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

December 12, 2005

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Dec-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 12 December 2005 Lundi 12 décembre 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO GENERATION

ST. PETER KNIGHTS

VIOLENT CRIME

VISITORS

PILLITTERI ESTATES WINERY

LAYOFFS

HOPEWELL PLAYSENSE

ACTIVITY CENTRE

TOWN AND COUNTRY

SUPPORT SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLANT

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AND CONSERVATION

LAND STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE ET AUX TERRES PROTÉGÉES

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

GLOBAL SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LAND USE PLANNING

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

RURAL STUDENT SUCCESS PROGRAM /

PROGRAMME AXÉ SUR LA RÉUSSITE

DES ÉLÈVES EN MILIEU RURAL

LAND USE PLANNING

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

RURAL STUDENT SUCCESS PROGRAM

LAND USE PLANNING

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2005 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

HYDRO GENERATION

HEALTH SERVICES

HYDRO GENERATION

AGRICULTURAL TRADE

HEALTH PROMOTION

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

STELCO

LAKERIDGE HEALTH

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PETITIONS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PENSION PLANS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESPECT FOR

MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE RESPECT DES MUNICIPALITÉS

RESPECT FOR

MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE RESPECT DES MUNICIPALITÉS

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE

DES EMPLOYÉS MUNICIPAUX

DE L'ONTARIO

ENERGY CONSERVATION RESPONSIBILITY

ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ

EN MATIÈRE DE CONSERVATION

DE L'ÉNERGIE

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HYDRO GENERATION

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): This past Friday, December 9, the Minister of Energy released the much-ballyhooed and somewhat

delayed Supply Mix Advice Report, as submitted by the Ontario Power Authority. The report contained little in the way of surprises for me and most of those who have followed the energy scene.

Therefore, it should have been of little surprise to the minister herself, as it was the McGuinty government that dictated entirely the terms of reference the OPA had to work with.

To no one's surprise, there is a recommendation to build new nuclear facilities in Ontario. After two years of delay, it is time to make some decisions. Our

leader, John Tory, recommended some time ago that a process determining sites, desirable technologies and an environmental assessment process should have been considered and acted upon months ago.

This is precisely what the report recommends, but again this government has let valuable time slip by while doing nothing.

With this government's wrong decision to refuse to consider new coal technologies, it is absolutely imperative that the nuclear decision be made as quickly as

possible. The report's recommendation with regard to renewables, primarily wind, is on the optimistic side. It clearly states that with no ability to dispatch wind power, another source must be

simultaneously available.

The report assumes natural gas prices at $8, when today they are in the $14 range. It leaves little conclusion other than that the price of power under this

government's wrong coal policy is about to skyrocket.

I urge the minister to act quickly on this report. Don't leave this province in the dark because of your government's blind ideology.

ST. PETER KNIGHTS

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I rise in the House today to commend the St. Peter Knights of my community of Fallingbrook on their

triumphant win at the Rogers Centre this past Thursday. The high school football team from Ottawa-Orléans defeated the Sydenham Golden Eagles 24-10 to become the first team from the national

capital region to win the bowl since the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations introduced the bowl series in the year 2000. The game was part of four regional bowl games that all took

place at the Rogers Centre involving the top teams in Ontario. The Knights boast a great defensive line and a strong running game, which were instrumental in overcoming a great passing team.

I had the pleasure of meeting with the grade 12 class from St. Peter's this past Friday. Mr. John Ferguson's political science class was very enthusiastic and

participated in heated discussions about the issues concerning our government today and the Legislature. There were members of the Knights team in the class. I was happy to be able to congratulate

them personally on their success. I would also like to take the time to congratulate two students I know personally from St. Peter's school on their exemplary performance on the playing field last

week. Running back Matt Nooyen scored an impressive five-yard touchdown, and kicker Eric Lucktenberg wowed us with an 11-yard field goal and three converts.

I commend Coach Mick and all of the St. Peter Knights for their hard work and determination which led to their victory this past Thursday. We are proud of all of

our teams for the sportsmanship and team spirit that they demonstrate at every game.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Today I was honoured to be present at the Flemingdon Resource Centre here in Toronto when our leader, John

Tory, released Time for Action: A Report on Violence Affecting Youth.

After more than two years of inaction, Liberal photo ops, broken promises and reacting without any consultation to media reports, our leader has put before the

citizens of Ontario a very detailed and comprehensive report outlining 22 key recommendations. The 22 recommendations focus on three broad categories: policing, fixing the justice system, and

providing youth and their families with programs to prevent crime.

Almost one year ago, John Tory called on Dalton McGuinty to convene a summit on violence affecting youth. The Premier refused. John Tory took action. John Tory

provided the leadership Ontarians deserve. John Tory considers the guns and gang violence issue to be a top priority and has worked tirelessly meeting with stakeholders for the past year to compile

the information necessary to draft this report. The full report is available on www.ontariopc.net.

Today our leader is calling on Dalton McGuinty to accept the report and act on its recommendations. We have to get tough on the criminals and get serious about

helping kids stay out of trouble. We have to start saving their lives. It's time for action.

VISITORS

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): Let me start out by saying I'm pleased to let you know that joining us in the gallery today is a good friend of

mine, the president of OPSEU Local 270, Brother Dan McKnight, with his lovely wife, Cora.

Thank you for coming out.

PILLITTERI ESTATES WINERY

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): There's good news from France about Niagara wines. I'm proud to announce that Pillitteri Estates Winery was

awarded a rare Grand Gold Medal for its 2004 Vidal sparkling icewine at this year's Effervescents du Monde international wine competition. This competition recognizes the best sparkling wines in

the world. The Grand Gold Medal is the highest honour the competition can award. Pillitteri Estates was the only North American winery to win one of the three Grand Gold Medals. Sparkling icewine

is a new style of icewine pioneered in Ontario. The result is a decadent, rich sparkling wine.

This leading Niagara winery has experienced tremendous growth in the last 10 years, winning over 400 major awards.

Many in this assembly will personally know the owner of this great family winery, former Niagara Falls federal Liberal MP Gary Pillitteri. I'm sure everyone in

the House will join me in congratulating the Pillitteri family and their staff, headed by winemaker Sue-Ann Staff, for this exceptional honour. It's a great recognition for our community.

LAYOFFS

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I stand in my place today to express my disappointment in recent statements made by government members with respect

to plant closings and layoffs that have occurred under their watch. The degree of insensitivity and lack of forethought found in the comments made by some of the members is appalling to me, as it

should be to the rest of the members in this Legislature and all Ontarians.

We have heard that the closure of Imperial Tobacco in Guelph was an indication that Liberal policies are working. If the goal of their policies is to put people

out of work, then she is correct: Liberal taxation and energy policies have gone a long way to putting a lot of people out of work in this province.

We have even heard this government say that a layoff of 3,900 workers at GM was a small contraction for those who were affected by it -- a small contraction. I

would love for this government to sit down and listen to the 52,000 people in this province who have lost their jobs as a result of a crumbling manufacturing sector. Maybe the Premier needs to hear

just how much of an effect a contraction, even a small one, has on someone losing their job right before the holiday season. Last Thursday, we heard a member of the government side insist that

communities in which plant closings have occurred are apt to "just sit there and cry and do nothing."

I have come to believe that the insensitive remarks made by the Liberal members of this Legislature are condoned and accepted, as not one of the members has been

demoted or reprimanded in any way.

More than 52,000 Ontarians have lost their manufacturing-based jobs, and thousands more in the forestry sector. What has this government done? They've responded

with, "Our plan is working." They're calling the recently unemployed "crybabies" or referring to it as "a small contraction." Ontarians deserve better --

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

HOPEWELL PLAYSENSE

ACTIVITY CENTRE

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I'm delighted to speak today about the grand opening of Hopewell Playsense Activity Centre in Guelph last

Thursday. Hopewell Children's Home provides residential care for children and adults with severe developmental and physical disabilities.

Playsense Activity Centre, administered by Hopewell, is a fully accessible sensory play centre for children with developmental disabilities. It is primarily an

after-school centre, offering respite to parents and caregivers of children with disabilities. Specialized equipment and unique exploratory spaces designed to stimulate the senses let children

explore and play at their own pace.

Playsense is located in the newly expanded Shelldale Community Centre, which houses numerous agencies and community groups. Hosted by Family and Children's

Services, Shelldale demonstrates the creative conversion of a former elementary school into a community service hub. The Playsense Activity Centre has become a reality thanks to the extraordinary

spirit of Guelph and areas four Rotary clubs. The Rotary 4 Hopewell project involved the year-long fundraising efforts of the Rotary clubs of Guelph, Guelph-Wellington, Guelph Trillium and

Wellington South. The overwhelming generosity of the people of Guelph-Wellington in assisting with this project is truly inspiring.

TOWN AND COUNTRY

SUPPORT SERVICES

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I rise today to share with this House all the good things that are happening in the riding of Huron-Bruce.

The list is long, but I want to talk about one specifically: This is the official opening of Town and Country Support Services' new senior fitness centre at the Betty Cardno Centre in Clinton. This

centre features fitness equipment, a resource library and a social area. Classes will also be held in Exeter, Zurich, Brussels, Wingham and Blyth.

This project was made possible by a grant from the province and funding from the municipality of Central Huron. I just want to quote Polly Powell, who is a

fitness instructor at the centre: "An active lifestyle makes a healthy aging process. It's so important as we age that we help ourselves stay fit." This is an excellent way for seniors to use

physical activity to promote health.

The centre is the final portion of Town and Country's new LIFE -- living independently through fitness and exercise -- initiative. Congratulations to Town and

Country Support Services for all of their hard work. We in Huron-Bruce look forward to receiving further community in action grant funds that will help all of the riding to meet the initiatives of

staying fit.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I just want to say that last week I had an opportunity to meet with members of the Toronto Community

Housing Corp., those who are reluctant in their own buildings to represent the people living in their units. We talked about a campaign that some of the members of the Toronto Community Housing

Corp. have. That is, they want to convince the provincial government to give them $225 million so that they can fix their buildings.

