarette sales make up almost 23.5% of cigarette sales in Ontario. You, Minister, have attacked

the credibility on this particular study, but you have no evidence to the contrary.

Let me quote from a news release put out by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada:

"Because of the governments' ... failure to monitor the usage of illegal cigarettes, Imperial Tobacco's report is the most extensive survey available....

"The irony ... is tobacco companies who are providing this information" are the "source of embarrassment and shame to governments."

Minister, does your claim that Ontario's consumption has fallen by 18.7% since 2003 allow for the increasing sales of illegal cigarettes --

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

Hon. Mr. Watson: First of all, I am not going to quote a report from the tobacco industry with any credibility. That's like asking Colonel Sanders to give a comment on the survival of chickens

in Ontario: It just doesn't make any sense. It wasn't a study, number one; it was a poll, and the member should get that straight. There's a world of difference between a study and a poll.

The second point is, the McGuinty government is proud of our track record with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. I would ask the honourable member to explain to the people of Ontario why exactly one half of his

caucus was either not there for the vote on the Smoke-Free Ontario Act or actually voted against it.

Some 16,000 people will die prematurely as a result of smoking and smoking-related diseases. I stand proudly with this caucus and this government on the side of health care providers, hospitality workers and

those people --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal: I too want to ask you about those over 200 incredibly lucky Ontario lottery retailers who have

won prizes worth more than $50,000 each in the last seven years. The statistics indicate that they beat odds of a trillion trillion trillion trillion to one. That's odds of one quindecillion to one.

Why wouldn't that phenomenon in and of itself have rung alarm bells in the OLG, rather than waiting for the CBC to blow the whistle?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): The OLG, in fact, has some of the most stringent security measures in North America.

I didn't have a chance earlier to talk about the May 15, 2006, Ernst and Young report: "The insider win policy provides the utmost integrity of the OLG in the conduct of lottery games by ensuring that there is

no perception of an unfair advantage by an OLG lottery winner who is closely affiliated with the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp."

What is really a shame here is that this member implies that some of the hardest-working and most honest Ontario residents -- namely, our convenience store owners and retail clerks -- are somehow perpetrating

some kind of fraud on Ontarians. I know, from meeting thousands of these hard-working Ontario families, that nothing could be further from the truth. This member should stand up and apologize.

Mr. Kormos: Minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. I need to be able to hear the supplementary.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, don't be silly. These are statistics that indicate an exclusive group of but 200 beating odds of one quindecillion to one -- that's a trillion trillion trillion trillion.

It is also speculated that up to two thirds of these winnings amongst this handful of retailers could be the result of deception. Rather than auditors on retainer, why don't you announce today that you will ask the Provincial Auditor to audit OLG

to ensure that Ontarians are getting the winnings they're entitled to?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, one of the leading forensic audit firms in Canada has been retained and has rendered an opinion about the security measures -- internal controls -- at OLG.

What I find particularly disturbing is this member's characterization of hard-working Ontario families, convenience store owners, retailers, clerks -- small business people who, day in and day out, contribute

to this province. This member is painting them as somehow committing some offence and perpetrating a fraud on Ontarians. The only thing deceptive here is this member's characterization of these hard-working Ontarians, and I stand with these

hard-working families as they work, day in and day out, to contribute to the economy and the prosperity of Ontario, and to make Ontario the kind of place where you want to live, work and raise a family.

HEALTH PROMOTION

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. On August 18, I was pleased to welcome you to my riding of Perth-Middlesex, where you attended a

performance of the Stratford Festival of Canada and took

part in the Club Smart Car Cross-Canada Relay, which raised money for the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society. Minister, your visit brought good news to my riding.

On the following day, August 19, you announced funding for VON Perth Huron through your ministry's communities in action fund. The grant was for $21,515. As their website states, VON Perth Huron "continues to

seek creative and innovative ways to respond to the rapidly changing social and health needs of Canadians in this new millennium." Minister, how does the communities in action fund grant that you announced complement these needs, especially for

seniors in North Perth, in the northern part of my riding?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): I want to thank the honourable member for Perth-Middlesex for his invitation to his riding. I enjoy going to his riding, because the community

there is extremely active and involved when it comes to physical activity. We're particularly pleased with the $21,000 grant to the VON Perth Huron, which is going to allow it to expand its SMART program. SMART stands for Seniors Maintaining

Active Roles Together, which was established to help older adults in Mr. Wilkinson's community who have functional limitations to get active and get moving.

