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

June 7, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Jun-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 7 June 2005 Mardi 7 juin 2005

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RURAL ONTARIO

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

RICHARD POTTER

NEWBORN SCREENING

AIR QUALITY

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

HEALTH CARE

VENDING MACHINES IN SCHOOLS

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENDING MANDATORY RETIREMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

POUR ÉLIMINER LA RETRAITE

OBLIGATOIRE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MANDATORY RETIREMENT /

RETRAITE OBLIGATOIRE

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS /

AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO /

MUSÉE DES BEAUX-ARTS DE L'ONTARIO

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

HEALTH CARE

PENSION PLANS

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

HERITAGE CONSERVATION /

CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE ONTARIEN

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

DISABILITY BENEFITS

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

PETITIONS

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

HIGHWAY 406

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

TEACHER QUALIFICATION

GASOLINE PRICES

TENANT PROTECTION

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I have a message from the Honourable Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own

hand.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the

year ending March 31, 2006, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times: The McGuinty Liberals have turned

their backs on rural Ontario. Time and time again we've seen legislation and over-regulation encroach upon the rural way of life. It has hurt our local economies and industry. Even rural health and

education always come as a last priority to a government more concerned with its urban agenda. Made-in-Toronto policies do not work in rural Ontario. As we continue see, rural livelihoods are being

damaged by a government that clearly couldn't care less.

I've received a report from the Renfrew County Coordinating Committee for Rural Action, a group comprised of various organizations that represent rural

interests. This committee has prepared an insightful report entitled The Rural Ontario Challenge, which I've mailed to all members of this Legislature. It highlights many of the problems in rural

Ontario and expresses the extreme frustration of rural Ontarians, that their concerns have been forgotten and their problems ignored. They discuss in their report specific items that span

everything from environmental issues to a lack of support for our farmers to unfair and excessive taxation. Ultimately, they stress that their wealth, their livelihood and the values of rural

Ontario are under attack, and this is wrong.

I would ask all members of this House to please review The Rural Ontario Challenge and respond to the committee with their comments. Something must be done

immediately to rectify the wrongs of this government and its attitude toward rural issues. I ask all members of this House today to give this report their full attention.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I'd like to take a moment today to talk about the achievements our government has made in providing greater

opportunities for young Ontarians seeking to obtain a higher education through funding our colleges and universities to enhance apprenticeship programs, college equipment and facilities.

MaryLynn West-Moynes, president, Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology, says: "On behalf of Mohawk College ... our staff and students, I am writing to

thank you for the investment your government has chosen to make in post-secondary education. The courage to put postsecondary education in the forefront demonstrates a clear sense of

priorities."

In this year's budget, the McGuinty government made an unprecedented funding announcement of $6.2 billion for postsecondary education, which represents the most

significant increase to postsecondary funding in 40 years. We need to ensure that our colleges and universities are able to provide the best resources for our students. This funding will help our

colleges achieve that goal.

I want to applaud the good work being done at Mohawk College to train and educate the next generation of hard-working people from my community and across

Ontario. Young people who consider a career in a skilled trade have a prosperous future ahead, and I'm proud to say that I come from a community that has produced so many of those great workers

over the years.

Mohawk College will also benefit from funding through the modernizing college equipment fund and the allocation of funding through the facilities renewal

allocation program.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): If the government really wanted to have successful implementation of its greenbelt legislation in Niagara, it

would invest in two major transportation corridors: the mid-peninsula highway as well as the 406 south. The members opposite know that if they freeze growth in the north, the grow south initiative

should be supported 100 percent, which includes four-laning Highway 406 and expanding it to Port Colborne.

Unfortunately, to date the minister has only responded with platitudes on these highways, with vague commitments and referrals to studies that were completed as

far back as 2001 for the mid-pen and design for the 406 expansion to four lanes in September 2003.

As I've said in the House many times, as my colleague from Niagara Centre has said many times, extending the 406 to Port Colborne, expanding it to four lanes

down toward Welland, is an essential investment. This should not be lost on my colleagues opposite. I know the minister for infrastructure renewal is going to be very supportive of this initiative.

We're calling on him to announce it very soon, because other highways like the 401, 417, 404, 427, 402 -- the entire series of 400-series highways -- got specific mention in the budget except for

Interjections.

Mr. Hudak: All right, except for the 406 and maybe the 420, but the other ones did. It's up to 27,000 cars a day, the busiest stretch of

two-lane highway in the province. It will complement the mid-peninsula corridor as well. I call upon the McGuinty government to actually get moving on these two important projects.