I think it's an important campaign because often the Toronto Community Housing Corp. is expected to be a police station or behave as if they were police. They're

expected to behave as if they were the Ministry of Community and Social Services. They're expected to behave as if they were the minister of post-secondary education, where they're supposed to be

providing the training and apprenticeship programs. They are not obligated or obliged to do any of those things, simply because they don't have a mandate or the money to do that. The government

gives them no support to do that. They need $225 million that cannot come from the city, because they're broke, and can only come from the provincial government. With that $225 million there is so

much that they could do, but primarily, they could fix those buildings so that young people and the older people who live in those places don't have to live in squalor. It's about time that the

provincial government, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, delivered on that promise. We can't wait; nor can they.

PROCTER AND GAMBLE PLANT

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I'm sure that everyone in this Legislature joins with me in welcoming the decision by Procter and

Gamble to construct a new $40-million production facility next to the current plant in Belleville. This expansion will provide for 100 new manufacturing jobs in our community.

Why Quinte? Obviously, a skilled workforce that is world-renowned; the extremely high work ethic among our population; the proximity to markets -- on the pathway

between Toronto and Montreal and within 500 miles of literally millions of US citizens; and transportation availability -- rail, the 401 and ships -- an ideal spot to manufacture.

Why Ontario? Clearly, this province is open for business, whether from our local Trenval office, which, by the way, has created over 3,000 jobs, right through to

our government. Our government has a strong and clear commitment to education and jobs. This was demonstrated last Friday, when I was with Minister Dombrowsky as she announced $2 million being

provided by our government for the training of new employees. I might add that this training is an indication of the faith we have in the effectiveness of Loyalist College in Belleville.

This announcement reaffirms what we already know: Ontario is a great place to live and a great place to work.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I would ask members to assist me in welcoming a former member, Harry Pelissero, the member from Lincoln in

the 34th Parliament, who is in the members' east gallery.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its

adoption.

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

Bill 16,

An Act respecting the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve / Projet de loi16, loi concernant la Réserve agricole de Duffins-Rouge.

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

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AND CONSERVATION

LAND STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE ET AUX TERRES PROTÉGÉES

Mr. Gerretsen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 51,

An Act to amend the Planning Act and the Conservation Land Act and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 51, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et la

Loi sur les terres protégées et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

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

Does the minister have a brief statement?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'll wait until ministerial statements.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move, pursuant to standing order

9(c)(i), that the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Monday, December 12, 2005, 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 in favour will say "aye."

All 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 1349 to 1354.

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

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Horwath, Andrea

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 60; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

GLOBAL SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent

to move a motion without notice respecting global supply management and for each party to be allowed to speak to the motion for up to five minutes, following which the Speaker shall put every

question necessary to dispose of the motion.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley has asked for unanimous consent -- dispense?

Interjection: No.

The Speaker: Mr. Bradley has asked for unanimous consent to move a motion without notice respecting global supply management and for each

party to be allowed to speak to the motion for up to five minutes, following which the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I move that,

Whereas the clear demonstration of the Canadian commitment to maintaining strong and effective supply management worldwide has received the unanimous support

of all MPPs in this Legislative Assembly,

Therefore, let it be resolved:

That the Legislative Assembly, within the framework of the World Trade Organization negotiations, reiterate its stalwart support for supply management, an

agricultural products marketing model that is equitable for consumers, taxpayers, processors and producers who live thereon;

That it ascertain that the federal government maintain its support of the current supply management system; and

That the Legislative Assembly ask the federal government to mandate its negotiators to obtain, at the conclusion of the present round of negotiations, results

that will enable supply management sectors to avoid a decrease in tariffs and an increase in tariff quotas.

The Speaker: Mrs. Dombrowsky has moved that,

"Whereas the clear demonstration of the Canadian commitment to maintaining strong and" -- dispense? OK.

The Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I rise today in defence of this province's agriculture industry.

Applause.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: Absolutely.

Faced with falling world commodity prices, Ontario's farmers need and deserve the assurance of everyone in this Legislature that we will continue to fight for

their interests.

As we approach this week's ministerial meetings of the World Trade Organization in Hong Kong, it is vital that this House reiterate our deep and solid

commitment to our agriculture sector. Ontario has a thriving agri-food sector, one of the most dynamic in the country. It is an important and essential part of Ontario's successful economy. I'm

very proud of the significant contributions that Ontario's producers and food manufacturers lend to Canada's healthy trade surplus and I know their continued success depends on establishing a fair

trading environment for agriculture.

Ontario producers are seeking a level playing field in which to conduct their business. With literally tonnes of subsidized corn or wheat stockpiled in the

United States and Europe, those world prices upon which our farmers rely are driven downward. Those world prices, depressed by heavily subsidized American and European products flooding the market,

are descending to levels where our farmers can no longer meet their cost of production.

In the face of these challenges, the virtues of supply management are clear and they bear repeating. Four decades ago, Ontario's poultry farmers were

struggling. They were losing their farms. At the same time, their product was increasing in value. The introduction of supply management in 1965 marked a turning point for the poultry industry.

Today, that industry provides more than 5,000 full-time jobs, with related jobs employing more than 1,000 people. Under supply management, Ontario's dairy producers have thrived as well. Dairy now

represents the largest sector in this province's agriculture industry, with clear and crucial benefits to our economy. The story is the same for our egg producers and pullet growers. That is why

Ontario is not prepared to sacrifice the regulated marketing structures used by dairy, poultry and egg producers.

It is not simply that these farmers represent a significant contribution to a healthy rural economy and strong rural communities in Ontario, but rather, the

point is that these farmers are able to ensure that Ontario consumers and food manufacturers receive some of the highest-quality, safest food in the world at affordable and stable prices.

In this context, Ontario urges the federal government to vigorously defend the interests of those sectors dependent on supply management. A successful

conclusion to the Doha negotiations in Hong Kong requires real constraints on American and European support spending, which so brazenly distorts trade in agricultural goods worldwide and must

include sufficient flexibility to accommodate our supply-managed producers. We can settle for no less.

I ask this assembly to send a loud, unanimous message to our federal government as its negotiators prepare for the talks in Hong Kong. I want us to say clearly

that our supply management system should not be a bargaining chip. It must not be negotiated away. Whatever the outcome of this federal election, I repeat my challenge to our colleagues in Ottawa:

Defend our agriculture sector internationally. In the face of unprecedented subsidies in the United States and Europe, Canada's federal government must be vigilant in bringing our farmers'

interests to the table. I call on this House to reaffirm that message today.

I also want to take this opportunity on behalf of the government to thank Ontario's agriculture producers, and we have some people joining us in the government

gallery today: Bill Emmott from Dairy Farmers of Ontario; Harry Pelissero, general manager of Ontario Egg Producers; Tom Fleming, vice-chair of the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick

Commission; and Adrian Rehorst, a member of the board of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario. We're delighted that they're here today as well.

Their hard work, their commitment to excellence and the contributions they make to their communities are a source of pride for all of us in Ontario.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): On behalf of John Tory and the PC opposition caucus, just let me start out by declaring that our

support for supply management is 100%, and I say 100% without equivocation. For example, 100% of our sitting members have affixed their signatures in support of FarmGate5.

As opposition ag critic, I have attended many farm meetings across the province and I do hear reason for alarm. Frankly, with the WTO talks this week, I am

worried about supply management. I'm also worried about farm families involved in cash crop, involved in beef, tobacco, and fruit and vegetable. Every commodity seems to be either in a full-blown

crisis or anticipating one in the near future. At times like these, it's vital to ensure that government and society at large understand the nature of the crisis that's knocking at our doors. A

perfect storm, if you will, exists this week with the WTO negotiations, the corn countervail decision coming up and the pre-Christmas run-up to the federal election. Clearly, for farm and rural

Ontario, the time is now to get out there and to take action.

As members would know, supply management has long been the strength of poultry, egg and dairy farming in Canada, and any threat to that system must be seen as

a threat to the well-being of rural Canada. I do raise the question, what would rural Ontario look like without supply management? I know what it was like before supply management. We had dairy, we

had broilers, we had laying hens, we had hatching eggs; this was all before supply management. It was great work, but we were losing money. We were losing too much money, way too much money. At the

time, we got big, and then, on the advice of the bank, we got out. That was the reality for my family farming operation, and that's the reality for much of Ontario without supply management. We do

not want to go there again.

For these reasons, I am proud to report our support for supply management, 100% support, as I indicated. Again, 100% of our members affixed their signature to

the document. It's a document being circulated by a collective effort described as FarmGate5, made up of the supply-managed sectors, who are seeking nothing more than a balanced trade deal that

benefits all farmers. FarmGate5, as we would know, includes the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Egg Producers, the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board

and the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission.

As you've heard, supply management works on the basis of three very important pillars: import control, producer pricing and production discipline. Like any

three-legged stool, if one pillar is weakened, the entire system is compromised. For example, without import controls, production discipline becomes impossible, and without production discipline,

pricing becomes impossible. Supply management, as the name suggests, balances supply and demand and prevents overproduction, flooded markets and depressed prices for farmers.

We must, together in this House, stand strong and continue to do all we can to lend our unequivocal support for supply management in the face of the reality

that some trading partners have not lived up to the last WTO agreement in terms of market access or subsidy reductions.

As opposition leader John Tory noted last week, support for our farmers, supply-managed or not, becomes even more essential when you consider the fact that

farm incomes in Ontario during this government's first year in office were 72% below the average for the past five years. Compare that to Canada, where we saw a reduction of 3.5%.

Clearly, government must stand firm. We all must stand firm for values like fairness, our ability to choose made-in-Canada food, and a stable income for our

farmers without expensive taxpayer-funded initiatives. We need leaders to secure a fair trading environment that lets Canadians determine the type of agriculture we want: the type of agriculture we

want today and the kind we want in the future.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): New Democrats firmly support the unequivocal protection and expansion of our five supply-managed

products, as represented by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Egg Producers, the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Turkey Producers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Broiler Hatching

Egg and Chick Commission.