Often, community groups have a very good idea, a dream that they want to set up a program to get seniors or young people physically active, but they don't have the money to do it. The communities in action

fund provides the seed money that allows these good projects and these good dreams to become reality in Perth-Middlesex.

Mr. Wilkinson: It's clear that our government, the McGuinty government, is on the side of Ontario's seniors, unlike the caucus of the official opposition, which has a plan to cut some $2.6

billion out of the health care system they rely on each and every day.

Of course, I'm especially pleased that my riding of Perth-Middlesex was able to achieve funding from your ministry for a number of worthy projects this year. Another CIAF recipient, which you announced during

your visit on the 19th, was the Galbraith Optimist Camp for Kids. As you know, the Galbraith Optimist Camp for Kids is situated on 118 acres of beautiful, secluded land, just eight kilometres between Milverton and Listowel in my riding. At this

camp, children enjoy a caring camp atmosphere where they will have a good time, learn new skills and make new friends.

On August 19, you announced a grant of $7,856 for Camp Galbraith. Can you please explain to my constituents how this grant will remove barriers for these kids so they can participate in sport and recreation

programs and, subsequently, help them further their activities and --

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

Hon. Jim Watson: It was a wonderful day in Milverton, and I want to thank the Optimist Club, which is responsible for running the camp. The Optimists identify over 700 kids for camp, many of

whom are known to and sponsored through the children's aid society. The camp, through this grant from the communities in action fund, is going to be able to provide new sports -- badminton, lacrosse, beach volleyball -- for these kids, who

normally would not have an opportunity to experiment with these kinds of activities. Additionally, fresh produce from local farmers is brought to the camp, and this brings in the other aspect of communities in action: good nutritional

education.

This is a $5-million program, and since the McGuinty government came to office in the last few years, we've been able to provide $15.8 million to over 585 very worthy organizations, including those where Mr.

Wilkinson has been a great advocate for promoting fitness, wellness and nutrition in the good riding of Perth-Middlesex.

VISITORS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hope that everyone in the House would join me in welcoming one of the classes from my old high school, the Park Street

Collegiate Institute in Orillia. Give them a warm welcome, everybody.

ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE QUILT

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm sure that you and all the members will be glad to know that last night, at the event for the quilt that we all

contributed to, there were some $2,600 for the quilt that all members participated in creating. I want to thank the members for their help.

PETITIONS

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 1999; 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."

I've signed that petition.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. It's signed by friends and family of Haroon Khan, who gathered on Monday afternoon to celebrate Eid,

and I wish everybody an Eid Mubarak. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, managerial and professional talent from practising the

professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action

to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

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

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to

review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their

organizations, for their trades and professions, and for their families."

It's a great petition. I thank the family of Haroon Khan. I'm pleased to affix my signature and to ask page Adam to carry it for me.

PROPERTY RIGHTS

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" -- this is fairly important because it relates to Bill 43:

"Whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is silent on property rights; and

"Whereas the Alberta Bill of Rights specifically protects the right to the enjoyment of property; and

"Whereas the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms provides that `Every person has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his" -- or her -- "property, except to the extent provided by

law'; and

"Whereas ownership rights should not be abridged or usurped without due process of law; and

"Whereas owners of all lands affected by expropriation should have the right to be included as parties to a required inquiry to consider the merits of the objectives of the expropriating authority; and

"Whereas the decision of an expropriating authority should be subject to judicial review; and

"Whereas, subject to specific limitations of law, the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's land must be recognized by Ontario law;

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

"To pass Bill 57, the Land Rights and Responsibilities Act, 2006."

I think our member Toby Barrett has that act and I'm pleased to endorse and support that. I present it to Patrick, one of the pages who will be leaving at the end of next week.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas, in June 2003, Dalton McGuinty said Ontario Liberals are committed to ensuring that nursing home residents receive more personal care each day and will reinstate minimum standards, and inspectors will

be required to audit the staff-to-resident ratios; and

"Whereas Health and Long-Term Care Minister George Smitherman, in October 2004, said that the Ontario government will not set a specified number of care hours nursing home residents are to receive each day;

and

"Whereas Ontario nursing home residents still receive the lowest number of care hours in the Western world; and

"Whereas studies have indicated nursing home residents should receive at least 4.1 hours of nursing care per day; and

"Whereas a coroner's jury in April 2005 recommended the Ontario government establish a minimum number of care hours nursing home residents must receive each day;

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

"That the government of Ontario immediately enact a minimum standard of 3.5 hours of nursing care for each nursing home resident per day."

