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

April 6, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Apr-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 6 April 2004 Mardi 6 avril 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADAMS MINE

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO BUDGET

POVERTY

TARTAN DAY

SIKH SCRIPTURES

LANDFILL

PASSOVER

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

WEARING OF YELLOW RIBBONS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE /

VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HOSPITAL BOARDS

WASTE REDUCTION

LANDFILL

LONG-TERM CARE

SUBVENTIONS CULTURELLES /

CULTURAL FUNDING

TUITION

HIGHWAY TOLLS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

TAXI LICENSING

WASTE DISPOSAL

SMALL BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TOLLS

CONTAMINATED SOIL

HAMILTON AIRPORT

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL PARKWAY

HIGHWAY 518

FOREST MANAGEMENT

LANDFILL

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

TUITION

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

LANDFILL

PROPERTY TAXATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LIABILITY INSURANCE

LANDFILL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ADAMS MINE

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Yesterday we witnessed the introduction of the curiously titled Adams Mine Lake Act. I say "curious,"

because before yesterday no one knew it was a lake; they thought it was a mine. This magical transformation of a mine into a lake is part and parcel of the illusion Liberals are trying to create to

hide what I consider the power-grabbing, dictatorial nature of this bill, which in the flourish of a pen will sign away property rights, hit taxpayers with compensation costs and impose a

redefinition of the word "lake" on the province of Ontario. In the spirit of undemocratic redefinition, I will be referring to this bill as the "no landfill in Liberal ridings act."

I was listening to the environment minister yesterday, and it made me wonder if that minister of the crown, or anyone on that side of the House for that matter,

believes that landowners, property owners, farmers or iron ore miners in Ontario should have property rights. When a government can come in and retroactively trash the legal rights of a property

owner, it speaks to the lack of property rights here in Ontario. I wasn't aware that Liberal democratic renewal included the trashing of basic democratic rights. I do realize the Minister of the

Environment has the power to take away water permits; I was unaware the minister has the power to take away land, property and legal rights.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I rise today to report on my experience visiting four schools, three in my area and York University. I took the

challenge of the Minister of Education, the Honourable Gerard Kennedy, to visit and have a personal experience. I visited a special-needs school, the Zareinu Educational Centre of Metropolitan

Toronto. I also visited Vaughan Secondary School, St Robert Catholic High School and York University, for a short time.

I was pleased to experience some of what the students go through in their daily lives. One of the things that struck me significantly was the respect the

schools, teachers and principals have for our Minister of Education. There were very positive comments on what he is doing and what he is attempting to achieve. That, in my opinion, will assist us

in doing what we intend to do.

Also, there were comments about portables. In my area, a growing area, there are too many portables. There is also a lack of computers. We need more funding to

buy equipment within the education system and we need more funding to buy books, but we also need more funding for transportation so our kids will be able to go to specialty classes, whether it be

sports or music or other subjects. Overall, there is a positive mood that we will be able to make major improvements in the education system, and I'm pleased to report that.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): In recent months, Ontarians learned that the word of our Premier is meaningless, and now it looks as though his

signature is equally meaningless. That signature is on an explicit taxpayers' federation election pledge to balance the budget, a goal that could have been achieved if the government had lifted its

finger to even try. But when it comes to setting budget priorities, Mr McGuinty would rather play the politics of spin than make the tough decisions he said he could make.

You will hear excuses. It will be said that Ontarians told the so-called budget consultations that they don't want efficiencies found. But the kangaroo

consultations were designed to produce only such an answer. You will hear a lot of political spin about a structural deficit. But the government's only plan to address this phantom is to post a

deficit that's as bloated as possible.

Therefore, I want to draw attention to a key aspect of the balanced budget law: the pay cuts for any cabinet that fails to balance the budget. As we return to

the era of tax, spend and borrow economics, we'll be seeking guarantees from every minister opposite that they will receive no stipend or salary supplement from the Liberal Party to offset the

richly deserved salary penalties they will incur as a result of bringing to this province a deficit which is unnecessary to burden the people of this province.

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Shortly after forming government in November 2003, Premier McGuinty asked me to conduct broad-based

consultations to determine how our government might better protect women and children from violence. Our goal: to restart a constructive dialogue, long absent at Queen's Park, under the thoughtful

direction and determined leadership of the Premier --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Could you please wait?

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to question whether or not it's appropriate for the

parliamentary assistant, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, to make a statement at this time.

The Speaker: I'm not quite sure if the member is making a statement of policy within her jurisdiction. Could I hear the statement first? I

cannot rule on this unless I know it is in that direction. Then we can make a decision if it is out or order or not.

Ms Broten: Perhaps if my friend opposite had listened to what I was about to say, he wouldn't have concerns. I will start again.

Shortly after forming government in November 2003, Premier McGuinty asked me to conduct broad-based consultations to determine how our government might better

protect women and children from violence. Our goal: to restart a constructive dialogue, long absent at Queen's Park, under the thoughtful direction and determined leadership of the Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think the member was making a correct point of order. I think that's within the jurisdiction the Premier had asked you to

do, within that policy area, and you are the parliamentary assistant for that. So I would regard that as not being a statement coming from you. I'll have to pass on that one.

POVERTY

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It wasn't too long ago that Toronto liked to say of itself that it was a world-class city. It wasn't too

long ago that the late Peter Ustinov called Toronto "New York run by the Swiss." It wasn't too long ago that people came from all around the world to study a unique government, to study our

neighbourhoods and to study the social and cultural integration that people come to expect of Toronto.

But the last 10 years have not been kind to the city of Toronto. Yesterday, the United Way released a study called Poverty by Postal Code. In Poverty by Postal

Code, they talk about the number of neighbourhoods that are now living in poverty. In the last 20 years, we have gone from some 30 neighbourhoods where the majority of people live in poverty to up

to 120 today. This has been disproportionate to all other municipalities in Ontario and to those who live in those poor neighbourhoods -- primarily new immigrants and visible minorities.

This government has an obligation to look after the Queen City. This government has an obligation to build housing, to look to redress the welfare and ODSP rates

and to have programs to help our newest Canadians. We are looking forward to this government doing exactly that in the upcoming budget debate.

TARTAN DAY

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Members' statements, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. It's déjà vu.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Perhaps my jacket has already brought enough attention to this fact, but I rise today in celebration of

Tartan Day. The tartan is an important symbol of Scottish heritage and it is with pride that I wear this tartan jacket.

My mother, Anne McArthur Norman, was born in Whiteinch, Scotland, just outside of Glasgow. My father, Frank Stuart Miller, wore this same tartan jacket in this

very Legislature many times in the past, particularly on the special occasion of introducing the Ontario budget.

This particular tartan is the Royal Stuart tartan. It was sold by Garwoods of Muskoka on the main street of beautiful Bracebridge. The Royal Stuart tartan is

that of the Queen and wearing it was traditionally seen as a sign of loyalty to the crown or to the Royal Stuart line. In 1746,

an act of Parliament imposed a ban on the tartan in an attempt to

stamp out the culture, which was seen by the Hanovarian government as the power base for the House of Stuart. As you can see, they were unsuccessful and this important cultural symbol lives on to

this very day.

However, today I wear this tartan not only in honour of Tartan Day and in recognition of Scotland's rich cultural heritage but also in memory of my father. My

father was well known for wearing this tartan jacket and in fact used a tartan button in his successful 1985 leadership bid.

In conclusion, I would like to add that my father's tartan collection does not end here. I am also fortunate enough to have his equally stylish turquoise Muskoka

tartan, but I will save that for next year.

Happy Tartan Day.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): For a moment, I thought it was Frank Miller himself.

SIKH SCRIPTURES

Mr Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It's my pleasure to rise today to speak about a historic event which took place this past

weekend. On Sunday, 149 copies of the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh religion's highest spiritual authority, arrived in Canada. The scriptures were airlifted from the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar.

This is the holy city of Sikhs and the only place where these scriptures are printed.

Their arrival was the culmination of efforts by the Sacha Sauda Gurmat Parchar Society, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, SkyLink Aviation Inc and the

Sikh community. Some 200 Sikhs joyously celebrated the holy books' arrival at Pearson International Airport.

The Guru Granth Sahib, also known as the Adi Granth, is the only scripture of its kind that contains the works from the religion's founders, along with works

from other faiths, which is why it is only fitting that they came to Canada, a nation known for its religious diversity and social inclusion.

The day before yesterday was a tremendous day for the Sikh faith.

The Sikh community in Canada is working hard to establish a printing facility here where the holy books can be printed according to religious specifications.

This would be a phenomenal accomplishment for the Sikh community in Canada and worldwide.

On behalf of the Legislature, I congratulate the Sikh community on this successful first delivery.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the House today to express my disappointment and my constituents' dismay with the bill introduced

yesterday by Environment Minister Leona Dombrowsky. The Adams Mine Lake Act, 2004, will prohibit the controversial Adams mine from ever being used as a landfill, but it will do absolutely nothing

to stop landfills like site 41 in my own riding of Simcoe North.

The Liberals tried to pull the wool over our eyes. They included the Adams mine announcement with several other environmental initiatives just so they could

disguise the real issue. The announcement was made to stop a fellow minister from resigning.

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Who started the process?

Mr Dunlop: To the Minister of Agriculture, just remember Walkerton, would you?

I respectfully submit that this legislation is all about Liberals helping Liberals, and nothing more. Let's not forget that the Minister of Natural Resources

threatened to resign last fall if he didn't get his way on the Adams mine landfill. Minister Dombrowsky has expressed her passion for clean water time and time again. If she meant what she said,

she should have used yesterday's opportunity to also help stop landfills like site 41, not just a landfill that's located in a Liberal riding. As the Minister of the Environment, Leona Dombrowsky

is supposed to represent all Ontarians on environmental issues. She previously announced a moratorium on all new and expanded water-taking permits, so why didn't she announce a moratorium on all

new landfill construction?