Canada must ensure that all of our supply management sectors are sustained and protected as sensitive products at the World Trade Organization meetings this

week in Hong Kong. Anything less is simply unacceptable. We know that the United States and the European Union want to significantly reduce the percentage of Canadian products categorized as

sensitive, and this must be vigorously and successfully opposed.

Farmers in our supply-managed sectors are legitimately concerned. They are concerned because the Martin Liberals have given signals that our supply-managed

commodities may not all survive the current round of WTO negotiations and agreements. The federal Liberals are sending out mixed messages as to whether they will unequivocally protect our supply

management programs. The United States wants 1% under the sensitive product category. We currently need 11% included under the sensitive product category to cover our entire supply management

sector. Yet the federal government's chief trade negotiator has said that the federal government is prepared to compromise on supply management to get an agreement. A compromise on the 11% means

sacrificing some of our supply-managed sectors. There can be no compromise in this regard.

If I may, one of the things we need to be wary of is that we have gone to great lengths in the past in order to get agreements with our American neighbours,

only to find that on softwood lumber, on pork, with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board and also with respect to beef, they will look for any excuse to ignore the agreements and any excuse to

impose trade embargoes or other trade sanctions. In the complex trade negotiations this week in Hong Kong, our trade negotiators need very clear instructions that our supply-managed agricultural

products are not on the table to be traded away. We should not allow and we cannot allow Canadian trade negotiators to trade away our supply management sector and its crucial economic importance to

our economy and rural way of life in attempts to gain other trade concessions in other sectors. As I remarked earlier, trying to entertain that strategy has not worked for Canada before. We have

come away from too many trade negotiation processes believing that we've achieved something that we can enforce in terms of international trade tribunals or something that our American neighbours

will live with, only to discover after the fact that their

interpretation of the agreement means to them that they can do whatever they wish.

It is important to maintain supply management for at least three critical reasons: (1) because it provides Canadian consumers with reasonable, fair and

predictable prices for the commodities that are subject to supply management; (2) it provides a predictable market overall -- we do not have shortages, nor do we have overproduction; and (3) for

farmers, it ensures that their costs of production are covered and it ensures that they can make a fair living.

It seems to me that we ought to be applying or seeking to apply those kinds of outcomes to other areas of agricultural production, not looking for

opportunities to give away some of what we've successfully included under supply management categories. So New Democrats are unanimous in our support for this resolution. We must sustain supply

management. We should not put Canadian farmers at risk of international market conditions which lead to lower prices, to unpredictable markets and to farmers not being able to stay on the land and

continue to produce.

The Speaker: Ms. Dombrowsky has moved:

"That

whereas the clear demonstration of the Canadian commitment to maintaining strong and effective supply management worldwide has received the unanimous

support of all MPPs in this Legislative Assembly, therefore, let it be resolved:

"That the Legislative Assembly, within the framework of the World Trade Organization negotiations, reiterate its stalwart support for supply management, an

agricultural products marketing model that is equitable for consumers, taxpayers, processors and producers who live thereon;

"That it ascertain that the federal government maintain its support of the current supply management system; and

"That the Legislative Assembly ask the federal government to mandate its negotiators to obtain, at the conclusion of the present round of negotiations, results

that will enable supply management sectors to avoid a decrease in tariffs and an increase in tariff quotas."

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LAND USE PLANNING

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Today, I'm proud to introduce the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law

Amendment Act, 2005. If passed by the Legislature, this bill would bring Ontario's land use planning system and the Ontario Municipal Board into the 21st century.

Reforming Ontario's land use planning system is a cornerstone of our government's commitment to build strong, healthy and liveable communities. It is crucial

to our plan to reduce urban sprawl, preserve green space and protect our natural resources.

Over the next 25 years, our province is expected to grow by four million people. Current patterns of growth place a heavy strain on our infrastructure,

contribute to shifting gridlock, negatively affect our air quality and threaten to reduce the province's economic competitiveness and quality of life.

Better planning will lead to better development: the more compact, energy-efficient, green, transit-friendly developments that Ontario will need if we are to

maintain our economic prosperity and quality of life in the 21st century.

Our proposed legislation would support this kind of sustainable growth across the province by giving municipalities the tools they need to ensure good

development in their communities.

What does good development mean? It means communities where new buildings fit in with the character of the rest of the neighbourhood; where old, abandoned

industrial sites are redeveloped and rejuvenated into vibrant, multi-use neighbourhoods; and where people can move around freely and not always be stuck in endless traffic.

Our proposed legislation would mean that municipalities would have new authority to set conditions for how new subdivisions are designed in ways that maximize

energy efficiency and include transit- and pedestrian-friendly design elements along streets and highways.

We're proposing to give municipalities more powers to shape the look and feel of their communities through new authority to consider external design details

when they approve site plans.

Good development is also the product of thoughtful decision-making and an engaged citizenry. The proposed reforms would support these goals by shifting

requirements for complete information about planning and development, public consultation and overall decision-making to the front end of the planning process. This means a more central role for

residents and local councils in the planning process.

These reforms would, if passed, make municipalities and local councils more accountable for planning matters and help reduce the number of appeals to the

Ontario Municipal Board as well as the duration of hearings.

For example, hearings before the OMB would generally be limited to material that had already been provided to municipal councils and the public. The OMB would

also be specifically directed to have regard to decisions made at the municipal level. Municipalities would also be able to establish local appeal bodies whose members would include local residents

to deal with matters of purely local significance.

Under the proposed reforms, the OMB would continue to provide Ontario citizens with a mechanism to appeal land use planning decisions. It will continue to have

an important role, but we are proposing to modify that role to focus more on matters that have the greatest impact on the broader public interest.

We are also suggesting a number of administrative reforms to the OMB to the Public Appointments Secretariat, which is conducting a review of Ontario's

agencies, boards and commissions. For example, we want to ensure that persons named to the OMB are the best-qualified people to hear appeals of planning decisions that affect our Ontario

municipalities. We also want to establish a citizen liaison function to help members of the public navigate the OMB process, making it more accessible.

Our proposed reforms would provide clearer rules and a more transparent process for the public, municipalities and all parties involved in planning our

communities. In the long term, they would help minimize lengthy delays and confusion about how the planning process operates, while supporting important goals of important sustainable growth and

development.

Over the last two years, the province has consulted extensively on planning reform issues. During these consultations, we heard from thousands of people and

organizations, including municipalities, planners, developers, ratepayers, environmental groups and many other members of the public on what changes we needed to make to Ontario's planning system.

The proposed legislation is the result of that lengthy consultation process, and we will continue to work with our municipal partners, the public and all the stakeholders to ensure that we plan for

the kinds of communities that Ontarians want and deserve.

Our proposed legislation is one part of our broader vision for shaping Ontario's future. So are the new provincial policy statement; our greenbelt plan; the

Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act and the Places to Grow Act; the proposed growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe; and most recently, our proposed Clean Water Act. Taken together,

all of these initiatives will help make the vision real. And with the bill that I've proposed today, we are again delivering on our commitment to build stronger, more vibrant and more sustainable

communities.

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I rise today to advise you and this House of the latest development in our

government's plan to deliver on three key health care priorities. The priorities we identified earlier in our mandate are healthier Ontarians, reduced wait times and better access to nurses and

doctors. As all members of this chamber will know, we're delivering on all three, and family health teams are a big part of the reason why.

Family health teams are exactly the kind of interdisciplinary team model experts like Roy Romanow for years have been calling for, bringing doctors, nurses,

nutritionists and other health care professionals together under one roof to offer a complete package of care. We've already established 69 family health teams across Ontario. Last Friday, we

announced the creation of 31 more, to be located in the following communities: London, St. Marys, Stratford, Listowel, Sauble Beach, Erin, Palmerston, Beamsville, Paris, Niagara Falls, Smithville,

Oshweken, Mississauga/Etobicoke, Toronto, Markham, Fenelon Falls, Bancroft, Athens, Rockland, Carp, Penetanguishene, Iroquois Falls, Kirkland Lake, Little Current, Vermilion Bay, Schreiber and

Atikokan.

These 31 new family health teams will include more than 250 doctors and approximately 225 other health care practitioners. This second wave also brings us to

two thirds of the way toward our commitment of 150 family health teams by 2007-08. More importantly, they will provide thousands of Ontarians with access to nurses and doctors, many of whom today

do not have that access. And let me point out that our fundamental commitment to accountability dictates that we will be reporting progress, including progress on the number of previously orphaned

patients who will now have access, who will no longer be orphaned.

Doctors working in a family health team model can provide more care to more patients than doctors working in a solo practice. Access is also enhanced because

teams offer after-hours and weekend coverage, and the patients have access to a telephone health advisory service after hours. These teams don't just help those who are sick. They work at keeping

people healthy, providing one-stop shopping for a wide range of health care services based on the needs of the community.

Patients aren't the only ones who benefit. Family health teams are also a very attractive model for doctors and other health care professionals, allowing them

to share their workload with colleagues and providing them with greater flexibility and balance in their work and in their home lives. They're a model of primary care reform that truly works, a

model that previous governments have tried to introduce with only limited success. We have been determined to make this model a reality, and I'm proud to report that we are succeeding.

When we made the announcement on Friday, one of the speakers was Dr. Geordie Fallis, who is the chief of the department of family practice at Toronto East

General Hospital. He'll be working in the new family health team at Toronto East General, and he had this to say: "There is no heavier burden than a great potential." Then he thanked this

government "for providing us with this opportunity to develop our potential."

Today's second wave of family health teams is a big step forward. We're developing a great deal of potential, but our work is by no means complete. I'm pleased

to announce that we are launching a second call for applications. The ministry is now accepting applications for groups wanting to be chosen as one of the final 50 family health teams. This second

call opens today and will close on February 15, 2006, and the process is open to repeat and new applicants alike.

Let me tell you a little bit more about how family health teams fit into our bigger plan for health care. They stress health promotion and disease prevention,

because these efforts are just as important as treating minor ailments and managing chronic diseases in the overall health care scheme of things. This is true health care, as opposed to illness

care, and it saves lives as well as health care dollars. By providing comprehensive care closer to home, and thereby reducing the need for emergency room visits, family health teams will ease the

strain on our hospitals and reduce wait times. That means our hospitals can deliver the acute care they were designed to deliver and they can deliver it faster. Above all else, family health teams

will improve access to nurses and doctors. They represent the future of health care, and it's a future this government is very proud to be shaping.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): I rise in the House today to mark International Human Rights Day, which was recognized around the

world this past Saturday, December 10. It was on that day in 1948 that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the shadow of the

horrors of the Second World War, and the Holocaust in particular.