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of Bill 124, skilled immigrants. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to establishing measures that will break down barriers for Ontario newcomers; and

"Whereas these measures will ensure that the 34 regulatory professions in Ontario have admissions and application practices that are fair, clear and open; and

"Whereas these measures will include the establishment of a fairness commissioner and an access centre for internationally trained individuals; and

"Whereas, through providing a fair and equitable system, newcomers will be able to apply their global experience, which will not only be beneficial to their long-term career goals but also to the Ontario

economy as a whole;

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

"That all members of the House support the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, Bill 124, and work to ensure its prompt passage in the Ontario Legislature."

Of course, I am pleased to affix my signature, and send it to you via page Breanna.

LANDFILL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is currently a proposal to more than double the size of the Carp landfill in west Ottawa; and

"Whereas this site has been in operation for some 30 years and had been expected to close in 2010; and

"Whereas the surrounding community has grown rapidly for the past 10 years and is continuing to grow; and

"Whereas other options to an expanded landfill have yet to be considered; and

"Whereas the municipal councillors representing this area ... and the MPP, Norm Sterling, all oppose this expansion;

"We, the undersigned, support our local representatives and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the Minister of the Environment does not approve the expansion of the Carp landfill and

instead finds other waste management alternatives."

I've signed that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas people relying on assistance from Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario disability support program (ODSP) face increasingly severe hardship because the McGuinty government failed to keep its promise of

regular annual increases; and

"Whereas in 2003, McGuinty promised to tie OW and ODSP rates to the real cost of living but broke that promise once elected; and

"Whereas current OW and ODSP recipients often don't have enough money for food after paying the ever-rising cost of living for rent, utilities and transportation costs; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government continues to cut back on necessary supports such as the special diet supplement and the national child tax benefit, taking even more money away from Ontario's most

vulnerable;

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

"That the McGuinty Liberal government raise OW and ODSP rates immediately by 3% annually; and

"That the McGuinty Liberal government close the 21.6% gap left by the Harris Conservatives; and

"That the McGuinty Liberal government immediately end the clawback on the national child tax benefit; and

"That the McGuinty Liberal government immediately reinstate the special diet supplement to Ontarians who have seen the benefit cut."

I agree with this. It's from my community of Hamilton, and I send it to the table by way of page Stephen.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition, and I want to thank the clients of the Peel Multicultural Council and residents of western Mississauga for this petition.

It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the

professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action

to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

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

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to

review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their

organizations, for their trades and professions, and for their families."

I agree with this petition. I affix my signature to it and give it to page Adam, who's here with me today.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"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)."

I want to thank the residents' council of Sara Vista nursing home for sending me that petition.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the people of the Kirkland Lake and Timiskaming area.

"Whereas, in June 2003, Dalton McGuinty said Ontario Liberals are committed to ensuring that nursing home residents receive more personal care each day and will reinstate minimum standards, and inspectors will

be required to audit the staff-to-resident ratios; and

"Whereas Health and Long-Term Care Minister George Smitherman, in October 2004, said that the Ontario government will not set a specified number of care hours nursing home residents are to receive each day;

and

"Whereas Ontario nursing home residents still receive the lowest number of care hours in the Western world; and

"Whereas studies have indicated nursing home residents should receive at least 4.1 hours of nursing care per day; and

"Whereas a coroner's jury in April 2005 recommended the Ontario government establish a minimum number of care hours nursing home residents must receive each day;

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

"That the government of Ontario immediately enact a minimum standard of 3.5 hours of nursing care for each nursing home resident per day."

I send it to the table by way of Julia, the page.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of skilled immigrants, Bill 124. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to establishing measures that will break down barriers for Ontario newcomers; and

"Whereas these measures will ensure that the 34 regulatory professions in Ontario have admissions and application practices that are fair, clear and open; and

"Whereas these measures will include the establishment of a fairness commissioner and an access centre for internationally trained individuals; and

"Whereas, through providing a fair and equitable system, newcomers will be able to apply their global experience, which will not only be beneficial to their long-term career goals but also to the Ontario

economy as a whole;

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

"That all members of the House support the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, Bill 124, and work to ensure its prompt passage in the Ontario Legislature."

Of course, Speaker, I support this wholeheartedly and send it to you via page Paul.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGULATORY

MODERNIZATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION

Mr. Peters moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 69,

An Act to allow for information sharing about regulated organizations to improve efficiency in the administration and enforcement of regulatory legislation and to make consequential amendments to

other Acts / Projet de loi 69, Loi permettant l'échange de renseignements sur les organismes réglementés afin de rendre plus efficaces l'application et l'exécution de la législation de nature réglementaire et

apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): Thank you very much, Speaker. I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the MPP for Thornhill.