In her statement to the Ontario Legislature yesterday, Minister Dombrowsky said, about the Adams mine landfill proposal, "The key approvals for this proposal

came before the Walkerton tragedy." She also said, "The proposed legislation would revoke all existing approvals for the Adams mine landfill...." In fact, she did an order in council.

The key approvals for site 41 also came before the Walkerton tragedy, so I fully expect legislation to be forthcoming from the minister that revokes all existing

approvals for the site 41 landfill.

PASSOVER

Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): I rise today in recognition of those Ontarians celebrating the holy Jewish holiday of Passover. Passover marks the

Jewish people's historic struggle to free themselves from slavery under the rule of the Pharaohs, their exodus in the desert, and Moses's subsequent receiving of the Torah from God atop Mount

Sinai.

While Passover marks the birth of the Jewish nation, its message speaks to all of us in its celebration of freedom. In Ontario and in Canada, we live in a

society that values freedom and celebrates diversity.

The Jewish community in my riding and other parts of Ontario and Canada has recently been distressed and saddened by hateful actions against them. Sadly, other

religious communities have also been targeted. Events like those that happened in Montreal the other day are appalling, and I know all members of this House stand with me when we condemn them.

As Premier McGuinty has said, an attack on any one of us is an attack on all of us. We stand together with the Jewish community in this trying time. The Jewish

community must continue to celebrate its heritage and freedom even as it struggles against attacks on freedom. Passover marks this celebration.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent that notwithstanding standing order 96(d),

the following change be made to the ballot list of private members' public business: Mr Leal and Mr Colle exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Colle assumes ballot item 39 and Mr

Leal assumes ballot item 14.

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

Hon Mr Duncan: I move that Mr Leal and Mr Colle exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Colle assumes ballot item 39 and Mr Leal

assumes ballot item 14.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45

pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

All those against?

I think the ayes have it.

There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.

The Speaker: Order.

All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 77; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

WEARING OF YELLOW RIBBONS

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: April is generally regarded as the month when we recognize the scourge of

cancer in our society. I rise to seek permission of the House for the wearing of a yellow ribbon in this House during the month of April.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Unanimous consent has been requested to wear the yellow ribbon. Is that the pleasure of the House? Okay.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE /

VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I rise to inform the House of the action that our government is taking

to protect women and children by fighting domestic violence. You will know, Mr Speaker, that we are committed to building strong and safe communities. Well, a community is only as safe as the homes

within it, and too often women and children face violence and fear in their very own homes. A community is only as strong as the support it offers the most vulnerable people within it, and too

often the victims of domestic violence lack the supports they need to escape from that violence.

Nous croyons que chaque personne dans notre province a le droit fondamental de vivre en paix et en sécurité. Chacun de nous a l'obligation de

travailler ensemble pour assurer cette paix et cette sécurité.

Each and every person in this province of ours has the fundamental right to live in peace and security. Each of us has an obligation to work together to ensure

that peace and security.

So today I'm announcing that our new government is taking a new approach. The Ontario government will be tough on abusers -- abuse will not be tolerated -- but

it will no longer focus almost exclusively on criminal justice while neglecting the supports that victims need and the prevention that must be put in place.

I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to my parliamentary assistant, Laurel Broten, the MPP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who has met with front-line workers and

experts from across the province to identify needed reforms. Her excellent work has provided the foundation for our government's plan. We've been told time and time again that we need a balanced

approach, that we must go after the abuser but we must stop leaving the victims behind.

Today I'm announcing the first steps in a long-term approach that will better protect women and children. Once women leave abusive relationships, one of their

greatest needs is to be supported in safe housing. This is essential to establishing lives that are free of violence. So we are announcing today $3.5 million in additional funding to invest in

second-stage housing community supports. This is long overdue, and it is badly needed.

We know from tragic experience that we must do a better job of intervening early to protect women and children before it's too late. We are funding a pilot

project on a risk-assessment tool that will lead to improved training and support for police officers, crown attorneys and others working in the criminal justice system. This will help these people

to better assess risk in abusive situations.

We need to continue to work together to fight domestic violence, so we are going to hold a provincial conference on domestic violence, bringing together

community leaders, experts and service providers so they can share best practices, especially best practices when it comes to preventing violence and providing better supports to victims.

We're also establishing a new ministerial steering committee on domestic violence, chaired by the Minister of Community and Social Services and minister

responsible for women's issues, Sandra Pupatello, which will lead a continuing fight against domestic violence. Most importantly, we need to break the intergenerational cycle of violence,

especially when we know that boys who observe their fathers abuse are 1,000 times more likely to become abusers themselves, and especially since we know that girls who observe their mothers being

abused are much more likely to become victims themselves.

So we're going to invest $4.9 million in a four-year public education and awareness campaign. It will be targeting children and youth. It will be aimed at

mobilizing communities across Ontario to break the cycle of violence.

These are significant steps that represent a change in attitude and approach by the Ontario government. They are steps in the right direction, yet they are

first steps. Our work will and must continue until the violence ends; until women and children in Ontario no longer live in fear; until our communities and the people who live in them are truly

safe, not just from the violence we see on our streets, but from the more insidious violence that happens behind closed doors.

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Thank you so much for this

opportunity. In speaking on this very important issue, let me start today by telling you how pleased we are to have joining us in the gallery Margot Franssen, the owner of the Body Shop Canada; if

she wouldn't mind standing for us. The Body Shop has raised over $1 million for violence prevention programs. We're very pleased to have this Order of Canada recipient here in our midst today.

Beverley Wybrow is here. She's the executive director of the Canadian Women's Foundation, the only national organization working for girls and women, which

funds 300 violence prevention programs. Thank you so much for coming today.

This is a very important day for us, for our government and for every member in this House. What we need to do is to put the people who issue the coroner's

report out of business. The next time a woman is being flung across the room, worrying more about whether her children will be safe or if her children saw this -- this government has to move ahead;

they have got to give this woman options. They've got to help with that Herculean effort to get her out the door and know that there will be supports in place for these women to get back on their

feet. I can't think of a more focused effort than what we will have in this government.

I'm very pleased to chair a task force amongst our ministers, where I get to work with the Minister of Children and Youth Services to determine how we break

that cycle of violence when young boys and young girls are witnessing violence; how we can focus such a prevention campaign to target women, in particular, in the aboriginal community and new

Canadian women, whose numbers in terms of domestic violence are skyrocketing. This is the kind of prevention campaign that we have to focus on with a real effort. We hope we'll have all of us here

in this House supporting these efforts.

My leader spoke about the risk assessment tool. Why is that so important? It's important because the inquest that provided us with recommendation after

recommendation told us that we have ways to stop the abusers from being free when they pose a significantly high threat and high risk of reoffending. That's how we ended up with women being

murdered in this province. We've got to stop that.

Let me say too that, above all this, all of us in this House will do well to follow our leader's footsteps in this, because we have a passion for this issue.

We understand that we cannot have women in Ontario who fear being in their own homes, who don't know how they will make ends meet. We have had report after report after report, in particular in

these last couple of weeks, and they have really honed the arguments for us to say how we as a government can step in.

Probably the most significant part of this announcement today is getting our government back in the business of second-stage housing. This is probably the most

significant part because once that woman has landed at the door of the shelter, a broken woman, we need to put supports in the form of counselling services around these women who often are so

traumatized they don't know where to turn. How will they find housing? What will happen to their kids? Will their kids get to school the next day? These are the things that this kind of supportive

housing will identify and help with. What we're saying today to all people in Ontario is, it is unacceptable to see domestic violence and not be able to interject and find these women support. I am

so pleased to be a part of a McGuinty government that is moving forward in this manner.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I do appreciate the announcement that's been made today on this issue of violence against women and

the actions that governments take to prevent violence against women and their children. I look at it as a non-partisan issue, and I truly believe that all members of this House -- all 103 and all

three parties -- have worked diligently to move forward to create an environment that continues to take action against this violence.

We know that violence against women continues to be a very serious problem, not just in this province but throughout the world. It continues to be persistent,

far-reaching and severe. In fact, the consequences and cost of violence to women themselves, to their children and to our economies, in terms of medical, psychological and economic impacts, are

high; it's an estimated $4.2 billion.

But again, I think all governments have worked hard. I know we did. We took steps to help prevent domestic violence. We did make very substantial improvements

to Ontario's system of supports for victims. We committed resources to address violence against women. In fact, the expenditures increased by about 70% from 1995. We spent over $160 million in the

areas of safety, justice and prevention. We provided money to shelter beds, counselling, telephone crisis services, specialized domestic violence courts, crisis intervention, personal safety

planning and a 24-hour-a-day, province-wide crisis line. I know the actions we took built upon the actions that had been taken by the NDP government before us. But it's never enough, because the

violence continues.

I want to take a look at two of the programs we introduced, where we contributed $5 million. One of these programs was a $5-million transitional support

program that assists women in identifying and accessing the resources and supports they need, including housing. There was another $5-million program that was an early intervention program for

child witnesses of domestic violence, which helps our children recover from the effects of witnessing violence in their families.

Then, if I look forward, in December 2002 we committed another $21.4 million to new initiatives to support victims but also to hold abusers accountable. Some

education and prevention campaign to engage all Ontarians in helping to prevent domestic violence against women and children. There was a $4.5-million program over three years for community-based

grants to strengthen the linkages between local victim services in order that we could improve service delivery to the victims of domestic violence. There was $2.7 million for safe, private waiting

and interview areas for victims and witnesses as part of the expansion of the domestic violence court program.

There was also $2.4 million for a specialized domestic violence bail program to help the police and crown attorneys better protect the victims of domestic

violence. Trained staff were made available to interview victims before bail hearings to get all the available information to better assess the risk to victims in domestic violence cases.