Cette oppression était la preuve que le monde avait besoin d'une déclaration universelle des droits fondamentaux de la personne.

The declaration was adopted by a world community determined to define a set of minimum standards to which all could be held to account. Canada has always

played an important role in the advancement of human rights around the world. The current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is Louise Arbour, a former judge of the Ontario Court of

Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a Canadian lawyer, John Humphrey, who spearheaded the drafting of the universal declaration.

Ontario has a proud record of leadership in protecting human rights. It was in 1962 that our province introduced the Ontario Human Rights Code, the first

comprehensive human rights code in the nation. This past November, at the justice ministers' meeting in Whitehorse, provincial and federal justice ministers agreed to hold a gathering of justice

ministers and ministers responsible for human rights in 2006. It is the first such meeting that will take place in some 17 years. It is long overdue and I'm looking forward to it.

Ontario's strength comes from the diversity of its people. The citizens of Toronto, for example, speak more than 100 different languages, and the city has the

highest proportion of foreign-born residents -- 44% -- in the world.

Discrimination and racism in any form is a violation of human rights and human dignity. It weakens humankind and must be fought wherever it is found. This is

particularly true when it comes to hate crimes.

The need for responsive policies and programs that aim to prevent hate crimes in Ontario is clear. The McGuinty government has established a Hate Crimes

Community Working Group to provide expert advice and proposals for solutions to combat hate crimes in Ontario. This past Friday, Minister Kwinter and I announced the appointment of the chair and

members of the working group. This group will make recommendations on ways to improve services for victims of hate crimes and prevent such crimes and victimization.

Three members of the working group are with us here today in the gallery: The chair, Karen Mock, and members Ijaz Qamar and Howard Shulman. I know the

Legislature welcomes them all.

Protecting human rights is everyone's responsibility. We all have an obligation to respect each other's rights, to speak out and act out against

discrimination. On this International Human Rights Day, let us celebrate the achievements that have been made toward universal human rights. Let us all take a moment to think how each and every one

of us can contribute to a better and more humane world.

And may I say, on this December 12, which happens to be my mother's birthday -- Mom being someone who certainly would affirm International Human Rights Day --

happy birthday, Mom.

RURAL STUDENT SUCCESS PROGRAM /

PROGRAMME AXÉ SUR LA RÉUSSITE

DES ÉLÈVES EN MILIEU RURAL

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): Our government is committed to seeing that all Ontario students get the best education possible.

Giving our students a good educational foundation leads to a better future, not just for them, and a more prosperous Ontario for all of us.

Students in Ontario's rural schools are no exception. That's why this morning I visited Lord Dorchester Secondary School, near London, along with a number of

my colleagues, including the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister of Labour, to announce the rural student success program to improve the viability of rural schools,

increase graduation rates for rural students and encourage more students to pursue post-secondary education. This program includes a $10-million lighthouse program, a new rural-experience emphasis

in the curriculum and new e-learning pilots. I know the members opposite are interested in the kinds of things that are finally happening through the rural student success program, putting rural

schools on an equal footing with their urban counterparts and making sure that there is equal success for the 75,000 rural high school students in this province.

Le programme axé sur la réussite des élèves en milieu rural mettra les écoles secondaires rurales sur le même pied que celles des

régions urbaines afin d'améliorer les chances de réussite des 75 000 élèves qui les fréquentent.

We know that when young people have access to good education in local schools, our communities can grow stronger. The government is committed to supporting the

role schools play as hubs and indeed hearts of our thriving rural communities.

We are very well aware of the challenges that rural high schools face. This program recognizes the uniqueness of these schools, helps to enhance the learning

experience for students and encourages students to stay in rural high schools instead of electing for larger urban ones.

Let me give a bit more detail on the rural student success program. The lighthouse program will provide 25 to 50 of our 144 high schools with $100,000 to

$200,000 of additional annual funding in each of the two years. This is the latest instalment in what is now a rural funding formula, which has been asked for for a long time and is only now

available to support rural students; $20 million was provided earlier this year. Since 2002-03, over $200 million in new annual funding targeting the needs of rural students has taken place. That

is a separate fund of $230 million in one-time capital funding -- funding for libraries, energy retrofits and trying to catch up some of the issues. It includes money for transportation. Some of

the members opposite, I think, will want to applaud that component.

The rural student success program will adapt the high school curriculum to provide more options to rural students. It will include for the first time a rural

and farming major as part of the recently announced specialist skills diploma. Students will have the option to bundle six to 12 farming and related courses to get a specialist designation for

their diploma, new rural and agricultural related co-operative courses and, for the first time, ministry-recognized external programs will be eligible to count for credit, such as the 4H

program.

An extensive e-learning pilot project will increase the diversity of courses available at rural schools by providing for the first time a provincial platform

that will enable students to take the same course from a variety of locations.

The rural student success program is another component in this government's student success strategy to ensure that all students will receive a good outcome

from their high school education. This strategy announced by Premier Dalton McGuinty includes a government target to increase the graduation rate to 85% by 2010, up from 68% when the government

took office and 71% in 2004. This is a bold target, but we must be bold because that is what Ontario students deserve. It is why our government is committed to strengthening rural education; it is

a key to improving the quality of life in the communities and boosting the economic development potential of rural Ontario and our province's prosperity. I look forward to working closely with the

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on that exact issue.

Cette initiative essentielle permettra d'améliorer la qualité de vie dans ces collectivités et de renforcer le potentiel de développement

économique de l'Ontario rural de même que la prospérité de la province.

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

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): A couple of quick words to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on introducing the reforms to the

Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board. I guess I should start off by saying I would share the opinion expressed by Ann Mulvale in her response to the minister's statement: "Our shared desire

to reform the Planning Act, and more specifically the Ontario Municipal Board, is a good example of where our interests align. I cannot imagine that you would find a single municipality that would

endorse the OMB in its present structure or a single municipality which would not support the government's commitment to changing it." I think we all share that commitment. For two years we've been

waiting for the minister to come forward with the proposal to reform the Ontario Municipal Board.

I just want to point out that what the government says and what they do is not always the same thing. We get a lot of promises, but then they don't come

through on what they're promising to do. One of the things in the statement that the minister was speaking about was that the Municipal Board will now have to "have regard to" the municipal bylaws

and the municipal official plans. I want to point out that it wasn't good enough for the minister when the municipalities must "have regard to" the provincial policy statements. He changed those

words to "be consistent with" in order to make sure that municipalities did exactly what the province wanted done. Obviously, he's not willing to give the municipalities that same respect that he

wanted for the province when it comes to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The other thing I want to point out very quickly is that when we talk about giving respect to the municipalities and suggesting that the Planning Act is going

to allow them more authority to develop communities as they see fit, there are 16 new conditions that they must meet where they must be consistent with provincial policy statements in order to deal

with their local planning. This isn't downloading responsibilities to municipalities, this is uploading to the province. They're going to develop our province.

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm pleased to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health regarding the family health

teams. This government loves to make announcements. They have very little substance, however, behind them. This is a lot more rhetoric. We know that of all the family health teams that have been

announced, only one is fully operational; the rest are not near.

The minister also did not mention that this primary care reform was introduced by our government, beginning in 1997 with seven pilot projects. What we're

seeing is an evolution of family health teams.

The other thing the minister didn't mention, and I heard from my colleague here, is that as he goes around to communities to announce these family health

teams, the family health teams say, "Listen, we don't need the minister to come and tell us we're a family health team. We've already been operating in that way."

So, do you know what? A lot of hot air, a lot of noise, very little in the way of improving access for people in the province to doctors and nurses.

RURAL STUDENT SUCCESS PROGRAM

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of Education: For two and a half years, various citizens groups, coalitions across

the province, have been writing letters to you as education minister, pleading with you to keep high schools open. The question remains, is this all for naught? There are 144 rural high schools

across Ontario. This course program helps 25 or so high schools. The question remains, what about the others? What about those schools that are threatened with closure? I sincerely hope they will

remain open in the future.

I will say, however, I am pleased to see there is a promise here -- I hope it's more than a promise -- for a farming and a rural major in high school. I used

to teach high school agriculture and that course in the province of Ontario was eliminated 30 or 35 years ago. I do hope you keep your promise and bring back high school agriculture.

You know, this Ontario government continues with periodic announcements and promises of support for rural schools, but when it comes to action, the Minister of

Education has yet to step up to the plate. We're still waiting for the long-promised funding formula, the changes, for our rural schools; we're still wondering when the school closure moratorium

will have some teeth; and we're still looking for some hard details on that $20-million announcement. What school has reached that funding? What board has achieved that funding? In my riding, for

example, Communities Advocating Rural Education, a member of the Coalition for Small Schools, has been questioning the continued waiting game faced by our rural schools. They've put this in

writing, and they would like to see a transfer of funds directly to boards and to schools.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): The Minister of Education says that one-size-fits-all doesn't work. We agree with that. Unfortunately,

we don't see a new funding announcement here. This is the same Mike Harris formula with a few frills. The announcement will not keep small schools open and doesn't fix the transportation problems

the Tories created, which this government is continuing with.

Rural communities need real solutions. On the transportation front, what we've seen is this minister taking money from 33 boards to give to 40 other boards. We

think that was not a real solution. The government is proud of that, but taking money from one board to give to another doesn't solve the transportation problems. We have been looking, and rural

communities are waiting, for real transportation policies from this minister and this government. We have yet to hear one.