RICHARD POTTER

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I would ask that the House join me in welcoming back, in the members' east gallery, Dr. Richard

Potter. Dr. Potter in his first 91 years has accomplished a great deal: exemplary service during World War II overseas, mayor of Belleville, beloved family physician, and MPP for Quinte from 1967

to 1975. During that time, in the Bill Davis government, Dr. Potter served as Minister of Health, and continues to be recognized and applauded for his accomplishments.

It has been said by many that Dr. Potter is the father of home care, something of which he should be very proud. We had the opportunity today to have lunch with

the current Minister of Health, and everyone will be pleased to know that he has endorsed what the current Minister of Health is doing, so we appreciate the all-party support on this issue.

Dr. Potter continues to make our province a better place to live. He continues to be actively involved in his community, actively giving advice and suggestions,

and I very much appreciate it. Sitting to his immediate right, I would also welcome back Mr. Hugh O'Neil, former MPP for Quinte and former cabinet minister. It has been an absolute delight to have

them with us, and I hope Dr. Potter will return.

NEWBORN SCREENING

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I'm pleased to rise in support of advancing the cause of newborn screening in the province of Ontario. Last

week, on June 1, John Adams and a number of parent advocates visited Queen's Park to talk about the importance of screening more young babies for serious disease. They were really giving

Ontario a call to action to fill the gaps in newborn screening and to develop an inclusive and comprehensive system for saving babies from rare but serious conditions which can do these newborns

great and serious harm.

If we look at the diseases that we screen for in children -- we have a newborn screening program in the province of Ontario. I have the form right here today. If

we advance just a few more tests, we could save lives and save many newborns in Ontario from very serious conditions.

Through the screening initiative which was first begun in the 1960s through a private member's bill by Stephen Lewis, Ontario was at that time at the forefront

of newborn screening. The sad reality is that Ontario has now fallen behind 44 different states in the United States. The parent advocates and medical physicians who were here last week are calling

on Ontario to expand newborn screening so that we can save even more lives and have a greater quality of life for those children who are tested.

I have a private member's bill, Bill 101, that will accomplish just that. It was a bill that was first introduced by the member for Windsor, the now Minister of

Energy. Bill 101 would do a terrific amount of good to support this initiative. It would ensure that every child is tested. The cost of this testing could be as little as $25 to test a child. I

think $25 could be spent in no better way than on an expanded newborn screening system. Ontario must once again rise to the top of North America and not sit at the bottom.

AIR QUALITY

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): A just-released Toronto Public Health study, done with the federal government and McMaster University,

cites that air pollution is killing 822 people a year in Toronto. The transportation sector was identified in the study as the most significant contributor to smog in Toronto -- surprise, surprise.

It is time that the McGuinty government started putting its money where its mouth is and started funding transit at the levels required to begin to bring down levels of air pollution.

The TTC transports 1.4 million riders per day, and GO Transit moves about 170,000 riders per day, yet the TTC and GO Transit are among the least-supported

transit systems in North America. In 1992, the provincial government was responsible for 80% of the total costs of GO Transit,

whereas the fare box accounted for the other 20%. But in 2003, this

has been reversed, with the government being responsible for only 20% and the fare box funding 80% of the costs.

Government must fund transit; this government must fund transit. The government's land use planning initiatives, both the greenbelt and the Places to Grow

legislation, are failing to curb urban sprawl. The northern boundary of the greenbelt in south Simcoe county has become the Wild West of land development and speculation, and thus leapfrog

development is contributing to more urban sprawl. The Places to Grow legislation talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. There are new major highways and road extensions into and around the

greenbelt to fuel further sprawl.

We need a coordinated transportation and land use planning strategy to curb sprawl, and we need it now to prevent those premature deaths in Ontario.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): As we near the conclusion of this year's spring session, it gives us an opportunity to reflect on the

achievements of our government and, as the member for Sault Ste. Marie, the achievements in my community. In less than two years, we have made record investments in the key areas of health care and

education, strengthened our economy through partnerships in the auto sector and passed greenbelt legislation to protect our environment. Where past governments have failed to protect our public

services and failed to be accountable with Ontario's finances, we have put our province on a more solid financial footing by reducing our deficit by $2.5 billion this year.

Clearly, the path Ontarians are on today, with peace and stability in the education sector, greater access to our colleges and universities, a steady reduction

of wait times in health care and confidence in our economy gives us all a greater sense of hope about our future.

In my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, our investments are making a significant difference. The functional plan of our proposed $200-million hospital has been

approved, with a radiation therapy bunker. The Group Health Centre has a new contract worth $26 million. Our $5.6-million investment will help complete a truck traffic link to the Sault Ste. Marie

International Bridge. A $3.7-million provincial investment will be put toward the construction of a new, multi-purpose entertainment and sports facility, and a $1.5-million investment from the

northern Ontario heritage fund will help assist a new flakeboard plant to open this summer, creating additional jobs.