Then there was $1.2 million for a domestic violence review committee in the office of the chief coroner, bringing together specialists and community experts

who will review all domestic violence deaths. Finally, there was $600,000 to bring together domestic violence experts, community leaders and service providers in order that, by bringing all these

people together as you are proposing to do, we can all look at strategies; we can use the expertise and the ideas that everyone has available. We were going to bring that forward to have regional

and provincial conferences in order that we could further improve services. So I'm glad for the announcement today, and I applaud you.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The first thing I'd like to say is that we're very happy to see the election promise being kept today

-- I think that's the first or second -- and that is bringing back funding for second-stage housing today. It was a very important step forward, and I know that women's organizations and victims of

violence are very glad for this announcement today. We have to bear in mind that about 25 buildings across the province were shut down. They're still there as housing, downloaded to the

municipalities, but the services were taken away. What you're announcing today is putting those services, which are critical, back in. We're happy to see that and hope you will expand them.

As you well know from the study that came out yesterday, Walking on Eggshells, from the cross-sectoral group and its recommendations -- which the Premier, then

the leader of the official opposition, signed on to -- and many, many reports that have come before this House over the years and from the various inquests after the horrible deaths of women -- we

know what we have to do. That report yesterday, Walking on Eggshells, told us again, reiterated again and again, what to do.

I'm somewhat concerned that this is all we're hearing today, particularly given your commitment when in opposition to all of those things that we know we have

to do to stop this violence, and by the fact that there is nothing, for instance, today about the first-stage shelters, which we know were cut under the previous government by 5% or more across the

board. They are falling apart. There isn't enough room in second-stage housing across the province for all of these women and children to get that counselling. There's not enough room in the

existing system. We need those cuts that were made to the shelters to not only be reinstated, but we need more funding for those shelters and services.

As a result of the report issued yesterday, which was truly heartbreaking, Premier, and I hope you will have a look at it -- welfare rates were cut by the

previous government. It's now about a 34% cut in real dollars. These women are supposed to be trying to leave violent situations on that amount of money. We need a commitment to those welfare rates

right away, and we need a commitment to affordable housing right away. Those are the kinds of things that, in particular, we heard about yesterday. We heard that 20% or more of the cases of

children being brought into care in 2003 -- can you believe it? -- were because of lack of housing. So on one hand your government has expanded the money to the child welfare system by about $84

million. We support more money to protect children. But in the meantime you see that 20% of these children are being taken away from their mothers after experiencing a violent situation because

they have no place to live. So the child welfare system gets extra funding to take these children away -- and God bless, they need to be protected.

Premier, what we want to see in the upcoming budget is a real commitment to reinstate an awful lot of the cuts that were made and things you promised when you

were in opposition. You signed on to this cross-sectoral strategy. You asked impassioned questions and spoke the way I am speaking today, sometimes quite tearfully, emotionally and passionately,

about this issue being one that, as the member for the opposition said, is not and should not be partisan. But it becomes partisan when promises are made and we get all of these reports and nothing

is done except small baby steps.

The other thing I'd like to say, Premier, is that you did mention that a consultation was recently done by your parliamentary assistant. What I want to know is

why the results of that consultation are not being released so we can all take a look and see what people said and what the recommendations are. We don't need any more studies or ministers meeting.

All of the reports and recommendations are here. Let's just move on them.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Premier, you've removed the Minister of Finance from his responsibilities over the markets in

Toronto and their regulation. Can we ask you today, will the Chair of Management Board also be assuming the minister's responsibilities for promoting Ontario bonds and paper after the reading of

the budget?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer that to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I go back again to the comments, dare I say, of the Integrity Commissioner, who

reviewed this matter and said about the Minister of Finance's approach, "From that point on Minister Phillips, the Chair of Management Board, assumed responsibility for all OSC matters. I remain of

the view that the steps you took on February 25, 2004, were sufficient." I repeat, the Integrity Commissioner has looked at this matter and determined that the steps the Minister of Finance took

were sufficient. He looked at all the circumstances. If at any time in the future we determine that there are other matters that inadvertently may still be resting elsewhere, I'm sure we would look

at that. But I repeat to the public and the Legislature that the Integrity Commissioner looked in detail at this and determined that the steps that the Minister of Finance took were sufficient.

Mr Eves: The Integrity Commissioner ruled that it was quite appropriate that responsibilities for the markets and the regulation be removed

from the finance minister. I go back to my original question: Does it not logically follow, then, that with respect to selling Ontario paper to those very same markets, through those very same

exchanges, those responsibilities would also be removed from the finance minister and placed in your hands or in the hands of some other minister of the Premier's choosing?

Hon Mr Phillips: Again I say that the Integrity Commissioner -- looked at this matter in considerable detail and the letter he wrote is dated

March 8, 2004 -- reviewed all the matters and looked at the circumstances and, I repeat for the public, said, "I remain of the view that the steps you took on February the 25, 2004, were" quite

"sufficient." So I think, as I said, the Integrity Commissioner has reviewed the matter. He has determined that the steps the Premier and the Minister of Finance took were quite sufficient. I

believe that to be the case.

Mr Eves: The Integrity Commissioner ruled that it was quite appropriate that the markets be removed from the finance minister's responsibility

and that the Ontario Securities Commission, which regulates those markets, also be reviewed. As a matter of fact your very own Premier, on his way into caucus this morning, when asked about the

responsibilities for the OSC and the markets being removed, said, "We just think it's appropriate under the circumstances. We are concerned about optics when it comes to these things, so those

responsibilities have been removed from him." Do you agree with your Premier?

Hon Mr Phillips: Again I say to the member, and I say to the public, recognize this: This matter was reviewed in detail by the Integrity

Commissioner. Justice Coulter Osbourne, knowing all of the circumstances, reviewed it in some considerable detail. The opposition may not want to hear this but I think the public wants to hear

this. The conclusion that the Integrity Commissioner drew after examining all the details is, I repeat, "I remain of the view that the steps you took on February 25, 2004, were sufficient." I

believe the Integrity Commissioner was right on that matter.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is once again to the Premier and it comes to the Sorbara scandal. This doesn't just speak to

your integrity, Premier. It speaks to the ethical standards you set for your government.

Yesterday, the opposition was once again stonewalled in our attempts to get to the bottom of this and have our questions answered. Justice Osbourne said

specifically that your Minister of Finance should separate himself from any investigation with respect to the Canada Revenue Agency, but your Minister of Finance also remains the minister of

revenue. I want to ask you very sincerely --

Interjection.

Mr Baird: There's a second letter, I say to the Chair of Management Board.

I want to ask you very specifically what measures you, as Premier, have put in place to ensure that your minister, his political staff and his deputy minister

and officials are not involved in any way, shape or form with this revenue investigation. Would you answer that, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: This remains from the outset an attack on the finance minister's integrity. I have known the finance minister for 15 years.

He is a man of integrity, and I believe the members of the opposition know in their heart of hearts that the Minister of Finance is a man of integrity. The Integrity Commissioner himself has

reviewed this particular matter. He says the Minister of Finance has acted appropriately and responsibly in the circumstances, and I believe that ends the matter.

Mr Baird: Premier, it's only a few steps from this chair to that chair, but it seems to be an ethical mile, because you come into this House

day after day and refuse to answer the opposition's questions.

You may be interested to know that the Ontario Ministry of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency speak daily, because they cooperate on audits of Ontario

firms. The Ministry of Finance and the Canada Revenue Agency do audits, sometimes jointly and sometimes together. It has been publicly reported that this federal agency is investigating Royal Group

Technologies.

I want to ask you a specific question: Have you, as Premier, checked with the Ontario Ministry of Finance, which works for your Minister of Finance, to see if

they are cooperating in any way, shape or form with this investigation? Would you answer that question directly, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member knows better than that. I am not, and I am not going to, direct anybody within the government to get involved in

any way, shape or form with any kind of investigation or potential investigation. We think that's the appropriate and responsible thing to do in the circumstances.

I know the members opposite, for their own particular reasons, have an interest in trying to resuscitate this issue, but I believe it is a dead horse, and flog

as they might, this horse will not get to its feet and gallop away.

Mr Baird: You're right, Premier: This issue certainly isn't going to gallop away, because we're going to live up to our responsibilities to

Ontario taxpayers to hold you accountable, and to hold you accountable for the ethical standards you place on your ministers.

When you sat in this chair in the official opposition on June 14, 2001, you said, "Ian Urquhart of the Toronto Star put it eloquently in a column. Mr Urquhart

wrote, `There is one downside to a cover-up, no matter how well it is executed: it tells everyone that there is something to hide.'"

Premier, on March 1, you used your government majority on the government agencies committee to shut down reconsideration of the appointment of the vice-chair.

On the 24th, you shut down our attempts to investigate the Ontario Securities Commission, and last week you shut down the attempts by the member for Toronto-Danforth to get to the bottom of this

scandal. If you have nothing to hide, why are you working so hard to ensure that no light of day is put on any of these ethical issues? What have you got to hide, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I ask you, Speaker, judging from appearances, who is working harder on this issue in this House: the people on that side or

the people on this side?

I was hoping the members opposite might want to ask us, for example, questions relating to OPG and Hydro One. They might want to ask us, for example, about

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm trying to hear the Premier's response.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I thought they might want to ask us about the openness and transparency and, frankly, the honesty we have introduced in our

dealings with OPG and Hydro One. I thought they might want to ask us about that or, if not that, then about the number of water inspectors we have hired or the fact that we're investing in public

education once again or the fact that we're committed to helping women and children who find themselves in abusive situations. Those are all important public policy issues that I would think they

would have wanted to ask about.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Premier: Private, for-profit auto insurance companies are picking the pockets of drivers and picking

the pockets of innocent accident victims while they're lining their own pockets with huge new profits.