I'm honoured to be able to initiate second reading debate on the proposed Regulatory Modernization Act, 2006. I'm proud of this proposed legislation because it would, if passed, improve the way government can

help businesses comply with laws in Ontario. I'm proud that this bill, if passed, would reduce burdens that businesses face and support economic growth in the province. Most of all, I'm proud that this bill would provide an even greater level of

protection for Ontario's people, workers, environment and natural resources.

This bill is about ministries communicating and co-operating. Improved communication means less duplication. Through shared communications, we're better able to protect the public and help businesses more

efficiently and effectively. Right now, there are 13 provincial ministries responsible for ensuring that companies and individuals comply with Ontario's laws -- 13 ministries. In fact, some businesses are regulated by as many as seven or eight

different ministries. We know that businesses in Ontario want to do the right thing: to comply with Ontario's laws. But we also know that they are having trouble keeping up. We know that finding the legislation that regulates your business is not

always easy.

So we've met with many stakeholders, businesses, associations and our own staff. We have talked with the municipal and federal governments, and to other Canadian and international jurisdictions. We have

listened to business owners here in the province of Ontario. They have told us that they often have to provide duplicate information to multiple ministries, or that they spend hours looking for the right legislation that regulates their

business.

We have also spoken to our own staff, particularly those individuals who are out in the field, week after week, inspecting facilities. They want and need the tools to be able to co-operate with their

colleagues in other ministries, to ensure organizations are complying with Ontario laws.

It is with our stakeholders' help that we've examined our approaches to regulatory compliance and have identified opportunities to reduce burdens for businesses. The result of all these efforts has been the

development of a three-part strategy to modernize and improve how government can more effectively and efficiently help businesses comply. We need to modernize the way we share information and the way we work together across government. Our

proposed Regulatory Modernization Act, 2006, is an integral part of that transformation.

The proposed legislation, if passed, has four key components: It would allow for the collection, sharing and use of compliance information across all regulatory ministries; it would give field staff the

authority to provide other ministries with a heads-up if they observe something during a visit that may be relevant to the mandate of another ministry; it would authorize ministers to create special teams of field staff to work together; and it

would implement a number of deterrents against non-compliance, such as the publishing of convictions and requiring of the courts' consideration of previous relevant convictions upon sentencing for a regulatory conviction.

I'd like to point out that a number of stakeholders we spoke to asked us specifically for these four components. Businesses have asked us to reduce duplication, whether it's in collecting information or

coordinating our inspectors. Our own field staff spoke to the importance of being able to work together and share information. Almost every stakeholder told us how important it is for us to target the businesses that seek an unfair competitive

advantage by consistently breaking Ontario laws.

It is important, though, to understand that this bill is not strictly about enforcement. This is about enabling the government to develop the tools and initiatives to help businesses better understand their

legal requirements. The bill is about ministries communicating and co-operating, because improved communication means less duplication, and it is why we have introduced this legislation as part of our broader strategy that represents a balanced

approach to compliance. Our stakeholders recognize what we are trying to do. As a ministry, we would like to see this bill go to committee so we can hear from all of our partners and the opposition parties and listen to their comments.

I'd now like to speak about individual components of our proposed bill.

Number one: information sharing. The act, if passed, would change the way regulatory ministries and their agencies could collect, use and share information obtained through their inspections and other

compliance-related activities. Greater co-operation and information sharing among ministries is key.

Currently, the general approach is that ministries work independently of each other. They undertake separate compliance-related activities under their respective statutes. There are obstacles, including

legislative restrictions, which limit how information can be shared amongst ministries. I have spoken to many business owners and members of the public who are surprised at the restrictions. They ask, "How can government be efficient if they can't

even talk to one another?" This means our own compliance activities often operate in ministry silos. To be effective and provide the service expected by Ontarians, ministries need to be able to communicate and co-operate together. Currently, eight

or more ministries may visit a business at separate times over a year. The inspectors would likely ask for similar types of information, such as company name, address and business activities. This situation results in some duplication of

information collected by ministries. It also puts an onus on business owners to understand the range of regulatory requirements from each ministry, which may complicate their efforts to co-operate with the law.

The proposed act, if passed, would establish clear authority for information sharing so that ministries could better work together. The proposed legislation, if passed, would not change the type or the amount

of information that is currently collected from organizations. Instead, it will help ministries to better coordinate how information is collected from organizations. Improved communication means less duplication.