I think all Ontarians can be proud of the progress we have made and will continue to make over the next several years.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): When we came to office, Ontarians expected us to clean up the incredible mess in our health care

system. Our underserviced communities had been ballooning for years, and over one million Ontarians had been left without access to a family doctor or to basic levels of care. Wait times just

seemed to be getting longer and longer. Nurses and doctors were fleeing the province because they faced a government that treated them as a secondary concern to tax cuts. Our long-term-care homes

went without inspections for disgraceful lengths of times, and the residents were denied the basic dignity and respect they deserved.

In an effort to improve and protect universal health care in Ontario, we passed the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act and banned

pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care. We have provided $2.2 billion to hospitals since we took office. We have invested in over 3,000 full-time nursing positions. We've made historic

investments in community-based care programs such as home care and community mental health. We've restored standards in our long-term-care homes, and we're hiring more staff and creating an

environment where our seniors are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. We're executing a plan to encourage doctors to work in teams to provide greater access to health services to

Ontarians. We have unveiled a comprehensive wait time strategy.

We have not cowered in the face of these challenges. Rather, we have taken on this task with the courage, dignity and tenacity expected of a government by the

people of Ontario. We're producing real results for Ontarians, Mr. Speaker, and I'm pleased to tell you that we will continue to do so over the rest of our mandate.

VENDING MACHINES IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): When the Minister of Education announced last November that all junk food and unhealthy beverages would be removed from

elementary school vending machines across the province, this Liberal government took a very important step toward making our schools healthier places for our children and their learning.

It is often said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I'm pleased to inform the members of this House that other jurisdictions are following

Ontario's strong example by eliminating junk food from their schools -- not California, though. Take Connecticut, for example. Two weeks ago the state Legislature voted to ban the sale of junk food

and soda pop products in all its public schools. I'm told that some state representatives opposed this move, claiming that the government had no right to encourage young generations to make wiser

choices about eating habits. They were satisfied with the status quo: school vending machines full of candy and chips and sugary drinks by the handful at every recess and every lunch hour. They

didn't see a need for the government to take a step to make their schools healthier places for students to learn and grow. Does that sound familiar?

We on this side of the House know that it is our job to give our kids the best possible choices and a fresh start in life. Unlike our Conservative predecessors,

we're not content to sit idly by while our children make unwise choices about nutrition and active living -- choices which will have a lifelong impact on their well-being. We know we can do better,

and for the sake of our future generations, we've created change that's working for our children.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I have the distinct pleasure of introducing two outstanding former members from the riding of Quinte: Dr.

Richard Potter, of the 28th and 29th Parliaments, who is also the former Minister of Health, as someone indicated here earlier, and the former Minister of Tourism and many other ministries, Mr.

Hugh O'Neil, of the 30th to 35th Parliaments. Please welcome them both here today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

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

adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Mr. Delaney from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presents the committee's report

as follows and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act in respect of enforcement and other matters.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENDING MANDATORY RETIREMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

POUR ÉLIMINER LA RETRAITE

OBLIGATOIRE

Mr. Bentley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 211,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code and certain other Acts to end mandatory retirement / Projet de loi 211, Loi modifiant le Code des droits de

la personne et d'autres lois pour éliminer la retraite obligatoire.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Mr. Bentley?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I'll defer till ministerial statements.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding

private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent as requested by the minister? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I move that pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 76.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MANDATORY RETIREMENT /

RETRAITE OBLIGATOIRE

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): Today the McGuinty government has introduced legislation that would end the practice of

mandatory retirement. This legislation recognizes what we all should already know: Your skills, ability, drive and determination do not stop once you turn 65. It recognizes that those who are 65

and older should enjoy the same right to earn a living and contribute to society as those who are younger.

We have presented legislation that would end mandatory retirement while not undermining existing pension, benefit and early retirement rights. Ours is a fair,

reasonable and rational approach that will not undermine those benefit, pension and early retirement rights that so many depend on.

People should have the right to choose their life's paths to as great an extent as possible. The right to choose should not be restricted only to a few, such

as politicians and the self-employed.

Dans la mesure du possible, nous devrions tous avoir le droit de choisir le parcours de notre vie. Le droit de choisir ne devrait pas être restreint

à une minorité de gens comme les travailleurs indépendants et les hommes et femmes politiques.

Someone who is 64 years and 364 days old does not become disposable just because a calendar page flips.