You've got a way out of this mess. You see, in New Brunswick, an all-party committee of Conservatives, New Democrats and, yes, Liberals has just released a

landmark report on auto insurance. This committee put the auto insurance industry under the microscope and found there is only one way to ensure fair, low-cost auto insurance for everyone, and

that's public auto insurance. Liberals in New Brunswick, along with Conservatives and New Democrats, say in this landmark report that the only way to provide fairness and affordability is public

auto insurance.

Premier, you need an escape route from this mess. Will you bring in a non-profit, public auto insurance system here in the province of Ontario?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm with Bob Rae on this one; I have to admit that. We have examined the

issue very closely and we have determined that public auto insurance would not serve the interests of the people of Ontario. What we did instead, in keeping with our commitment made during the

course of the campaign, was that as soon as we formed the cabinet -- within 15 minutes of that, in fact -- we immediately froze auto insurance premiums in the province. We've now taken steps to

ensure that drivers in the province of Ontario experience, on average, a 10% reduction in their premiums. We are making progress. We're doing so in a realistic, responsible and practical way.

Mr Kormos: Premier, your inability to handle the affordability issue around insurance could well put you with Bob Rae four years from now, at

some high-priced law firm downtown.

You see, New Brunswick's all-party committee was very, very clear that private auto insurance is a monster that can't be caged, it's a beast that can't be

tamed, it's a mad dog that can't be leashed, and it's time that public auto brought it to heel. The committee says this about public auto insurance and what it's going to mean to drivers in New

Brunswick: It will immediately lower the average driver's rates by more than 20% -- that's what Liberals are saying in New Brunswick -- and it will stop big insurance's discrimination and provide

coverage for everyone, regardless of age, gender or where they live in the province.

If you won't commit to public auto insurance, will you at least follow the New Brunswick lead and strike an all-party committee to look at the viability of

public auto insurance for Ontarians?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I know the minister wants to speak to this.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): We've actually done better than that. Within about 15 minutes of our government being sworn in, as

you'll recall, the Premier announced that we would be taking steps within 90 days of bringing forward legislation. We did that, sir, in the fall Parliament. We passed a bill. Later on this month,

within days, drivers right across Ontario, as their insurance renewals come to them, will see insurance rates that are lower by 10%, and we've only just begun.

The second phase of our program will see sharper markets that are more competitive and more alternatives for individual policyholders to design a policy that

will make sure we have the lowest possible insurance rates. I think this outdoes what's being proposed in New Brunswick.

HOSPITAL BOARDS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Premier. Across the province, volunteer hospital board members are angry about Bill

8 because they know that it allows your government to grab power and control and centralize decision-making here at Queen's Park in a way, frankly, that would make even Mike Harris blush.

New Democrats are opposed to Bill 8 because it gives broad, sweeping powers to the Minister of Health to unilaterally impose orders and compliance directives,

and there is no opportunity for third party review when issues are in dispute between the ministry and local boards. Bill 8 is about Queen's Park having the final say at the expense of local

volunteer boards, who know best about what is needed in their communities.

Accountability is a two-way street; it's not about your government having all of the say all of the time. Premier, why is it that your government is so intent

on controlling local hospital volunteer boards?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I disagree fundamentally with the member's characterization of Bill 8.

This is a genuine effort on our part to work with our communities, those people who find themselves on our hospital boards and those people who manage our hospitals, to establish a partnership that

gives effect to the desire of the people of Ontario to have improved value for their health care dollars and to bring about measurable improvement in the quality of care we deliver to people.

We did something that was absolutely extraordinary with this bill. We put it out for hearings after first reading. We intend to put it out to committee again

after second reading so we can continue to listen to the people of Ontario on this. We actually believe that by putting these things out to the public we end up with a better product at the end of

the day.

I disagree fundamentally with the characterization. This is an effort on our part to enlist people who work in our hospitals and volunteers so that we can

better serve all Ontarians when it comes to delivering better-quality health care.

Ms Martel: I was at the public hearings and the local hospital boards who came before us were opposed to this bill. They were opposed after

first reading and they're going to be opposed after second reading, because this bill is all about you grabbing power and centralizing it here at Queen's Park.

Look, the Conservatives tried to do that with education. In the name of efficiency and accountability, they tried to take away power from local school boards

and centralize it here at Queen's Park. It didn't work with education under the Conservatives; it's not going to work for health under you.

I said it before and I'll repeat it: Accountability is a two-way street. You are going in the wrong direction with this bill that gives you all of the power

all of the time. I repeat my question: Why is your government so intent on taking control of local volunteer hospital boards?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'll refer this to the minister.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I always find it interesting when a member of the former government that

reached in and reopened collective agreements lectures everybody else about the appropriate way to practise.

In the days since I have become Minister of Health and introduced Bill 8, I've had the opportunity to visit more hospitals across Ontario than I can count at

the moment. In meetings in Mississauga with the Trillium hospital, which included board members, we talked about the increasingly productive relationship between the government of Ontario and

Ontario's hospitals.

Bill 8 is fundamentally a bill that builds on the work of Roy Romanow, who said in his seminal report that it was critically important we establish the

principle of accountability. During the subsequent hearings after second reading, I very much look forward to the opportunity to demonstrate that people across Ontario are strongly in support of

Bill 8.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): My question is for the Minister of the Environment, a minister who seems not content to be only a

member of the promise breakers' club, she wants to lead the organization.

Minister, according to the Toronto Star, you are "quite confident" you'll be able to meet a 60% recycling target for the province's waste by 2008.

Interjections.

Mr Barrett: Stay tuned, please.

My question is, what happened to the confidence you exhibited December 5 last year when you told members of this Legislature that your government would meet

the 60% target by 2005? Now you say you will not be able to keep your waste reduction commitments by 2005.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr Barrett: Now it's not until 2008, not until the next election and perhaps after the election. Minister, come clear. The only thing you are

planning on reducing is confidence people have in your government's ability to keep its word. Is this another broken promise?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): This government is committed to assisting municipalities in dealing with municipal solid

waste. We have committed that municipalities in the province will meet 60% diversion targets by the year 2008, and yesterday was the beginning of a process where we will review the Environmental

Assessment Act. We will improve the tools that will be made available to municipalities so that they can in fact achieve this goal.

I would also like to say to the member opposite that there are municipalities already in the province that have achieved 60% diversion. We intend to showcase

those municipalities. Just today, I met with the mayor of Toronto, who is very eager to work toward our goal of 60% diversion. So I believe that this government has demonstrated leadership in an

area that was totally lacking from the previous government.

Mr Barrett: Minister, you know as well as I that the 60% diversion commitment you have made comes with a cost. It's an exponentially higher

cost as we move from 50% diversion to 60%, although I didn't hear any price tag mentioned in yesterday's news conference.

We already know that you expect industry and the private sector to foot half the blue box bill. That represents about 50% of your diversion commitment. Where

will the rest come from? The cost of banning organic waste from landfills works out to over $50 million across the province every year. Where will that money come from? Will it come from your

budget? I doubt it, considering the bogus $8-billion deficit you are touting. Minister, what will be the cost of diversion not only to companies, but to municipalities? Secondly, who will pay?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: What we have heard from municipalities, which are responsible for managing municipal solid waste in the province of

Ontario, is that the process that is in place right now, the environmental assessment and approvals process which the previous government tinkered with and, really, as a result of that tinkering,

has been the subject of litigation -- what municipalities and partners and environmentalists have said to us is we need to improve this process. So our government is going to establish an experts

panel. We are going to inspire confidence in an area and an industry that has needed it. It has been totally lacking. There was no leadership by the previous government for the last eight years.

This government has set a firm target of 60% diversion by 2008, and we are committed to improving a process to enable municipalities and other partners to reach that goal.

LANDFILL

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, yesterday you introduced precedent-setting

legislation that would prevent the use of lakes larger than one hectare as landfill sites. If this legislation is passed, it will stop projects such as the Adams mine from ever being brought to the

table again. What is the Ministry of the Environment doing to ensure that communities all across Ontario will not be faced with the same uncertainty in the future when it comes to the decisions

affecting their communities?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): My colleague has asked a very important question, and I know members opposite don't

appreciate the significance of this. In fact, there is a community in my riding that, some years ago, had undergone a similar concern. It was a point of great worry that landfill might be sited in

a former mine site in the town of Marmora.

What the legislation that we introduced in this House yesterday will achieve when passed is that in the future a landfill will not be able to be sited in a

body of water in the province of Ontario. Our government is committed to protecting our water sources, and that is exactly what the legislation yesterday will achieve when passed.

Mr Colle: What is the Ministry of the Environment doing to ensure, as a result of yesterday, that the crown land adjacent to the Adams mine

that is up for sale will not be sold, or why is this land for sale in the first place, and will this legislation change the disposition of this crown land?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: That is an item that is dealt with by the Minister of Natural Resources, and he will respond to that, I believe.

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I have to start off my response by saying I'm very proud to be part of the McGuinty

government that's willing to make the tough decisions to protect Ontario's environment.

As many may know, the acquisition of the adjacent crown land to the Adams mine site was a requirement of the environmental assessment that had been approved

three or four years ago. If this legislation that was proposed yesterday is passed, the acquisition by the proponent of this crown land would no longer be necessary.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. In March 2003, according to the Toronto Star, your

Premier made an election promise to increase operating funding to long-term-care facilities by $430 million annually. Yesterday, we hear, again according to the Toronto Star, you tried to deny that

the Liberals had made such a commitment. Later in the day, you reversed yourself and you said that your government will increase funding by $6,000 per resident. Minister, the people in this

province do deserve a straight answer. When are you going to keep your commitment to increase funding by $6,000 per resident, or is this yet another broken Liberal promise?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I acknowledged to the Toronto Star, through my press secretary, that I'm used

to dealing with the funds in another way and not on a per-person basis and so I was less familiar with the number.