On small school closures, you'll remember that mon ami Monsieur Kennedy at least introduced a moratorium in 2004, and while we had a moratorium, small schools

were closing. People for Education said that 15,000 students will be displaced by school closings within the next two years, bringing to over 23,000 the total number of students whose schools have

closed since 2004. Forty-four schools closed in 2004, 36 in 2005, and school boards are saying that 19 are slated to close in 2006. The average size of secondary and elementary schools continues to

decline at a rate that will make further school closings inevitable. Mr. Kennedy is telling school boards to hold on closings while at the same time underfunding small rural schools. Making

announcements such as this does nothing to solve those main problems. Those who are expecting real solutions to the problems I have identified will be severely disappointed with this

announcement.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing likes to stand in this House so often and talk about

municipalities being an equal order of government, and yet today we see that he continues with the archaic and arcane policies of the Ontario Municipal Board. This is the only province in Canada

that has such a board.

In opposition, the Minister of Citizenship used to call for the abolition of that body. He used to say it was archaic, antiquated and unelected. But what do we

see today? We see only minor tinkering at the edges. In the minister's own words, "It will continue to have an important role, but we" will "modify that role." That's all that's happening here

today: a little bit of modifying. If you look at the actual words here, instead of using the words, "be consistent with" or "be bound by" what municipalities have to say, you say "have regard to,"

the weakest possible judicial instruction there can be. That's what you're doing. When you look at the optional local appeal bodies, I cannot imagine something that would be more weak or more

useless. It's only available to some municipalities, they have to find the funding for it and they have to go through a whole process to make it different. They're not likely to ever do it. And all

that's involved are tiny, little decisions that are made by committees of adjustment on minor variances of such things as the length of a building, the width of a lot or the floor space index.

That's all it's going to do. What a small, small piece of legislation.

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): With respect to the statement made by the Minister of Health, the minister previously announced 69 family

health teams. It would be interesting to know how many have actually been established, and that's the question of the day. We know that half of those that were previously announced were already

existing group practices which were converted to a new model. Many went from family health networks to family health teams. So there was no net gain of new doctors and no net gain of people being

served. It'll be interesting to see how many in this new round are in a similar situation.

Secondly, in the last round of announcements and in this one, over half of the ones announced were not for underserviced areas. I thought the point of the

exercise was to make sure we had primary health care going to those communities most in need. There are 102 communities in the south and 37 in the north that are on the underserviced area list. I

don't know why the vast majority of family health teams aren't in underserviced areas.

Finally, with respect to nurses, they are critical to health care. I wonder why they don't have a primary role in family health teams. When I asked the

minister in estimates how many new nurses were being hired in family health teams, he said, "Family health teams are reporting zero" --

Interjections.

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

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2005 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 18,

An Act to implement 2005 Budget measures and amend various Acts / Projet de loi 18, Loi mettant

en oeuvre certaines mesures énoncées dans le Budget de 2005 et modifiant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1447 to 1452.

The Speaker: Mr. Duncan has moved second reading of Bill 18,

An Act to implement 2005 Budget measures and amend various Acts. All those in

favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Sterling, Norman W.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 22.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed? So ordered.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. When you made your long-awaited announcement about

Ontario's wait times in October, you said, "We all know that if there is one yardstick by which everyone measures health care, it is wait times." When you announced the wait times Web site, you

said that this was data that was going to be updated on a bi-monthly basis. Can you tell us today whether the wait times have decreased since July?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the information is being posted and made available to Ontarians on a

bi-monthly basis includes wait times over a wide variety of procedures in dozens of different hospitals, it would be very challenging to answer in a yes or no case to the honourable member's

question. I can tell the honourable member that the investments that our government has made, including the development of a wait times Web site that for the first time gives Ontarians the

opportunity to take a look, are an important point of transparency.

Today we celebrated a very significant milestone in the journey to reduce wait times, and that is that a pan-Canadian approach, for all jurisdictions, with

respect to wait time benchmarks was brought forward, and that is something that has been heralded by many as a significant turning point for health care in our country.

Mrs. Witmer: I didn't hear an answer; I heard a lot of fluff. I would say again that, according to numbers that we have obtained directly from

your ministry, wait times for the latest months available, August and September, have increased in all five of your so-called priority areas. Minister, according to your own leaked wait times data,

wait times for cancer surgery in Ontario are up 9% since you started publishing data on how long people are waiting for care.

You said you were increasing the number of cancer surgeries performed. Can you explain why Ontarians are now starting to wait even longer for cancer

surgery?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The first thing we need to remind the honourable member of is the deplorable state of circumstances --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Wait for it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The point that my honourable friends were very desirous of not hearing was that the circumstances that they left to the

people of the province of Ontario were such that we didn't even have the capacity to measure the number of cancer surgeries being provided. This honourable member who asked the question today was

the longest-serving health minister in a government that was largely exited from office on the basis of its performance in health care.

We committed to the people of the province of Ontario that we would work with them to reduce wait times in five key areas by the time of the next election.

We've begun to capture that information with a registry, wait times data available to people, and it will be posted every couple of months. People will take the opportunity to follow that and to

judge us on our performance, and I think they will be very positive about it.

Mrs. Witmer: This minister was full of huff and puff this morning about wait times, and when we ask him for an answer, he doesn't have one. It

doesn't matter how you cut it, wait times for angiography and angioplasty are up. Again, according to your own leaked wait time figures, patients waiting in Ontario for cardiac care are facing a

22% increase in wait times for both angiography and angioplasty procedures. In July of this year, the average wait from referral by a specialist to treatment for an angiography was 18 days; it was

22 in September. In July, angioplasty procedures was nine days; by September, that number had jumped to 11 days.

Minister, these are part of what you boasted were your priority areas. Why should Ontarians have any confidence in anything you say about meeting wait

times?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'm not going to follow the tone of the honourable member because that would have the effect of disparaging the fact that

across the province of Ontario today, as we speak, hundreds and hundreds of experts -- doctors and nurses and those working on the front lines -- are diligently deploying their best skills with a

view toward helping the people of Ontario access health services more quickly.

Part and parcel of this is that we've begun to capture data and update it and make it available every couple of months. As you introduce new measurement

capacities, it takes some time for the reliability of the data to become more reliable. This is, of course, part and parcel of it. The reality cannot change. The reality is that we've made

significant new investments, new services. The honourable member has her record to rely upon, and that is the one that got her party exited from office.

Mrs. Witmer: Under the watch of this government, wait times are going in the wrong direction. Minister, according to your own leaked figures,

median wait times for cataract surgery in Ontario are up 16% since July. As of July 2005, patients needing cataract surgery were waiting on average 139 days from referral by a specialist to

receiving treatment. The number went up to 142 days by September.

Again, I ask you, Minister: Why, under your watch and despite all the rhetoric, are Ontarians waiting longer for cataract surgery?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The protestations from the honourable member aside, she presents no evidence for this circumstance. What Ontarians will

be able to determine on their own very soon is to look on a Web site and to measure this, not just on the basis of the honourable member's desire to do so, but on the basis of a person able to

measure for themselves what the circumstances are, as an example, in their local health integration network or at their local hospital.

We're at the beginning stages of this. We've had one set of numbers put up there. There's a broader number of hospitals that are complying with the number in

the second go-round and there will be, as we build a new system, the capacity for Ontarians to properly judge it. They will be able to judge it much more fairly because they will know that they can

look at information about their local hospital and they will know and they should gain some confidence from the fact that it isn't about the government doing this. Here in Ontario, we have

everybody working together. The changes that we seek in terms of wait times are being led on the front line by health care providers.

Mrs. Witmer: Minister, today you said in your announcement that Canadians are "the big winners." But if we take a look at the leaked figures

that we received from your ministry, Ontarians who are waiting for hip and knee replacements have no cause for celebration today. The median wait time for hip replacements increased by 14%. We know

from your leaked document that the wait time for knee replacements is also up.

Minister, I ask you: Why are Ontarians, under your watch, waiting longer for hip and knee replacements?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member offers up some suggestion about hips and knees, and this is one of those areas where we will be

very much challenged to address it.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Just watch your knees when you skate with Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: He's not even in his seat. It's unbelievable, the conduct of that honourable member today.

The increase that we can speak about with a lot of certainty is that we've increased by 28% access for Ontarians to hips and knees, but it is one of those

areas that will challenge us to find new approaches because we've pretty much maximized the capacity of our health human resources. That goes back to another matter that the honourable member

doesn't like to acknowledge: It is her DNA and that of her party that is associated with the challenge that we have with too few doctors in our province.

Mrs. Witmer: I notice that he's not denying the fact that under the watch of this government wait times in the province of Ontario are

actually decreasing -- or increasing. Wait times are increasing. We have your leaked wait times chart to tell us that, on average, Ontarians are also being forced to wait longer for MRI and CT

scans than when you first published the information in July. For an MRI, patients now have to wait 55 days, up from 53 in July. For a CT scan, patients now have to wait 30 days, up from 28 days in

July. Minister, in every one of your five key areas, wait times are increasing. They're not getting shorter, as you promised.

The Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Witmer: It's like every Liberal promise that you have made; you break your promises. I ask you today, why are you breaking your promise?

Why are wait times not getting shorter --

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: This time, the honourable member likes to talk about MRI and CT. The circumstances are clear, and that is that under our

government we've increased by 42% access for Ontarians to MRIs. Under that party, MRI machines were shut all night. But in Barrie, as one very, very good example, at Royal Victoria Hospital, where

wait lists of almost a year were being allowed under that government, we've sought to make investments with considerable new resources that allow those to be open over the night.

The honourable member has said very often, "What are you going to do about the Wait Time Alliance and their work on wait times?" Today, here's what they said:

"The Wait Time Alliance welcomes the benchmarks announced today, calling them a turning point for Canadian patients."

The point is that Canadian governments and ours, in a leadership role, are investing considerable new resources and new energy into practices that, without any

doubt, will reduce wait times in our province.

HYDRO GENERATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Energy. This summer the Premier said the McGuinty government

would build more nuclear power plants if that's what the Ontario Power Authority recommended. Well, on Friday, to no one's surprise, the Ontario Power Authority, stacked with Liberal cronies,

recommended building between 9,400 and 12,400 megawatts of new and refurbished nuclear power plants. My question, Minister: Can you tell ordinary families across Ontario, does the McGuinty

government support the recommendations of the Ontario Power Authority to build 9,400 to 12,400 megawatts of new nuclear power supply, yes or no?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I'd like to thank the member for the question. Personally, I'd like to thank Mr. Carr and the

board and the Ontario Power Authority for the work they did. It's five volumes, 1,100 pages, with a 250-page

summary. They did an extensive job, looking at the mixed fuel supply on behalf of the

government. It's another step forward that this government is taking to build a safe, reliable, affordable supply for the people of Ontario.