We believe this bill, if passed, could enable, for example, the Ministries of Transportation, Environment and Natural Resources to better work together; the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional

Services and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services could collaborate on enforcement projects. We believe it could help save time for the business community. Businesses could spend more time on their actual business.

The bill builds upon this articulated need for improved information sharing and includes other ways to work together to be more efficient, including the heads-up authority. This legislation would provide field

staff legal authority to give a heads-up to colleagues in other ministries. The environment minister might inspect a workplace and notice someone cutting metal without goggles. The Ministry of the Environment inspector would be able to give the

Ministry of Labour a heads-up about this unsafe situation. The key is that staff could help one another when it comes to making observations that might be relevant to the administration of and compliance with another statute.

I want to emphasize again that this legislation does not allow for fishing expeditions, nor does it intend to result in generic inspectors. I want to repeat that: This legislation does not allow for fishing

expeditions, nor does it intend to result in generic inspectors. We recognize and respect the level of expertise and technical capability that our compliance officers bring to the administration and enforcement of legislation. The heads-up

authority is to enable the government to work in co-operation. That's why we are providing our inspectors with the tools they need to do their jobs more effectively.

Special teams through multiple authorizations: A large part of our regulatory modernization efforts is to make better, more efficient use of our high-quality existing resources. This legislation would provide

ministers with the authority to create teams made up of inspectors from across ministries. For example, health and safety and environment inspectors could work together on special compliance projects, perhaps to do joint inspection checks at

facilities in a specific sector that repeatedly disregards both health and safety and environmental laws, or perhaps to find out how they can better work together to make it easier for small business owners such as autobody repair shops to

understand, manage and comply with provincial legislation.

We've heard from business owners. They want to deal with inspectors who are knowledgeable and have expertise in the legislation for which they are responsible. Our inspectors are extremely highly trained

professionals. Our inspectors are not, and will not be, responsible for enforcing multiple statutes outside of their professional training.

Since we took office, the McGuinty government has hired more than 350 new inspectors across government. We made a commitment to invest in the public service in this province. We made a commitment to invest in

the health and safety of Ontarians. We made a commitment to invest in protecting the environment and natural resources in this province. I'm proud that we've been able to move forward with 350 new inspectors to help better protect Ontario's

citizens.

We recognize and value the important job our inspectors perform to ensure the safety of all Ontarians. We are providing inspectors with the tools they need to do their jobs more effectively. The ability to

work more co-operatively and efficiently is, in essence, what this legislation is all about. It's also about answering concerns from compliant businesses who have asked what we, as government, are going to do to target enforcement efforts on

companies that repeatedly and seriously break Ontario laws.

The bill proposes two new tools: publication of compliance information and sentencing considerations. The bill provides the ability to publish compliance- and conviction-related information under designated

statutes. By identifying companies that break Ontario laws, we believe that this act, if passed, would act as a deterrent for repeat offenders and help keep the public safe. Companies value their reputation within communities. Greater transparency

in publishing information about convictions can be a motivating factor in companies' achieving compliance with Ontario's laws. This leads me to the issue of sentencing considerations.

Where a company repeatedly disregards our health and safety laws, this act would, if passed, allow a prosecutor to ask the court to consider previous convictions under any act when sentencing an offender

convicted of an offence. By authorizing the prosecutor to ask the courts to consider a defendant's previous convictions, we hope that sentences imposed on serious repeat violators will reflect their repeated contraventions of Ontario's laws. In

other words, the greater the number of convictions, the more severe the penalty or higher the fine.

All these components of the proposed legislation are just part of our broader modernization agenda. The Regulatory Modernization Act, 2006, is a fundamental piece of our larger modernization strategy. The goal

of our overall modernization strategy is to improve how government works together: how we can work together to better protect the public and to help businesses more efficiently and effectively.

For example, we have implemented a small business pilot project to provide easy-to-understand tool kits so that businesses can improve the way they comply with Ontario laws. Our pilot project is with the

autobody repair sector. This sector faces a number of challenges, including the number of laws and bylaws across many ministries and other levels of government that they have to comply with; difficulty in finding the time to access information on

the regulatory requirements applicable to the business; and the duplicate information they have to submit to multiple ministries. We know from inspections by the Ministries of Labour, Environment and Finance that this sector needs help in

achieving higher levels of compliance.