I'm very pleased to say, as I did to the media yesterday, that with respect to our commitment to improving the quality of life for our seniors and vulnerable

living in long-term-care facilities, we have been working hard. My parliamentary assistant, the member from North Bay, has been very involved in it. We will have additional resources for our

long-term-care facilities. At the point that we're in a position to make the exact announcement, I know the member will be interested to comment at that time.

Mrs Witmer: Not only is the minister unable to commit to a timeline to flow the money, the $6,000 per resident, but we have also now learned

that they have stealthily taken some steps within the Ministry of Health to retroactively claw back the property taxes for 2003 from long-term-care facilities. This is unbelievable. This amounts to

$15 million, and it will translate into a reduction of services for our vulnerable senior citizens. Furthermore, if that's not enough, to add insult to injury, the facilities have not yet received

their acuity adjustments as of April 1, since no announcement has been made. We also know that the acuity levels have increased. More funding is desperately needed for our vulnerable seniors, and

yet everything this minister and this government is doing is destabilizing the long-term-care sector.

Minister, will that $6,000 per resident be new funding, or will you simply be giving back to the facilities what you are now taking from them in the

retroactive clawback?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I always find it interesting that member of the government that said it was not their plan to close hospitals and

subsequently did could stand and lecture me on the state of long-term care in our province so shortly on the heels of her government having responsibility for it.

On the matters at hand with respect to the property tax issue that the member raises, the same amount of money is being provided this year as was provided in

their last year for this very important initiative.

Subsequently, what I will say to the honourable member is what I said earlier and what I've said repeatedly to the media: that the challenges that we face and

that our seniors face in long-term-care facilities will only be answered by a comprehensive plan, moving forward on a series of fronts. This is exactly the plan that we are working very hard on

finalizing and will be delivered to the people of Ontario shortly.

SUBVENTIONS CULTURELLES /

CULTURAL FUNDING

M. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke-Nord): C'est mon privilège d'adresser ma question à la ministre de la Culture, l'honorable madame

Meilleur. Nous savons tous que les attractions touristiques culturelles de la province ont subi une grave incidence à cause de la flambée du SRAS et de la panne d'électricité de

l'été dernier. Les attractions culturelles sont moins fréquentées. Ceci a eu une incidence majeure pour les bénéfices des organismes gouvernementaux et d'autres

organismes culturels. Madame la ministre, comment comptez-vous aider ces organismes?

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur (ministre de la Culture, ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones): Je suis très consciente

des terribles incidences que ces événements ont eues sur les organismes culturels et sur le personnel de ces organismes. Depuis que je suis devenue ministre en octobre dernier, j'ai

visité la plupart de ces organismes qui reçoivent du financement de la province. Les employés et les bénévoles de ce secteur font un travail extraordinaire, mais la

fréquentation est à la baisse et les revenus ont diminué.

Je suis heureuse d'affirmer aujourd'hui à mon collègue que notre gouvernement a travaillé très étroitement avec les gens de

l'industrie. Nous avons augmenté les fonds de marketing touristique, le fonds qui était auparavant de 5 $ millions. Le gouvernement a accordé 33 subventions. Puis, il y a

quelques semaines, nous avons augmenté le budget de 2,5 $ millions. Ce sont des sommes dont on a besoin pour faire savoir au monde entier que les attractions culturelles de l'Ontario sont

ouvertes et qu'elles sont meilleures que jamais.

Mr Qaadri: What has been the response from our partners in the cultural tourism field? How much in money funds has actually been allocated so

far?

Hon Mrs Meilleur: We all know that the SARS outbreak was unexpected and had a major impact on this province's health care system and its

tourism industry. As I mentioned a moment ago, the people in the industry are fighting back with new shows and productions.

We are helping them with new funding. A few weeks ago I announced that seven cultural organizations in Toronto were receiving a combined amount of $580,000.

Among those, the groups are the Canadian Stage Company, Harbourfront, Massey Hall, Roy Thomson Hall, Casa Loma, the Textile Museum, North by Northeast, and the Toronto Blues Society. There is still

a lot of work to be done. I know of other agencies and organizations in and outside of Toronto that will be applying for help to rebound from last year's events. This government will be there for

them.

TUITION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Premier. You have frozen tuition fees. If this is true, why is the board of

governors from the University of Waterloo voting on a 15% increase on deregulated programs today?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister is anxious to speak to this.

Hon Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): We have good news for universities and colleges in Ontario. As I

said, I think last week, good news is about to be announced and provided to them. I'm sure the member for Trinity-Spadina will also hear the news when I provide that to the universities and

colleges. I hope he will also respect the fact that we are honouring our commitment to freeze tuition fees for two years, and honouring our commitment to compensate the universities and colleges

appropriately. We are fully committed to accessible, affordable, high-quality education in a sector that has been strong and will be maintained.

Mr Marchese: This is good news indeed. I've got a problem: The universities don't seem to know it yet. If this is true, why has the board of

governors from Wilfrid Laurier University passed a motion calling for a 10% fee hike in 2004 for the business math programs? Clearly they haven't heard the good news. My point to you is: Are

tuition fees frozen or not? If they are, would you let the universities know about the good news as quickly as you possibly can?

Hon Mrs Chambers: I truly hope that politics will be set aside and the member for Trinity-Spadina will help me communicate the good news to

the universities.

HIGHWAY TOLLS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I'm pleased that you recently

confirmed that the new four-lane Highway 69 from Parry Sound to Sudbury will be a freeway, not a toll highway. Can you confirm for the House and all the residents and businesses in northern Ontario

that Highway 11 will be a freeway and not a toll highway?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I know that the Minister of Transportation wants to address this.

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): We have addressed this issue several times here. I want to assure you that we are

developing criteria for the toll highways and we will take one highway at a time and then compare against the criteria and see whether tolls need to be imposed or not.

Mr Miller: That really was not the answer I was looking for. Frankly, I was hoping that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines would

be answering and standing up for the north. Based on his reaction, I'm sure that's probably not what the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was looking for either.

Highway 11 should be considered basic infrastructure for the north. It is an important part of the foundation necessary for economic growth in the north. Our

government recognized the importance of highways in the north and invested a record $1.6 billion on northern roads. As I brought up before, your party made the promise in the election that no road

without an alternate route would be tolled. What is the alternate route for Highway 11 from Muskoka to North Bay?

Hon Mr Takhar: We already said last week that we will not toll any highways where there's no alternative route. We will consider tolls only

for new highways, and we are in the middle of developing criteria.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. My local children's aid society is

experiencing an increase in the number of children in its care, while dealing with a number of financial pressures that make it very difficult for them to do their job, which is to protect children

from abuse and neglect. My CAS tells me that the current funding framework has created a number of problems, including spiralling budget needs which have led to in-year operating deficits. I'd like

to ask the minister, how can we expect CAS workers to properly do their job with these constant funding pressures, while at the same time recognizing that we cannot continue to bail them out every

spring?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Our government, and I'm sure

everyone in this Legislature, appreciates the important and very difficult work our children's aid societies do across the province. The CASs agree that the funding formulas are flawed. The funding

formula is based on how many kids can be taken away. There isn't any funding in the formula for counselling and adoption etc. Even though we're spending over a billion dollars a year, the CASs

still run deficits. Since January of this year the McGuinty government has provided an additional $88.4 million to relieve them of these pressures, and we will now move forward with the CASs to

improve the funding formula.

Interjections.

Mr Milloy: Unfortunately, the opposition does not care about children's aid societies. I care about them. And even though I applaud the good

work that children's aid societies are doing under very difficult circumstances, I think more can be done in terms of permanent and preventive measures. In fact, the CAS in my community tells me

they find the current funding framework constricting and not well suited to working toward permanent solutions to our children.

Will the minister commit today to untying the hands of our CAS workers so they can do what is in the best interest of our children?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: We will be working with the children's aid societies to do just that. We have identified many flaws, both in the

funding formula and in the services, and we have appointed Mr Bruce Rivers, who is the executive director of the Toronto Children's Aid Society, to lead us in that. We have also asked them, for

these new monies to relieve their pressures, to agree to certain changes in the way they work. And they have agreed to increase the number of adoptions. We will be working toward looking at

legislative changes as well to make adoptions more possible. Because even though it's fiscally the right thing to do, it's also the right thing to do for the children: give them a good family to

raise them. There is also an amazing, significant number of children from our child welfare system who end up in our youth justice system. Giving them families at an early age and making it easier

for children's aid societies to be able to have them adopted will also alleviate the pressures for that sector and do the right thing for the families of this province.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Today's press reports

indicate that convicted pedophile Douglas Moore, now considered a prime suspect in the death of 15-year-old René Charlebois -- and it was a terrible death, of course -- had been living in Peel

region for some time, unknown to local residents. That's our understanding. Moore is also suspected in the possible deaths of two other young men who have been missing since last December.

Our government passed legislation allowing police chiefs to publicize the name, location and photos of pedophiles if and when they were moved into communities

in the province. Minister, did the Peel regional police use this legislation to warn residents of Mr Moore's presence, and if not, do you know why not?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. The answer is quite simple:

Mr Moore was not registered under the Ontario sex registry act, and as a result they had no way of knowing whether he was a pedophile.

Mr Dunlop: According to the media speculation, it appears that Mr Moore may have been a serial killer and a sexual predator who preyed on

young men. I believe we should be concerned that provincial legislation wasn't used, and of course you give us a reason now, to alert Peel residents of the man's presence and of the dangers he

posed to the community. Minister, will you consider amending the legislation to require police services across Ontario to make this information public? I can assure you that if you do that, you'll

have the support of our caucus for very speedy passage of that.