What we have done is that we've posted the report on the Environmental Bill of Rights. Normally, it would be 30 days; instead, we've put it up for 60 days, so

everybody will have an opportunity to reply. We will take everybody's comments into that process. I think the Premier has also indicated that we will all follow the process.

Mr. Hampton: The Premier had no problem stating the government's view in September, so I don't understand why he'd have a problem now.

What's clear is this: Building more nukes is a massive undertaking, with a massive price tag. Conservative estimates put it at $40 billion. We know from the

Darlington principle that it could easily be three times that.

What I believe is that the people of Ontario deserve to know, finally, where does the McGuinty government stand? They know where New Democrats stand. We think

nuclear power is expensive and unreliable. They know where Conservatives stand. Conservatives support more nuclear power. The Premier said in September he was in favour of more nuclear power.

What's your position today: Yes or no?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: We certainly do know where the member of the third party stands: He doesn't like anything. He doesn't like wind, he

doesn't like biomass, he doesn't like nuclear, he doesn't like gas, he doesn't like -- anyway.

Our plan involves major components. We are going to build new generation, and we have 10,000 megawatts -- the wheels are in motion. We are going to maximize

our existing assets, in addition to our existing transmission, and we are going to build a conservation culture in this province. We are moving forward; nothing has changed. We have a plan. This is

the next step in the plan. And if the member was aware during the Bill 100 proceedings, it very clearly articulates the plan.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, your energy plan is in shambles. The rolling brownouts we saw this summer and the 52,000 lost manufacturing jobs

demonstrate that.

We also know that nuclear power is expensive. Virtually every nuclear plant that's been built in this province had significant cost overruns, plus the annual

cost of maintaining them and refurbishing them runs into hundreds of millions of dollars as well. The Premier stated one position in September. Now that the issue is before us, you seem to want to

run and hide.

I say again, what's the position of the McGuinty government? Is it that the Premier endorsed nuclear power in September, but now he's not so sure? Is this

another Dalton McGuinty, "I say one thing one day, and something else the next day"? What's your position? Do you support the recommendation of the Ontario Power Authority or not?

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

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I will tell the member that the NDP have no vision at all, and haven't had for some time. They virtually cancelled

everything that was put in place. This government does. We take this report very seriously. It will be given consideration. It will be analyzed. We will wait for public input, and then we will move

forward. So we do have a plan and a process, and it will be followed.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: To the Minister of Energy: I think the people of Ontario simply deserve to know, what is your plan? The Ontario Power Authority,

stacked with Liberal cronies, set clear and big targets for more expensive, unreliable nuclear power, but at the same time they paid lip service to energy efficiency and energy conservation, which

is clearly the cleanest and quickest alternative. There are no long-term targets and no plan for energy efficiency and energy conservation.

Minister, why does the McGuinty government offer only lip service and superficial photo ops when it comes to energy efficiency and conservation, yet the

Premier is ready to endorse lots of expensive nuclear?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: It's amusing, to say the least, to listen to the pontificating going on over there. This is the party that cancelled the

$2,000 incentive program for buyers of the R20 homes. They cancelled the reduced prices on energy-efficient products. They cancelled the $50 rebate on energy-efficient refrigerators. They cancelled

any cash rebates for upgrading on inefficient street lighting -- 300,000, by the way -- and they cancelled energy-efficient lighting incentives for renovation retrofit and for new construction.

As I said earlier, we do have a plan. It is going to maximize what we have, build what we need and create a conservation culture in this province. We are going

to take the report seriously. We are going to analyze it. We'll go through the process of public input, and then we will make our decisions.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, you need to read Hansard to see that the most vociferous opponent to energy efficiency was the Liberal energy critic,

someone named Dalton McGuinty. But this is about your plan, or your failure to state a plan.

What's clear, from what the Premier said, is that the McGuinty government is prepared to spend more than $40 million on expensive and unreliable new nuclear

power plants, replete with safety and security concerns. You will almost double the use of very expensive electricity generation from natural gas, from 16% of capacity to 27% of capacity, but

you're not prepared to set aggressive energy efficiency and energy conservation targets even though we could reasonably reduce electricity consumption by 20%.

Minister, what is your position? How many more jobs have to disappear before you say no to nukes and yes to affordable and reliable energy efficiency and

energy conservation?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: After 12 years of nothing being done in this province toward developing a strategy for energy, this member has the

audacity to stand up and say anything about what our plan is? It's here; it's articulated; it's clear. This is the same government that actually cancelled the Ontario Hydro 25-year plan, the class

EA environmental scan.

We have a plan in place. It is quite clear. We are going to maximize our existing facilities and our transmission. We are going to build new generation, of

which for 10,000 megawatts the wheels are set in motion, which is bringing $3 billion into this province and a significant number of jobs, and we will create a culture of conservation in this

province. This is our plan.

We will, unlike the member, take this seriously. We will listen to the public for their input. We have expanded from 30 days to 60 days on the Environmental

Bill of Rights. I will meet with whoever would like to meet with me. We will move forward only after we have had that kind of significant input, and that's the process we will follow.

Mr. Hampton: This plan that you talked about was cancelled. This wouldn't have been the plan that called for four more nuclear sites, 16 more

nuclear units and lots of coal plants? It wouldn't be that plan that you're complaining was cancelled?

But, Minister, this is about your plan. Dalton McGuinty said in September he was all set to endorse nuclear. What's clear from his comments is that you're

prepared to saddle Ontarians with the 1950s-style dream of more nuclear plants and a conservation plan that is so weak, only George Bush and his sidekicks would support it. And you think that

posting the Ontario Power Authority report on a Web site for 60 days is proper public consultation.

Premier Dalton McGuinty promised proper public consultation. Will you commit to a full environmental assessment of the OPA report with public hearings across

the province to test the report's assumptions and the public mood --

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

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I will tell you what I do agree with. Mr. Hampton indicated, and let me quote, "We will live, we will continue to live

with the effect of the coal mistakes for decades to come. Some of us will die before our time, victims of coal-generated air pollution."

We agree, and we have a plan in place to replace coal. Our plan is to maximize our existing, to build new and to create a culture. If in fact this member

thinks that one of 25 projects in place, which deals with over 5,000 folks in social housing and 150 of the people who participate in over 20 communities, is minimizing, then you have some idea of

what he thinks of how to move forward in terms of conservation initiatives. Obviously we differ, and we will continue to differ. We have a plan, we have a process, and we will follow through.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is to the Minister of Health. In your first Liberal budget of last year, you actually cut OHIP-paid

health services. As your government likes to say, for the first time in Ontario's history, physiotherapy services were cut. Chiropractic services were eliminated. Optometry services were cut, and

only under intense pressure did you agree that seniors would still receive OHIP-funded optometry care. Today we see the Ontario Association of Optometrists warning that wait times for those

OHIP-covered seniors are increasing on your government's watch.

Minister, aside from calling the hard-working men and women who provide eye care in this province "terrorists," as you did last month, what are you doing

immediately to ensure that wait times for our seniors don't get longer?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's a day of tremendous audacity on the part of the opposition on matters of

health. This honourable member stands in his place and talks about circumstances as they relate to health care. You were the Minister of Health in Ontario that cut, over two successive years, $557

million from Ontario hospitals. But even worse than that, over all the time that you were the Minister of Health and over all the time that the member from Kitchener was the Minister of Health,

optometrists in the province of Ontario -- in fact, for 10 or 12 years, including on the watch of the NDP -- saw not one penny of increase in the amount that they were provided, creating a very

serious circumstance. When we came to office, optometrists were expecting $100 million in fee increases because you didn't address it -- not one year, not one penny.

We're going to work with optometrists -- I have a meeting with them on Wednesday -- with a view toward what we can do to enhance the amount they are paid to

provide services in our public health care system, something --

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

Mr. Wilson: I'm glad this is a place for --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order, Minister of Community and Social Services.

Member for Simcoe−Grey.

Mr. Wilson: Again, we hear the absolutely unfactual approach from this Minister of Health. You people went around during the many years of the

Mike Harris government saying we cut health care. You know in your conscience, and you know the facts speak, that we never cut one penny of health care. The budget grew each and every year, and you

still say this. You live in mythology. It's like the 28 hospitals you say we closed: Name them.

With respect to seniors' eye care, this minister created this problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order. I just cannot hear the member from Simcoe−Grey. I need to be able to hear his question. Member?

Mr. Wilson: This health minister created this problem by creating two-tier medicine in optometry care. People now have to pay $79 out of

pocket. Those seniors are covered by OHIP, and the optometrists are only getting $39.15, so they're seeing fewer seniors. One third of 1,300 optometrists admits they're seeing fewer seniors because

of your policy. Now, rather than calling them terrorists, what are you going to do about this for the seniors in our province?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The member asks two good questions. Firstly, what he says is not factual. A 3.5% reduction in 1996-97 and a 4.4%

reduction in 1997-98 were very genuine cuts felt in Ontario hospitals. If you've been pretending your way through it so far, get real, buddy. Honestly.

Secondly, the honourable member asked for a list of hospitals closed. Brantford, St. Joseph's Health Care: closed. Northumberland Hills Hospital, Port Hope:

closed. St. Mary's hospital: closed. Perley Hospital, Ottawa: closed. Ottawa Salvation Army Grace: closed. Royal Ottawa rehab centre site: closed. Pembroke Civic Hospital: closed. Peterborough St.

Jo's: closed. Toronto, Central --

Interjections: Closed.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Toronto, Doctors.

Interjections: Closed.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Toronto, Wellesley central.

Interjections: Closed.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Sarnia, St. Joseph's Health Care Centre.

Interjections: Closed.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Were any of those committed to? Did you ever stand up and say, "It is our intention to close hospitals"? No. You said it

wasn't, and you did it anyway.