After significant consultation with the autobody repair sector, we launched a one-stop shop for autobody owners this summer, the Auto Body Repair Compliance Information Centre, or CIC. The CIC is an online

compliance centre that provides important information that autobody owners need to meet their compliance requirements. The CIC provides single-point access to provincial requirements for their sector as well as required forms and key government

contacts. This site also provides popular links to many other relevant external websites and general workplace topics and facts. An autobody repair shop owner can now go to one website and see what he or she needs to comply with operating a

business in Ontario. Let me tell you, this centre has been a tremendous success.

I heard some heckling earlier about who is interested in this. The Sarnia-Lambton County Body Shop Association has said of this site, "Having one place to go for compliance questions will save a lot of time

for shop owners. It's a big step forward to be able to quickly access the information we need to run compliant businesses."

This site has received more than 75,000 hits since it was announced in June. That means people are not just passing through this site; they are staying to view and to see what government has to offer. We

included a survey on the website for shop owners. So far, 44 of 45 survey responses have been extremely positive. One facility owner has said, "A one-stop shop of everything we need to know. I never thought I'd see the day! It's a great beginning

from what I can see so far."

Another stated, "This site looks good. It seems to be very user-friendly as I've found all information topics within ... five clicks."

We are also working on developing strategies that would publicly recognize companies with exceptional records of compliance, companies that perform above and beyond compliance. By recognizing excellence, we

hope to encourage other organizations to model these leaders and take action to achieve higher levels of compliance. In turn, with more companies taking responsibility and going beyond compliance, we can use our enforcement efforts to focus on

those organizations that repeatedly and seriously violate Ontario laws. We are responding to what businesses have told us: It is important for us to target the businesses that seek an unfair competitive advantage by consistently breaking Ontario

laws. This might mean doing targeted inspection checks of that small proportion of the regulated community that commits repeat, serious violations of Ontario laws, making sure these organizations are appropriately prosecuted and their prior

convictions taken into consideration by the courts.

I would now like to conclude with a set of closing thoughts. To summarize, we believe the proposed Regulatory Modernization Act, 2006, is a strong and balanced bill. It is vital to our broader efforts to

modernize Ontario's regulatory activities so that there is more co-operation between ministries and agencies to help businesses meet their compliance requirements. It will place fewer unnecessary burdens on companies, but most importantly, it will

provide better protection of the public, the environment and our natural resources.

We are confident that Ontario's business community will appreciate the efforts of our modernization agenda as we move forward, and we believe that, if passed, the citizens of Ontario will receive better

protection as a result of these new initiatives. We have sought, and we will continue to seek, the views of stakeholders as we move forward in order to achieve positive, progressive changes. Our approach is an approach that's good for business,

it's good for government, and most importantly, it's good for the people of Ontario.

In conclusion, I'd just like to say thank you to Mr. John Stager and a number of other staff within the Ministry of Labour for their hard work and dedication in bringing this bill to where it is today. I'd now

like to ask my colleague my parliamentary assistant from Thornhill to continue the debate.

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I would like to support my colleague the Honourable Steve Peters, the Minister of Labour, in his introduction of the proposed Regulatory Modernization Act,

2006, for second reading debate. This proposed legislation is a perfect example of how the McGuinty government is improving the way government works. This proposed legislation is also an excellent example of how the McGuinty government is on the

side of small businesses and entrepreneurs.

We have met with and listened to dozens of small business owners and associations in Ontario. They have told us that for them to grow and prosper, we need to provide them with better tools to help them comply

with Ontario's laws. As my colleague Minister Peters has said, there are 13 provincial ministries responsible for regulatory compliance activities. Some businesses are regulated by as many as eight different ministries. For example, autobody

repair shops are regulated by approximately 17 provincial acts, and this is under eight different ministries.

These small business owners don't necessarily have issues with regulation. They know regulation is absolutely important and necessary to ensure safe operations; for example, to ensure that the health and

safety of their staff and the public is protected. But these businesses want us to know and understand the challenges that they face. They have told us they provide some of the same types of information over and over again to various government

officials. Some autobody repair shop owners may be required to complete around 70 different forms that pertain to their business. They have told us that they have difficulties in finding the right information on legislation that affects their

businesses, and they have told us that they are having trouble keeping up. They want to follow the rules, and they want to understand their regulatory obligations.

That is why we have begun an extensive modernization process designed to help small businesses in their efforts to comply with our laws. That is why, in addition to Bill 69, our government has introduced a new

approach to helping small businesses meet their regulatory requirements. As Minister Peters pointed out, this summer we launched an easy to understand online tool kit for the autobody repair sector. The Autobody Repair Compliance Information

Centre helps autobody repair shops find information from across ministries that they need to be in compliance. We have received rave reviews from the autobody industry as a result of our efforts. One review said: "Having one place to go for

compliance questions will save a lot of time for shop owners. It's a big step forward to be able to quickly access the information we need to run compliant businesses."