Hon Mr Kwinter: The member should know the federal government has now passed its own legislation. At one time, Ontario was the only province

in Canada that had sex offender registration. We're hopeful that we can roll it all in so we have a single system, so that someone doesn't fall between the cracks where we have provinces with one

and the federal government with another. Certainly it is our intention to make sure we grandfather all known sex offenders, that they are all incorporated into the act. That is our intent.

TAXI LICENSING

Mr Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. A number of people in and around my riding make

their living working as legitimate and licensed taxi and limo drivers at Pearson International Airport. However, unlicensed drivers scoop their fares illegally. Many of these illegal drivers are

not properly trained, many of their vehicles are unfit, and many do not carry proper commercial insurance coverage.

I have heard of examples of Canadians and, most importantly, tourists, having been charged higher fares than are legally allowed by the Greater Toronto

Airports Authority. Minister, what are you doing to combat this problem, to protect our consumers and tourists from this kind of gouging and, most importantly, to protect the livelihoods of these

hard-working people?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I would like to thank my colleague from Brampton West-Mississauga. I am very much aware

of this issue. The Premier is very much aware of this issue, and he has also met with industry representatives. We are working with other levels of government, like the federal government and the

municipalities, to find a solution to this very long-term problem that has existed in this industry for a very long period. We are committed to taking action that will ensure that the taxi drivers

who don't have the licences will not be able to operate on our roads.

Mr Dhillon: However, the drivers in my riding have been waiting for a long time for action on this issue. Their livelihoods have been hurt,

and this lack of enforcement has put citizens' personal safety and their pocketbooks needlessly at risk. Can the minister provide these legitimate drivers in my riding with some timelines for

action on this issue?

Hon Mr Takhar: As I said, we are meeting with our stakeholders and other levels of government to find a solution to this problem that has

existed in this industry for a very long time. I also want to thank my colleague because he participated in some of those meetings with me.

Let me tell you what we have done so far. On February 6, we met with the representatives from Transport Canada and the Minister of Transport. On February 16,

we met with the licensed taxi and limo drivers to discuss their concerns. On February 20, we met with the GTAA. We continue to meet with the other stakeholders so that we can find some solutions to

address the issues that are of concern to this industry and have not been addressed for a very, very long time.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Michigan is rejecting Toronto's garbage, and

will be more, and more because we don't have a deposit return system like they do. Sometimes we can be very quick to criticize Americans, but they're way ahead of us on this issue, and in fact they

have done the right thing. Minister, it is really clear that in Michigan you aren't allowed to send pop bottles to landfill. Are you going to implement a deposit return system here in Ontario for

pop and LCBO bottles?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): Certainly we are very aware of the developments in Michigan and some of their recent

changes to the legislation. Just this morning, I had an opportunity to meet with the mayor of Toronto, a city that is particularly interested in those initiatives. The mayor of Toronto would

indicate to me that, first of all, they're confident that, because of the blue box program and its efficiency in the city of Toronto, their city will be able to meet the new standards of the state

of Michigan. He has also shared his support for our initiative to divert 60% of waste from landfill. I'm very happy that we have municipal partners who are prepared to work with us to improve the

blue box program, which has proved to be so successful across this province.

Ms Churley: Minister, that wasn't the question. I must congratulate the city of Toronto because they're in fact ahead of their targets on

diversion. But I'm talking to councillors there, and they're making it very clear that you need to move quickly on deposit return systems. You'll also need to bring bills on electronic waste and

that sort of thing.

It is very clear that if you want to keep Michigan open for now, you have to bring in a deposit return system, just like eight other provinces have done across

this country. And please don't tell me you're leaving it up to the WDO. It is your responsibility. We know they were put in under the Tories and they don't support deposit return. Minister, I'm

going to ask you again, will you stand up to industry, stand up for the environment, and bring in a deposit return system now?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I would like to remind the member opposite that when they were government, they didn't bring in a deposit return system.

That was not an initiative that they supported. We are going to be issuing a discussion paper in the month of May. We want to gain input from all participants -- municipal, environmental sector,

the industry. We want to hear what they have to tell us on how to make our diversion targets reachable. That's the initiative and that's the leadership that this government is moving on. We are

focusing on diversion and we are counting on the people of Ontario to provide us with ideas on how we can reach diversion right across Ontario.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, in six short

months you've taken the leading economy in North America and, piece by piece, torn down the very foundation that created over one million new jobs for hard-working Ontarians. Small businesses

across the province are reeling from your government's attack on the Ontario economy.

Let's look at the record so far. On January 1, the largest tax hike in history resulted in a 37% increase in small business taxes. In March of this year, you

gave municipalities the authority to jack up business property taxes. On April 1, your government slapped small business with a 30% electricity rate increase.

In your government's election platform, you committed to providing an economic climate that would help small business grow. All I see from this government is

another broken promise that will chase thousands of jobs out of Ontario --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Mr Yakabuski: -- and choke the life out of small business. Minister, what are you going to do today to assure small businesses that you have a

plan that will protect jobs, strengthen the economy and allow small business --

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Let me tell you, we're going to do a lot more than your government did.

First of all, the Minister of Finance has increased the limit in terms of exemption for small business tax from $320,000 to $400,000. That's a big benefit to small business. I would add that the

small business tax rate in Ontario is significantly lower than that of our trading partners to the south. Ontario's small business tax rate is 22.12%, compared to the Great Lakes average of 40%, so

we are significantly lower than our competitors to the south .

Mr Yakabuski: The minister is very good with fudging numbers. The vast majority of small businesses fell below the old ceiling, so the raising

of that ceiling doesn't affect them.

Minister, instead of jet-setting across the world on junkets to Switzerland, Germany and Japan, you should be spending more time ensuring that the future of

our small businesses is being protected. In your election platform, you committed to freezing taxes on small businesses. Instead, you hit them with punishing income and property tax increases. You

promised to reduce the bureaucratic workload for these employers and provide them with electronic access to laws, rules and regulations that apply to their businesses.

Minister, tell Ontario's small businesses that you are making your voice heard at the cabinet table. Tell them that you are going to give them an economic

climate where they can continue to thrive --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Yakabuski: -- and create jobs for Ontarians. Tell them that from this point forward --

The Speaker: Please put your question.

Mr Yakabuski: Will you tell Ontario small business owners that you will stop breaking your promises and provide them with the support they

need and expect from this government?

Hon Mr Cordiano: I think small business owners of this province appreciate that we are bringing some discipline to governing in this province,

unlike the previous government. Let me tell you what we're doing for small business.

My parliamentary assistant, Tony Wong, has conducted extensive consultations with the small business community to fix up the mess you left behind when you were

engaged in that red tape secretariat that did nothing for small business. We're going to bring forward some real assistance. We're going to have a Web portal where small businesses can access,

one-stop shopping, all of the programs we offer for small business.

In addition, I would say to the member, the fact that I've been in Japan and Europe only speaks to the lack of presence we had around the world when your

government was in power.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Cordiano: You completely forgot about how important it is to have presence in international markets. We're going to make sure that

Ontario is truly represented around the world. Our voices are going to be heard, and we're going to bring home more deals.

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

HIGHWAY TOLLS

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you were asked a moment ago by a member of the

opposition a question about Highway 11. I'd like to make it perfectly clear for the residents of Nipissing, the member from Nickel Belt and the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, as well as the

members of this House: Will there be tolls on Highway 11?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): There seem to be a lot of answers on this side. Let me get the answer. Minister of Transportation.

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I think the opposition is more eager to give answers than me.

What I indicated before is, if there is no alternative route, there will be no tolls. I understand Highway 11 has no alternative route, so there will be no

tolls. It also doesn't make any sense to impose tolls on Highway 11 from an economic point of view either.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, yesterday you made a statement in the House

where you discussed cleaning up the environment with the federal government. The previous government was able to identify a very serious matter in northern Ontario whereby moving up the food chain

is PC contamination on midway-range radar sites. These contaminants have been identified within lower-level mammals at this current time. We are wondering, where do you stand in negotiations with

the feds on the cleanup of site 17?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very happy to explain and perhaps clarify for the member opposite the initiative that

this government will be mounting with the federal government with respect to the environmental assessment and approvals process.

In the country right now, the federal government has a process for environmental assessment and the provincial government has a process. Those projects that

would receive funds from the federal government or would be on federal lands are subject to a federal environmental assessment. Typically, what happens is that one environmental assessment must be

completed before another one can happen. Our government, after discussing this issue with the federal Minister of the Environment, recognizes that this can add some length of time to any project

and undue delay. Our goal is to work with the federal government on that issue.

Mr Ouellette: What's taken place in the past is that the previous government was in negotiations. These midway-range radar sites were

transferred from the federal government to the provincial government, not knowing they were contaminated. Since then, the previous government was able to identify the fact that there is a

substantial amount of contamination in the areas. Now the particular site between Cochrane and Moosonee has been identified as being very serious and we are moving forward on that cleanup of the

contaminated site. We are wondering, are you still in negotiation with the federal government and what is your intention of cleaning up that particular site?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: This government is committed to a clean, safe, healthy environment for the people of Ontario. I'm very aware of other

sites that the federal government has an interest in. There is one in my riding and there are a number across Ontario. I can assure the member opposite that this government will do all we can to

work with any jurisdiction to ensure that the safety of the people in those communities is put first.

HAMILTON AIRPORT

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I know how hard you've been working,

Mr Minister, to bring improvement to the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport. I know we both consider the development of the airport to be a top economic priority for the region.

Mr Minister, on April 2 you met in Hamilton with officials from the Hamilton international airport. They presented a report outlining items to be considered by

our government, in conjunction with the municipal and federal governments, to help improve the airport and its services. What was the outcome of this meeting, and what are we doing to make further

improvements at John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Let me thank the member for that very important question. I just want to say

at the outset that the idea for this meeting came from our colleague the late Dominic Agostino, and I want to thank him posthumously for that suggestion, because I think this is a great initiative

to commence to assist the city of Hamilton and its international airport.