HYDRO GENERATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Environmentalists say the McGuinty endorsement of more

nuclear power is the wrong plan for Ontario's future. Greenpeace says of the McGuinty endorsement, "We need green power, not nuclear power." The Canadian Environmental Law Association says of the

McGuinty endorsement for more nuclear power, "It misses the mark." The Sierra Club calls the McGuinty endorsement of nuclear power "insanity."

Nuclear power generates highly toxic waste that remains a potential health, safety and security hazard for thousands of years. Instead of endorsing nuclear

power as the Premier has, why isn't the McGuinty government listening to the green community? How can you possibly justify more nuclear power when there is no plan to store the nuclear waste?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I want to restate that in fact the report will be posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Web

site not for only 30 days but for 60 days, and that I am prepared to meet with whoever chooses to meet with me. We're going to meet with everyone, not just some folks. That's the whole idea. We

take this report very seriously. We are going to wait for the analysis of the report, we're going to wait for the public input on the report, and then we will move forward and make a decision.

There is a process in place that allows people to take some time to look at and analyze a document that's 1,100 pages long -- there are five volumes -- and a 250-page executive

summary, and then be

able to come to us with their impressions of that report.

I'm quite prepared; the door is open. I'm happy to meet with whoever would like to meet with me on that report, as well as have it posted not only on the

Environmental Bill of Rights Web site but also on the Ministry of Energy Web site.

Mr. Hampton: Green advocates are already telling the McGuinty government what they think of Dalton McGuinty's endorsement of more nuclear

power. You say that you want to hear from the public. How does holding a 60-day Web site consultation over Christmas and the holiday season constitute any kind of consultation? What

environmentalists want is full public hearings. They want the opportunity to have an environmental assessment of the Ontario Power Authority report. They want the opportunity to look at whatever

schemes are out there in terms of nuclear waste disposal.

The Premier promised a full public consultation. Will you provide that kind of full public consultation, rather than 60 days on the Web site over the holiday

season?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Stop the clock. Minister of Community and Social Services, we need you to come to order.

The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: The Ontario Power Authority -- if I may, I'll read this into the record -- called for public submissions on supply mix in

July 2005. It was not only solicited through their Web site but also through local, regional and national newspaper advertisements. They received 185 submissions and more than 200 documents from a

wide range of groups and individuals. In addition to that, they addressed the gaps in the industry, environmental and academic, with experts from those areas who were actually asked to prepare

briefings. All told, they heard an additional 30 formal presentations. They also met with stakeholders and groups on a consistent basis throughout the entire process. In addition to that, they did

interviews with 27 industrial stakeholders and 35 non-industrial stakeholders. In addition to that, they did some public opinion polling, where they contacted almost 800 Ontarians. They did a very

exhaustive process in their consultation, and that will continue. We will work with the --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

AGRICULTURAL TRADE

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Not to be outdone by the Attorney General, Happy birthday to my mother as well today.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural affairs. As you know, the supply-managed sector of our agricultural industry has proven itself

an effective way of ensuring farmers earn a stable, profitable income. For years, FarmGate5 has proven its ability to provide the high-quality products Ontario consumers demand at a fair price for

farmers.

On Friday, November 25, I met with local representatives in my riding from the Perth County Federation of Agriculture. During our meeting, my local farm

leadership repeated the call for both the provincial and federal levels of government to continue defending the interests of those farmers dependent on supply management. Minister, can you please

tell this House today what our government is doing to protect the interests of supply-managed farmers?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'm very happy to report for the public record that, this very day,

the Legislative Assembly of Ontario has passed a motion unanimously. That motion will present the wishes of this assembly to the federal government that, at the World Trade Organization talks, they

understand our position is that supply management must be protected, and it should not be negotiated away.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the supply-managed sectors -- the dairy, the egg, the poultry folks -- who have made their important views known

to all members of the Legislature. I think that it's important as well that I thank my colleagues on all sides of the House --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal knows that you cannot use props in this place. Thank

you.

Supplementary.

Mr. Wilkinson: It's deeply reassuring to know that our government has strongly defended the interests of these farmers, and I thank the

opposition for helping us.

I note that you'll be travelling to Hong Kong later this week to partake in the World Trade Organization talks. On this issue, farm support critics have tended

to portray Canada's supply-managed producers as unable to contend with international competition. Now, I could not disagree more. International competitors are heavily subsidized by their

governments. In contrast, Ontario has a thriving agri-food industry which contributes more than $30 billion to the provincial economy each year. To that end, Canada and the province of Ontario have

a strong interest in moving toward fairer trade policies for agriculture.

Can you please tell this House, Minister, what you expect to accomplish at this week's WTO talks in Hong Kong?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I look forward to the opportunity when I will be joined by ministers of agriculture from across Canada. I also want to

assure the agriculture producers and manufacturers in the province of Ontario that Premier McGuinty listened very closely to them when he met with them at the plowing match in Listowel. He also

made it very clear at that time that he believes it's important that, as a province and as a nation, we work together to level the playing field for our agriculture producers. That means that we

must work very hard to protect the supply management system that we have in place.

We must also work very hard to improve an open market access for agriculture producers. We were very delighted today, for example, that Japan has decided to

open its borders to Canadian beef again.

Finally, we must also work very hard to address the market-distorting subsidies that are provided, particularly in the United States and the European Union.

I'm committed to working with my colleagues from across Canada to ensure that that playing field is levelled.

HEALTH PROMOTION

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. In order to encourage young people to become

fit, Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper is proposing a federal tax credit of up to $500 per year, per child, for parents who register their children in organized sports. Do you agree with

this policy, Minister?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): I thought it was the honourable member from Nepean-Carleton who was running federally. I

hadn't realized Norm Sterling had thrown his hat in the ring.

We're committed on this side of the House, through a number of initiatives, including Active 2010, which is a program that encourages more and more young

people to get involved in physical fitness. On Friday we announced a series of communities and action fund grants that are going to community groups all across the province of Ontario. We've got to

get these young people physically fit, motivated to stay in shape, so that they can be less of a drain on the health care system. I am proud of this government's record. I'm proud of the work that

Minister Bradley started in the sport portfolio. We'll continue doing those good things to keep these young people fit.

Mr. Sterling: Many people in Ontario would welcome federal dollars to deal with health promotion, to deal with young people, to encourage them

to become fit. Many people in Ontario are concerned that the Ministry of Health Promotion is putting aside valuable provincial health care dollars into areas which should be taken up by our federal

government.

I ask the minister: How many dollars of our provincial health care tax are you putting into these programs?

Hon. Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of our record on supporting sports, because his party and his government cut sport funding by

over 50% to provincial sport organizations. Not only that, but because they starved the education system for so many years, community groups could not afford to rent gymnasiums and other facilities

at schools. We brought in the community use of schools program: $20 million. There are over 20 school boards that have eliminated fees for after-school use of schools. This is one of the most

progressive policies, at a minimal cost to the taxpayers, to get young people using gymnasiums and using other facilities. I, quite frankly, am surprised that the member from Lanark-Carleton would

even raise the issue, given his record in government, which did everything possible to make sure these kids didn't have a fighting chance at a gymnasium.

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Canadians are scandalized -- and I say that word

strongly -- by the growing evidence that insiders may have profited from the advance knowledge of Ralph Goodale's November 23 income trust announcement. They want someone -- anyone -- to come to

the bottom of this. The Ontario Securities Commission has thus far refused to intervene, despite a clear mandate to investigate such matters and to disclose those facts. If the OSC continues to

refuse to take action, will you step in, in your authority as minister, and order an investigation?

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): Just to be very clear, because I'm not sure you are clear, the securities commission

does not disclose when it may be investigating until it's appropriate to make it public. So I don't think you know whether they are or they are not. But again, I say to all of us, we're treading on

dangerous ground here. When you are suggesting that politicians should order when an investigation should take place and when it should not take place, it is very dangerous grounds. We rely on

independent, arm's-length securities regulation in this country and in this province. If you're suggesting that the minister of the day should have the authority to determine when an investigation

should happen and when an investigation should not happen, I suggest to you that you're suggesting very dangerous political interference in an important arm's-length organization. I would advise

all of us to leave this matter to the Ontario Securities Commission.

Mr. Prue: I'm simply asking the minister to do what the minister has the authority to do. Subsection 11(5) of the act --

Interjections.

Mr. Prue: Listen to it: "Despite subsection (1), the minister may, by order, appoint one or more persons to make such investigation as the

minister considers expedient." And then it goes on to talk about "Ontario securities law or the regulation of the capital markets in Ontario." You have that authority. Now, what I'm asking you to

do, since the Ontario Securities Commission in many quarters is considered to be ineffective -- and I think they are. Even the Toronto Star, to quote them, says, "Canadian police and securities

regulators are not only toothless ... but they're also unwilling to even gum very hard against alleged corporate crooks."

Minister, you have the authority, and it appears that the OSC is refusing to act. Will you use your power under Ontario law and investigate this matter?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Firstly, I'm not sure that power has ever been used. Just so the public should be aware of what the member is suggesting

here, he's suggesting that investigations by the securities commission should be subject to political interference. It's extremely important. So the minister of the day should be saying, "You know,

I think you should investigate that company," or "I think you should not investigate that company."

I suggest to you and to all of us that you are advising very reckless behaviour. This should not be a matter where politicians determine what investors are

going to be protected and what investors are not going to be protected. That should be left to the organization that has the responsibility, legislated by us, delegated by us, with clear outlines.

I think we should keep the politics out of this and keep the good policy in this.

STELCO

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): In continuing with the trend today, I want to send happy birthday greetings to my nephew, Matthew

Michaud.

My question today is for the Minister of Finance. All of Hamilton was holding their breath on Friday and I stand here today to ask a very important question

for the people of Hamilton. This past Friday, Stelco Inc. creditors voted 78% in favour of a management plan that will see Stelco emerge from bankruptcy protection. As a representative from

Hamilton, I have watched over the last 23 months with a very careful eye, knowing that the citizens of our great city have been interested in seeing the company come out of this protection strong

and with a prosperous future ahead. It has taken a long time to get to this point. Negotiations have taken place for almost two years now, but I'm glad that the government has been at the table the

entire time as an active and involved player. The government's contribution to the --

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The result of the vote on Friday firmly placed Stelco on

the road toward emerging from bankruptcy protection, and I want to thank the member from Hamilton for her assistance in this matter. There are still some steps to be taken with respect to it, but

we remain optimistic.