I know there are plans to continue to improve and expand the pilot project. Let me emphasize that the proposed Regulatory Modernization Act is a critical part of continuing and building upon the success of

this project. The act would, if passed, enable cross-ministry collaboration in this project. We want to improve upon and expand the pilot project because the McGuinty government is on the side of small businesses and entrepreneurs, and we are

committed to supporting them whenever possible.

This bill is, among other things, about more co-operation among ministries and agencies in order to help businesses meet their compliance requirements. It is about easing burdens placed on companies and

reducing duplication of ministries' compliance activities. We are removing challenges to doing business. This can only help contribute to a successful and vibrant economy.

The bottom line is, this bill makes sense. It makes sense for Ontario's businesses, it makes sense for Ontario regulatory ministries and it makes sense for the Ontario public and Ontario's taxpayers.

Speaking, however, of regulatory ministries and the public, I want to thank the employees of the Ontario public service, who serve Ontarians each and every day. Without our staff, Bill 69 and, indeed, all of

our innovative projects would not be possible. It was our inspectors, our field staff, our experts on the ground, working with this organization every day, who helped us to find areas of improvement. They give us suggestions as to how ministries

could share information and better work together.

If we truly want to move forward to reduce burdens on businesses and increase opportunities for ministries to work together, we need this bill. We want to create a government that is easy to access and works

in modern ways, and we want our businesses to be able to know and understand their regulatory obligations. We want to provide benefits that are good for business, benefits that are also good for working people and, above all, benefits that are

good for everyone in Ontario: the taxpayers of Ontario, the people that pay your salary and mine.

The McGuinty government's modernization initiatives will build a strong and prosperous economy, protect the public interest and provide Ontarians with the best quality of life, second to none. It is because of

this that I ask all members to unanimously support the second reading of the proposed Regulatory Modernization Act, 2006.

This is a bill that is going to make our system more efficient. It's a bill that will make the business community in our province happier. It's a bill that will allow the people who run their own business to

concentrate their efforts in making their business even more efficient than it is. It is a win for all. Because of that, I trust that the opposition parties will see the light and will, in fact, support this bill today as soon as possible so that

we can move into other legislation, other bills but, most importantly, so that we will be able to do what small businesses in Ontario have been telling us for a while, and that is that they are wasting too much time because of prior political

administrations coming up with regulations, new forms, new things for them to do. Those individuals prefer to spend all their energy in making more business, which means that they will make more revenue, which means they will be paying more taxes

to Ontario and to all the other public administrations. So it's a win-win, as I said.

Therefore, I trust the good judgment of all of us in this House that we move on quickly and we also send a good signal to our employees, people who have advised us on how to make things better. These people

are waiting to see how these honourable members in this honourable House trust their opinions and how we respect their direction in areas that we've asked them to provide us an opinion. Therefore, I would say again, before I sit: Let's send a

strong message of trust and confidence in our employees, in the people who are serving us with this information and, most importantly, the people of Ontario who watch us in this honourable House, quite often, spending time talking about issues

which, quite frankly, sometimes are not necessarily related to the bill in front of us.

Second reading will allow us to go to the community to open up discussion with people who are interested in speaking on this bill. We are going to have meetings in the community -- certainly in Toronto and

wherever Minister Peters feels it's necessary for us to go. I think that's where opportunities will be available to get into more specifics on this bill.

But the bill, as it is, deserves strong support from all three parties today or as soon as possible, so that, together, we can send a strong message to the taxpayers of Ontario that we want to make the

business community in this province better for them. The small ones, in particular, want to concentrate their energy on doing their business, what they do best and where they can provide services for Ontarians in addition to making their business

more profitable. As I said earlier, the moment business does better economically, all of Ontario will do better. We share in the benefits of getting higher taxes because they are going to do better on the revenue side.

Therefore, I thank all the members in this House for listening and trust that they will support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm looking forward to our critic Mr. Martiniuk, who has practised law in this area, I believe, and so he'll be quite insightful and very technical.

But in a general sense, I'd say at first blush that this bill is long overdue. It's probably something that we had on the books that the ministry people have brought to Minister Peters's attention, and they're

finally just getting around to doing it, because it's streamlining and efficiency.