It is a very important gateway for the Golden Horseshoe. We want to make certain that the Hamilton airport is a cargo and tourist hub. To that end, we took the

first steps at the meeting by talking to the officials. Also present were: the mayor of Hamilton, Mr Di Ianni; some federal ministers, Mr Valeri and Mr Keyes; my good friend and colleague Minister

Bountrogianni; Jennifer Mossop, the member from Stoney Creek; and Judy Marsales, who is asking this question.

I just want to say it was important because we announced, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation, new signage to the airport along the Queen Elizabeth

Way, Highways 403 and 407 and the new Highway 6. This is new signage which will help direct people to the airport, and that's an important initiative.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I have a petition from 150 people from Almonte, Pakenham, Clayton, Middleville and a number of other

areas in Lanark county. This is to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty stated clearly in his election platform that he is committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program for seniors and has

more recently said he is considering breaking this pledge by reducing coverage for seniors;

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

"That the provincial government fulfil its promise and start standing up for seniors by protecting the Ontario drug benefit program and the vital assistance it

provides to those who require prescription medications."

I have endorsed this petition.

ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL PARKWAY

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate this opportunity. This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Alexander Graham Bell, renowned inventor of society-altering technological inventions, such as the telephone, greatly revolutionized the daily lives

of people in Ontario, Canada and indeed the world; and

"Whereas Alexander Graham Bell's contributions to science, technology and society as a whole, were in part developed and tested while he lived in Brantford,

Ontario; and

"Whereas Brantford lies at the heart of the

section of 403 which runs from Woodstock to Burlington;

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

"To adopt and pass into law Dave Levac's private member's bill, Bill 44, the Alexander Graham Bell Parkway Act, renaming Highway 403 between Woodstock and

Burlington as a tribute to this great inventor" and Canadian.

I sign my name to this petition and pass it to Lauren.

HIGHWAY 518

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from the residents and constituents of Parry Sound-Muskoka, and it says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Highway 518 between Highway 69 and Highway 11 serves the residents of the communities of Haines Lake, Orrville, Bear Lake, Whitehall and Sprucedale;

and

"Whereas Highway 518 is in a deplorable condition; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has previously assured local residents of its intention to upgrade and improve Highway 518;

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

"We request that the Ministry of Transportation immediately proceed with the reconstruction of Highway 518 between Highway 69 and Highway 11."

I support this petition and sign my name to it.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a large number of petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the current forest management practices in Ontario do not take into account labour opportunities for residents of Ontario;

"Whereas an important economic tax base is being lost;

"Whereas the government of Ontario does not take into consideration the residents of Ontario or their future by allowing Ontario's timber to be processed out

of province;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take immediate action to ban any harvesting of any species of tree

for the purpose of transporting or processing outside of the province of Ontario."

This petition is signed by many people, including people from Tunis, Ontario.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the county of Simcoe proposes to construct a landfill at site 41 in the township of Tiny; and

"Whereas the county of Simcoe has received, over a period of time, the necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment to design and construct a

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations for improvements to the design, most of which

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on water source protection which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented by Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of Site 41 and the nearby water sources."

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I've signed my name to my petition and I agree with it. It's addressed to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous government sat on their hands and watched auto insurance rates shoot through the roof;

"Whereas this lack of restraint has led to profits for insurance companies amounting to over $2.6 billion; and

"Whereas motorists across the province expect rates to be fair;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support government legislation to reduce auto insurance rates and ensure that cost

savings in the system lead to premium reduction."

I hand the petition over to Sarah.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have found yet more petitions from the good people of Black Creek Leisure Homes in Stevensville, Ontario. On

this one, June and Norman Rattew and John and Adele Richards have signed this one that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the election campaign, the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

I sign my signature in support.

TUITION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I keep getting petitions from the Canadian Federation of Students. This particular one is from the

Fédération Canadienne des Étudiantes et Étudiants, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas average tuition fees in Ontario are the second-highest in Canada; and

"Whereas average undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have more than doubled in the past 10 years; and

"Whereas tuition fees for deregulated programs have, in certain cases, doubled and even tripled; and

"Whereas Statistics Canada has documented a link between increasing tuition fees and diminishing access to post-secondary education; and

"Whereas four other provincial governments have taken a leadership role by freezing and reducing tuition fees;

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

"

(1) Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels; and

"

(2) Take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs, post-diploma programs and professional programs for which tuition fees have been

deregulated since 1998."

Since I agree with this petition, I'm delighted to sign it as well.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from constituents in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the community of Yearley, Ontario, within the electoral district of Parry Sound-Muskoka experiences frequent and prolonged power outages;

"Whereas the power outages have become a health and safety issue to the residents of the community and the students who visit the outdoor education centre;

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

"That the Minister of Energy instruct Hydro One to conduct an investigation of the distribution and feeder lines that serve Yearley, and take the necessary

steps to ensure reliable energy through ongoing forestry maintenance and required line improvements."

I support this petition and sign my name to it.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the county of Simcoe proposes to construct a landfill at site 41 in the township of Tiny; and

"Whereas the county of Simcoe has received, over a period of time, the necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment to design and construct a

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas, as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations for improvements to the design, most of which

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on water source protection, which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented under Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of site 41 and the nearby water sources."

I'm pleased to sign my name to this.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition that's entitled "Stop MPAC from Sapping Sugar Shacks." These are from Marvin

Chambers's operation. The wording is considerably different from similar petitions I read yesterday, as I read:

"Whereas the Municipal Property Assessment Corp (MPAC) has chosen to assess sugar shacks as industrial properties, increasing assessment rates dramatically and

forcing the closure of some operations; and

"Whereas the agriculture protection act clearly defines maple syrup as an agricultural product; and

"Whereas sugar shacks are used for the production of maple syrup for only a small portion of the year; and

"Whereas sugar shacks and maple syrup are an important part of the agri-tourism business in rural Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold assessment value at last year's levels until a fairer method of assessment can be

developed and implemented, or a reclassification of sugar shack properties can be made."

I also join my signature to the 300 on these ones.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present another petition on behalf of seniors in the riding of Erie-Lincoln, these from Black

Creek and Stevensville. Patricia and Jerry Rol and Doris McRoberts headline this particular petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the election campaign, the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

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

"That the Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or

increase seniors' drug fees."

In support, I affix my signature.

LIABILITY INSURANCE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas liability insurance is a necessary coverage;

"Whereas the rising cost of liability insurance is of great concern;

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

"To review liability insurance rates and take steps to ensure reasonable rates, now and in the future."

I support this petition and I sign my name to it.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I would like to congratulate the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka on his Tartan Day suit today.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the county of Simcoe proposes to construct a landfill at site 41 in the township of Tiny; and

"Whereas the county of Simcoe has received, over a period of time, the necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment to design and construct a

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations for improvements to the design, most of which

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on water source protection which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented under Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the Minister of the Environment on water source

protection legislation; and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of site 41 and the nearby water sources."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 30, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 27,

An Act to establish a greenbelt study area and to amend the Oak

Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 / Projet de loi 27, Loi établissant une zone d'étude de la ceinture de verdure et modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur la conservation de la moraine

d'Oak Ridges.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I understand that the member for Toronto-Danforth has the floor.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I was launched into full flight and I was stopped at 6 of the clock last week when I was talking about

this bill. I want to continue because it is a really important bill before us today.

I have already indicated that I support the bill and will be voting for it. I'm looking forward to its passing so it can go out for public hearings and we can

get moving on it. Because overall, with some problems that I pointed out -- and I'm hoping the government will be interested in amending it to fix these problems -- I am supportive. Of course, the

proof is always in the pudding with these kinds of bills, but it's a very important step forward.

I talked briefly before and I'm going to talk again, just to remind the government, about the areas of concern. It is not just me saying this, it's CONE, the

Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment, Environmental Defence Canada and others who are very concerned about a number of components of this bill, although generally as well are overall supportive.

We're worried about the highways that are still planned to criss-cross right through the greenbelt area that's being proposed. We all know that when you build

a highway, the development comes with that, so we're concerned that a lot of this green space will actually end up turning into brown space. The government's seeming continued commitment to those

highways is a major problem.

I'm not going get into toll roads at the moment. I'll leave that to my colleague from Beaches-East York later. I want to talk about the environmental aspects

of this.

The other thing that we are very concerned about, and something has got to be done to prevent, is what we refer to as leapfrog development. That is, you've got

your defined green space, you've got the area all mapped out and you know where it is, but within that green space -- and I'm sure that you really are interested in knowing this, Mr Speaker,

because I know if you could vote on this and speak to this, you'd support my position -- what it means is that there will be patches, big swaths of land in the middle of this green space, that are

left out. The Simcoe area and other areas as well are not included in this plan. That's why we call it leapfrog: There will be one here and another over here. That means it's kind of like highways:

It could result in sprawl that is even further away from existing jobs, shopping and communities. Building within the existing urban envelope, the one we now have, is the key to environmentally

friendly development. This goes a long way to getting us there, but with these particular problems, it's not going to work. We're hoping that with deputations from environmental and conservation

organizations, and from us, some amendments can be made to fix these problems. There are a few others, but these are the two main areas where we need to see amendments.

What I want to dwell on and speak in particular about is the proposed Castle Glen development in the town of The Blue Mountains. I raised a question in the

House, I made a statement and I'm still urging the minister to deal with this problem.