The restructuring agreement is good news for the workers and retirees of Stelco, good news for Hamilton and good news for the province. A strong, viable Stelco

is good news for Ontario.

From day one, we have had two objectives in this process: one, to see Stelco emerge as a viable company over the long term, and two, that the pensions of

retirees and current employees remain secure. The restructuring agreement approved overwhelmingly by the creditors on Friday meets both of these goals.

We have agreed to increase the province's note or loan from $100 million to $150 million. We're confident and optimistic about the future of Stelco and, of

course, the great city of Hamilton and its environs.

Ms. Marsales: I'm glad to hear that this government had the interests of the citizens, the company, the pensioners and the great city of

Hamilton in mind during the negotiations leading toward the final agreement, which has now been approved overwhelmingly by the creditors. Friday was a good day for the people of Hamilton. I know

there are still steps to be taken, but many Stelco pensioners in my riding were happy to hear the news that this agreement had been approved. The result of the vote on Friday firmly places Stelco

on the road toward emerging from bankruptcy and a new vision for tomorrow's success by turning uncertainty into a more certain and positive future for Stelco.

Unlike previous governments, I know that this government is interested in keeping municipalities strong and seeing the economies of cities like Hamilton thrive

and prosper. As Stelco continues along this path to emerge from bankruptcy, I know this government will continue to keep the interests of pensioners and the company in mind.

Minister, from your analysis, how does the result of this vote on Friday impact --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I'd like to thank Judy Marsales and Marie Bountrogianni for all their questions and hard work on the Stelco file. Instead of

mindless grandstanding like the New Democrats, who did nothing to assist this process --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Timmins-James Bay needs to come to order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm a proud Steelworker. This is hard to take.

The Speaker: You've been warned. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Instead of the mindless grandstanding of the third party, the members from Hamilton on this side, Judy Marsales, Marie

Bountrogianni and Ted McMeekin, worked hard to make sure that this government invested $150 million into this pension system. There are still steps to be taken. I applaud Judy Marsales, Marie

Bountrogianni and Ted McMeekin, and Jennifer Mossop, who also contributed, for their overwhelming efforts on this behalf.

I say to the third party, your mindless grandstanding didn't help any. It was these members who made this deal happen.

LAKERIDGE HEALTH

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Health. I understand today is all about the wait time strategy, but I'm really

going raise a point on a new Liberal wait time. On Saturday, the minister of infrastructure was in Oshawa for a photo op on the redevelopment of Lakeridge Health in Oshawa. Members should know that

construction of the six inpatient floors above the new regional cancer centre won't begin until 2008-09. In effect, Durham region now has a new wait time problem.

Minister, you know that the lack of facilities contributes to the wait time challenge. What are you prepared to do, today, on fast-tracking the redevelopment

of the Lakeridge site so that they will have that capacity to meet future demand in Durham region?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): I must say that the folks in Oshawa were

thrilled that they've been given the green light to finish a project which, I say quite frankly to the member from Durham, you could have finished if you had wanted to. Instead of false promises,

instead of false starts, we have a real plan, with the serious dollars behind it to get the job done.

I was at Lakeridge hospital's Oshawa site on Saturday to give the very good news to all of the hard-working board members, staff members and foundation

members, who have rolled up their sleeves working with this government, who are going to see this project begin in 2008-09. Indeed, it's a happy day for the people of Lakeridge Health in Durham. I

must say that it was a shame that the member couldn't take a few moments to come out and celebrate with the community and be there as this project finally got off the ground.

Mr. O'Toole: I redirect this supplementary back to the Minister of Health, because the real problem here is that, first of all, the short and

very deliberate late notice is part of the style of this government. They really don't want to engage us. But I don't want to be distracted.

Minister, the real issue here is that the community was waiting for your address of the problem of the operating deficit. You know that they had a specialist

panel that filed an independent report saying, and I quote here, that it was unable "to balance its budget" without basic reductions in services to people on the front line. Now that you've

announced the capital that's been delayed, you're not going to help them on the operating side, which is going to reduce patient services. We've had it from an independent panel.

This is just another problem for the community of Durham, as well as Lakeridge. Minister, what progress is being made to restore fair funding? That's $164 less

per person --

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

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I know the Minister of Health would like to deal with the operating funds.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'm very pleased to hear the acknowledgement from the member for Durham, not just about the expansion ongoing at

Lakeridge hospital at the moment in the form of a regional cancer centre but of our government's announcement that, subsequent to its construction, we'll be looking forward to the opportunity to

add additional clinical capacity in that hospital.

This really is, in the 905, the story of the day. At virtually every hospital in the 905, we either see that a crane has just left, a crane is set imminently

to arrive, or it's already on site. Accordingly, there will be inherent in that a tremendous opportunity for additional operational expenditure for health care services in hospitals in the 905.

In the meantime, I do wish to say, on a day when it was well established that the honourable member is from a party that actually cut $557 million from

hospitals, that our party has invested more than $24 million in additional operating benefit already at Lakeridge Health since coming to office -- 24 million new dollars.

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Culture. Last week, I asked you the whereabouts of the $3.8 million in

funding that your government promised the Royal Botanical Gardens back in April. Your empty response really impressed no one. In fact, well-read Hamilton Spectator columnist Andrew Dreschel called

your response a "ditch-and-dodge routine."

Minister, could you explain why you announced RBG emergency funding last April, when you knew it had no chance of flowing this year?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I thank the member for Hamilton East for her

question. However, I don't know the expression that was written in the paper. "Ditch-and-dodge"; I don't know what it means. But I can tell you that the province and its funding partner feel very

strongly that the recommendations contained in the report prepared by the review committee will help members of the new board to address the challenges that the RBG faces. We have been working very

closely with the city of Hamilton and the region of Halton to review the recommendations contained in the report. I am confident that the RBG board of directors is looking forward to developing a

plan for the future of the garden.

Ms. Horwath: Minister, referring to you specifically, Mr. Dreschel said, "Perhaps not knowing what's going on in her own ministry, she

resorted to speaking phonus balonus." I fear the minister has deposited more phonus balonus in this very chamber today.

Minister, you promised the traditional funding would be there for the RBG, and it's not. You promised CUPE workers, if they agreed on laying off half of their

staff, the funding would flow, and it didn't. You even said I supported cuts to the RBG as a Hamilton councillor. Wrong again, Minister. How many times do you have to be wrong before you get it

right?

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: The RBG has formed an executive transition committee, which is developing a plan to implement the major recommendations

contained in the mandate review committee report, and I'm looking forward to receiving this plan. But again, I'm going to repeat to the House, I'm very surprised to hear the question and the

comment from the member from Hamilton East, because she was a member of the municipal government who cut the budget to the RBG, and she supported that.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): My question is for the Minister of Education. Recently, the Thames Valley district school board made

public a report they commissioned by a consultant group called CN Watson. The group was paid $105,000 for this report, which outlined a plan to close 61 schools in London and surrounding areas.

Parents, students and community members are obviously upset by this report. It states that due to declining enrolment, the board should close these schools to save upwards of $400 million.

Minister, it's unbelievable that this board paid $105,000 to commission this report, and moreover, that it's recommending the closure of these schools -- four

of them in my riding of London-Fanshawe. Following years of school closures in this province, with the NDP closing 155 and the Tories closing 503 schools, what are we doing to support viable public

schools?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I want to thank the member for his question. I know his interest is in seeing that we make the

shift definitively away from the one-size-fits-all policies that really attacked rural education in this province on the part of the previous government.

The report in question was commissioned by the board about a year ahead of when we put policies out to change the direction of education. I know that the board

has only taken that as a report. In fact, I met with the Thames Valley board this morning. They're looking at it very constructively, because even just today, rural high schools have become more

viable. Even as early as the early part of this year, $20 million for principals, for secretaries, paying for custodial work in elementary schools -- changing the face of how rural Ontario can now

have security for their schools and also helping small schools in every environment. I say that the only thing we know about reports like this, done by the previous government, five- to 50-year

outlook, is that they've always been --

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

Mr. Ramal: Thank you, Minister. It's good to hear that our government has taken a new approach to school accommodation following years of

funding formulas that closed schools prematurely and unnecessarily.

As you know, Thames Valley is a board that encompasses urban and rural areas. The board has been vocal that the declining enrolment pressures they are facing

are predominantly in the rural area of the board.

Many of the schools named in the C.N. Watson report being in rural areas surrounding the London area, parents, students and community members are concerned

that they do not have the student population to sustain their schools; however, they are a valuable part of the community. What are we doing in order to ensure that rural areas can support their

schools?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: It's an approach that I think the small schools coalition today called "refreshing." I think we can start to have people

think not just about how to defend against some of the things that happened, but how to move forward. My ministry, along with rural affairs, is working very closely with a very strong rural caucus,

who have been consistent in insisting that schools in rural areas be stood up for. There was no such representation before in this House. Finally, there are people here who are willing to stand up

and make sure that rural students don't get bused, don't get shipped, don't get discouraged, but instead, actually have access to quality education in their own communities. They will have a

specialist diploma to look forward to. They will also have funding for projects that will make sure, for example, that they get access to rural and farming kinds of co-operatives and those kinds of

special diplomas; 4-H is being recognized for the first time. In general, we are customizing education to fit the students. Under the previous government, students were made to be flexible and

families were given up on. That is finally changing --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Since the government members ragged the puck, clearly dragging out the

clock so that I can't ask a question, I would like to seek unanimous consent --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard a no.

PETITIONS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

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

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

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

government-operated services and other sectors;

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

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

live meaningful lives within their community."

I have affixed my name in full support.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas every Ontario worker has the right to a secure pension that is indexed to inflation and provides the dignity of a stable and sufficient income for

retirement;

"Whe