I want to put on the record -- it's important -- that they're giving us the impression here that they've done broad consultations with the public sector. I want to see a letter from Leah Casselman on this. I'm

not sure that she'll be sending that. If she can send it to me personally, I'll read it in the Legislature on her behalf. That's one of the things, first of all.

Now, there are other disclosure issues. Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, there's important consent required for a person's information to be collected, used and/or disclosed.

These are important and somewhat technical things, and when you do investigations on companies, until those things are substantiated and proven in a dispute mechanism, court or wherever, there have to be some rules of evidence in law that come to

bear here on this. I think that's important, too, in the debate, and I'm waiting for our member from Cambridge, Mr. Martiniuk, who has practised law for years technically and understands the technical things that I'm relating here.

In a general sense, I'd say this is administrative. I'd like to see something from Leah Casselman and the Ontario public sector, because this affects their jobs and those contract relationships that they have.

I get the impression here that they've already done that, and I can only assume that they're being forthright. They've made a lot of promises over the years that they haven't kept, so you've always got to keep your eye on that. The Liberals often

promise one thing and do something else. So we're going to be listening closely to the debate here.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): In response to the comments that were made by the government in the leadoff speech, let me say that, in principle, we would not want to see roadblocks in

place, with inspectors being unable to report from one ministry to another about digressions or problems that they have seen in a workplace when they have been going in, for example, as a Ministry of Transportation inspector and saw something on

the environmental side that gave them some grave concerns. So, in principle, we don't have a problem with making sure that there are not arbitrary restrictions in place that would not allow for an exchange of information, so that that Ministry of

the Environment inspector can then go in and do his or her job.

Flowing from that, what we don't want to see, however, are some of the following consequences: Number one, that we end up with a sort of generic inspector, and we lose some of the incredible skills and talents

and expertise that we now have among the various ministries with respect to their inspectors. People who go down into mines in Sudbury for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines have some specific and particular expertise that I would not

want to see lost because this bill ends up resulting in a position that is a more generic inspector, rather than one with really specific skills and understanding of what to look for in very specific environments.

On the flip side of that, I also don't want to see, flowing from this, super-inspectors multi-tasking in an environment looking for a number of things: environmental, hydraulics -- you name it -- so that we're

expecting them to do much more than they have ever been required to do and, frankly, much more than they are skilled to do. That, on the flip side, would cause me some real concerns about whether or not they can do a proper inspection.

We want to make sure that the people who do inspections, who work for the public service, who work on the public's behalf, continue to do that in a way that is safe and that ensures the public is best

represented and that their concerns are dealt with.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I want to start by congratulating the minister and the parliamentary assistant on bringing forward this legislation, Bill 69.

Basically, even though it has a

long title, what we're looking at doing is regulating our organizations by information sharing. It sounds kind of scary, but a simple example that can be given is: If a labour

inspector went to a particular location to look at some labour issues that were going on in a particular business, that inspector may have to call someone from the health department because there are going to be health issues involved as well. If

someone is cutting metal without using goggles, that could be both a labour infraction and a health infraction. So you may have to call both ministries involved in that.

In my riding, for example, we have what is called the quarry lands, a piece of land located in the Clonmore and Gerrard area. It's basically a Ministry of the Environment issue, but some of that information

may need to be shared with the Ministry of Health, because people have come to me and said, "Mr. Berardinetti, there's a problem with what's coming out of that site" -- it was a former landfill site.

I've been working quite a bit with the Ministry of Health on this issue, and have spoken to the minister directly as well as with the local councillor for that area, Brian Ashton. Part of the problem is that

the Ministry of the Environment is involved, and the Ministry of Health could be involved, but they can't really share that information right now. It's more difficult for them to do that or to give a heads-up to the Ministry of Health, and perhaps

to another ministry that could look at this.

This bill brings that together, provides for congruency. I think that's quite important, so it's a step forward. There are safeguards in here -- unfortunately I don't have the time to talk about them -- to

prevent that information from being leaked or brought too much into the public sector, but used only among the ministries. Once again, I congratulate the ministry.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I get the privilege of doing two minutes, then I'll turn around and do a longer bit.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It's your hour.

Mr. Martiniuk: Yeah, it's my hour.

Bill 69 has certain laudatory aims, and we in this House are all concerned with the protection of the public, with the protection of employees and with the protection of businesses. This bill, as a stated aim,

desires to make the regulatory system in Ontario somewhat more efficient. Now, the minister has already stated that it is not -- one of its aims is to save money, although that may be an ancillary end of this bill, but he says it's to make it more

efficient and that it is aimed as protection against bus