Speaker, in case you, and people who may be listening, are not aware of this, the proposed Castle Glen development -- actually, it's a disgrace. For the first

time since the province began regulating land use on the escarpment in June 1975 -- for the very first time -- we have a proposal, which has actually moved quite far, to build a year-round town,

not just a little seasonal development which, here and there, have been approved by various Niagara commissioners. What happened -- and the previous Tories started this; I'll give you that -- is

their appointees, three days before their appointments were up, voted to let this go ahead, and there was a settlement with the town.

What I called on the minister to do, and what CONE called on the minister to do -- on March 9, 2004, they wrote to request that the zoning order within this

bill we're talking about today be amended to include the Niagara Escarpment plan area to keep this from happening. We need to do that, because this has gone before the OMB. We're trying to prevent

that from happening for a number of reasons.

I asked the government, and they said they weren't going to interfere with the OMB process. As you'll recall, Speaker, when you were sitting over here in

opposition and your then colleague Mike Colle in particular asked a lot of questions about the Oak Ridges moraine and OMB hearings, that was the answer the Tories gave the Liberals. Now they're

giving the same answer to us, and they know better. This is a problem, and something can be done to stop it.

What I'm hearing from people from the area who are fighting this proposal -- and the OMB hearings have started -- is that not only is it going forward but

there is a concern that because an overall agreement was reached between the town and the developers, and the new Niagara Escarpment Commission members perhaps might not have voted for this -- I

hear there are actually some very good, green people on that commission now -- but are reluctant to overturn a decision by a previous board. So it's going before the OMB.

The other big problem, though -- and this may not mean a whole lot to people who aren't involved a lot in these planning issues -- is that they've divided this

particular hearing into two parts. Over 29 years or so, the way that development proposals for the area have been dealt with is not piecemeal but in one part, so the plan is seen as a whole and you

have a sense of what the environmental impact and the other impacts will be. I believe, and many others believe, that what's happening here -- I believe the OMB is in discussions about that now --

runs completely contrary to the purposes and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, because they are looking at it in a piecemeal fashion. I'm not sure why that has been

done, except that the proponent, the developer, knows that this is coming and there's going to be a lot of pressure on the government to keep this from happening. In other words, what the developer

is doing is trying to proceed without the benefit of the comprehensive planning context.

This does not constitute good planning for any area -- for a city, for any urban or rural area. You need to be able to see the complete plan. You allow a bit

of it to go through, and then the next stage comes up -- well, that's already there, so in order to support this infrastructure, we're going to have to build the school or the whatever else to

support what we've already built here. That's what happens when you do it in piecemeal fashion.

I believe very strongly that if the Liberal government doesn't step in and do something about this and stop it, include it in the zoning order right away or

place a ministerial zoning order on it -- whatever. It's in the power of the government. As they know from the fight with the Tories, when they were in office, over Oak Ridges, they can do it if

they were really committed to doing it.

It's really, really important, if the government wants to move forward in a positive way with this particular bill, that this be done, because it will become,

mark my words, the Liberal government's Oak Ridges moraine nightmare. The same thing will happen. It hasn't caught fire yet, but I urge all members to take a look into this, because

conservationists and many of the people who live in the area are outraged that this is going ahead and are saying to me -- and I'm sure members of the government are also getting this information

-- that should the government allow this to go ahead, it will betray the very principles that are imbedded in this bill before us.

It is critical not just in terms of protecting the Niagara Escarpment and protecting the environment and all of those things, but I would say that it's

critical for the government for political reasons, because as it grows out there and more and more people know about it, the government's going to hear more and more about it. There's going to be

very little discussion about the good things in this bill, which are many. I can't use the word that I want to use -- it begins with an "h", but I'm not allowed to use it -- but that's the way

people will see it.

That's a shame, when the government is bringing forward, generally, with the exceptions that I made earlier -- which are very important points, but I believe

there is some hope that we can get those amended to fix those problems; if not, then the bill will be incomplete. But to allow something like this to go on at the same time, to ruin politically

their chances to move forward on their commitment to green space and the environment -- as I pointed out earlier, if there was a silver lining at all in the Liberal government finding out after

being elected that stopping those 6,000 homes from being built on the Oak Ridges moraine, as promised in the election campaign, was turning out to be a lot easier said than done, as a lot of the

promises that the Liberals made -- and this is one that the government found, under the circumstances, they had to break. You got such a lot of grief over that, didn't you? I believe that the

silver lining is, there was a decision to try to make up for that, and I believe that's a good thing.

Here we are debating this bill, and generally, I support its direction. I'm more or less obsessed -- in fact, I'm pretty obsessed right now; I'm talking to

people every day who are trying to stop this, so I'm not going to let up. I realize that in question period meetings I might not be able to get on a question about this every day; there are other

important issues of the day every day. But it's something that I will find ways to raise time and time again, and so will some of the environmental groups and conservation groups who are supporting

you.

What we're talking about here is an international treasure. We are talking about a UNESCO world heritage site. As I said, just so you understand how important

this is, for the first time it is happening under -- and I know the Minister of the Environment -- and I know this is not her area; it's the Minister of Natural Resources' area -- would be

interested in hearing about what's happening here and perhaps trying to intervene and stop the Minister of Municipal Affairs from going ahead with this, because it is allowing, under a Liberal

government that proclaims to be green, the province, for the first time in all of those years, to build a year-round, whole town on a very environmentally sensitive area of the Niagara

Escarpment.

In fact, I was surprised to see, given that the government didn't include it in the act before us today, that the minister -- I'm going to see if I can find it

here in all of these papers -- the Minister of Natural Resources, I believe, actually has something called a big picture, mapping the province's most threatened environmentally significant areas.

Guess what's on that map from your own government's Ministry of Natural Resources? Guess. Say it with me: Castle Glen properties. It's right there, in the middle of that map of one of the most

environmentally sensitive areas.

I know that there are, perhaps, difficulties in stepping in. The minister just did it with the Adams mine, and I did congratulate her on that. I think I'm one

of those opposition members who doesn't have trouble saying to government members, when I support the work that they're doing, sometimes fully, sometimes partially -- on Adams mine, I think you did

the right thing, despite the fact that you were getting a lot of criticism from the Tories and from the mayor and others in the area, the proponents, and from some of the media. It's tough to do

these things sometimes, but it was the right thing to do. Perhaps, partly, you did it to save David Ramsay's seat. I was there when he said he'd resign if it didn't get stopped. Whatever the

reasons, it was the right thing to do. To put an end to that, even though the government's going to have a hassle for some time dealing with the ramifications, legal and otherwise, was the right

thing to do, and now we can move forward. Of course, I will be critical and ask questions about where we go from here in terms of how we deal with our garbage and our resources, but I did say and

will say again that I was very pleased to see the government make that move.

I'm saying again that I'm very pleased to see the government move forward with the Greenbelt Protection Act. I'm not allowed to say the minister's not here,

but I'm sure he's watching on TV. I did raise it before and I'm hoping that he will get in touch with the area people who are opposed and the conservation groups, the environmental groups, and find

a solution to this problem and get it stopped now, because I'm going to make sure that it is raised time and time again until it is stopped.

What they've applied to do is to build 1,600 new residential units plus 300 commercial accommodation units and three golf courses on 620 hectares in the

municipality of the town of The Blue Mountains. I actually do think it's scandalous. I do. I can't believe that this is going on while the government is introducing this bill. The Liberal

government did promise to stop sprawl and protect the environment. If you allow this to go ahead, it is going to make that promise seem awfully hollow and it's going keep on haunting you like the

Oak Ridges moraine did to the previous Tory government.

I'm going to come back to the bill in my few minutes left here. I wanted to talk a bit about the Ontario Realty Corp. The Ontario Realty Corp right now owns

real estate -- sorry, I'm just trying to get my thoughts straight here. Ah, yes, the Liberals' commitment to the new toll roads will cost consumers, but it's also going to cost the environment. I

said earlier that I wasn't going to go into the whole issue about the minister's responses. I believe we have a whole new area today where we might see toll roads. It'll cost consumers, but it will

also cost the environment. The Liberal intention is to speed up the building of the expressways, it sounds like, by tolling them. Some days we hear they're going to toll them and some days we hear

they're not going to do it.

I wanted to focus for a minute on the extension of Highway 404 north toward Lake Simcoe, which is going to be particularly and especially problematic as it

will, as I talked about earlier, facilitate this leapfrog development, such as the massive Queensville development, which is planned to ultimately house, I believe, around 30,000 people. Just

imagine that. You build this right in the middle of this so-called greenbelt and this will push development even further from existing jobs in other communities, thereby adding to their commuting

times. You can't be using this new greenbelt legislation, this greenbelt area as an excuse to move development further and further out.

What we need, and what we say over and over again, is new thinking about the way we develop. We need to develop in a more compact urban form. We have to stop

this madness. If you create a greenbelt and you push the extension of Highway 404 even further, then the development starts leapfrogging outside that greenbelt. The next thing you know, you've got

more urban sprawl growing and causing all the same problems and you've got all these commuters trying to drive to their jobs or whatever. That's not only an environmental problem, as we know very

well, any members who don't live right in downtown Toronto -- fortunately, I can ride my bike to work, if the weather would get warmer again soon. I'm lucky in that way, but I hope most people here

take public transportation. I really hope they do. But if you're forced to drive from time to time, as you might be, you know what it's like sitting in that traffic for hours. It's bad for the

economy. It's not only bad for the environment; the more we develop further and further outside the boundaries of the city, outside the greenbelt, the further people are going to have to get in

those cars and drive. When you build in these outskirts way, way out, there's not a lot of infrastructure money for public transportation and all of the other things that have to be built up. There

are real problems around extending these highways and allowing this leapfrog development to happen.

I hope very much that, as we debate this bill -- as I said, we want to see it passed. We want to see it go out for the final consultations. Hopefully, the

government will accept the amendments. We want to get moving on this. It's really critical. I understand that. In the meantime, though, I would again urge the government, if it wants to