Sir John A. Macdonald was 76 when he was elected Prime Minister for the last time in 1891 from, I recall, Kingston. Long-serving New Democrat MP Stanley

Knowles was last elected at age 71. Ed Broadbent, the former leader of the federal New Democratic Party, ran successfully in the last federal election at 67. When Winston Churchill became Prime

Minister of Great Britain at the height of the country's wartime peril, he was 65; Nelson Mandela, President of South Africa at 77; and it goes on.

Back in 1966, age became a prohibited ground of discrimination in employment, but not for individuals aged 65 or older. While that was considered appropriate

in 1966, we don't consider it so today.

In June 2001, the Ontario Human Rights Commission released a paper entitled Time for Action: Advancing Human Rights for Older Ontarians. In it, the commission

asserted that mandatory retirement policies undermine the dignity and sense of self-worth of older workers. The commission called for a change to the definition of "age" in the Human Rights Code to

end mandatory retirement.

It was a timely paper. When the Human Rights Code was first enacted, the so-called baby boomers were still children or teenagers. The demographic situation

then was significantly different than the one we have today.

Ontario, like many jurisdictions, currently has an aging workforce. There are 1.5 million seniors in Ontario today. By 2028, we expect that number to be about

3.2 million seniors -- more than double. In 2002, 36% of the total working-age population in Canada, those between age 15 and 64, fell within near retirement age of 45 to 59. That share is expected

to grow to 39% by 2006.

Mandatory retirement is an outdated concept in the context of a society where we live longer and healthier lives.

A report recently prepared for StatsCan indicated that, while many Canadians want to retire before they reach 60, many older Canadians choose to, or need to,

continue to work.

A recent international survey by the HSBC international banking group revealed that people around the world overwhelmingly believe they should have the right

to work until any age they choose.

Some people simply cannot afford to retire. About one third of working women feel financially unprepared for retirement, compared to 29% of working men. Also,

people who support and care for other family members may need to continue working.

Our research has shown that while ending mandatory retirement gives people choice in their lives, it also has no negative consequences for younger workers.

Other jurisdictions that have ended mandatory retirement have not seen a resulting stagnation in employment opportunities for young people. In fact, there's a trend over recent years to earlier

retirement. The average retirement age has in fact decreased.

Every worker would have the choice whether to work, but not every worker would exercise that choice. Approximately 100,000 people reach 65 every year, but some

have estimated as many as 4,000 would actually continue to work.

We recognize that ending mandatory retirement is a significant societal shift, both in attitude and practice. There are a lot of issues and concerns, a lot of

positions to consider. And we have considered the issues in a fair, reasonable and prudent way.

I would like at this moment to recognize the hard work of my parliamentary assistant, Kevin Flynn from Oakville, who conducted the public consultations.

Our legislation would, if passed:

-- amend the code to ensure that people 65 and older could not be forced to retire;

-- provide a one-year transition period to allow workplaces to prepare for this change. The legislation would be effective one year after receiving royal

assent;

-- prohibit collective agreements from including mandatory retirement. Mandatory retirement provisions in existing agreements would no longer be enforceable

once the legislation took effect;

-- the "bona fide occupational requirement" provisions permitted under the code will continue. By that, we mean employment requirements or qualifications that

are necessary for the performance of essential job duties. This would not undermine, as I indicated, the age at which individuals could collect, for example, from the Canada pension plan.

We have listened to the very important public consultations that have been conducted. We've worked carefully in writing this legislation. As a government, we

believe the legislation placed before the House today provides comprehensive, fair and equitable ways of meeting the issues and challenges that have been identified.

I ask all members of the House to give this bill speedy consideration. Let us give those who turn 65 the right to choose whether they will work or not, the

same right those not yet 65 take for granted. It is the right thing to do.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS /

AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): Since the fall

of 2003, the McGuinty government has been developing the principles of a new relationship with aboriginal peoples in Ontario, a relationship built on co-operation and mutual respect.

I'm very pleased to stand before the House and announce that this morning the McGuinty government presented Ontario's new approach to aboriginal affairs to

representatives of Ontario's aboriginal community. In 2004, we sought input from aboriginal leaders and service providers in Ontario about their hopes and their priorities. The input from these

discussions form the basis of the new approach.

Le gouvernement McGuinty fait participer les collectivités et organisations autochtones aux décisions qui ont une incidence sur leur vie.

I would like to thank aboriginal leaders, heads of aboriginal organizations and all aboriginal people who participated in these discussions and provided

valuable input. I would like to thank all my colleagues for their support of Ontario's new approach to aboriginal affairs.

At the heart of our new approach is the recognition that together we must create a better future for aboriginal children and youth. By investing in the younger

generation, we can nurture hope; we can create a better quality of life for all aboriginal people in Ontario.

We begin by investing in relationships with aboriginal people. On April 7, members of this cabinet and parliamentary assistants met with First Nations leaders.

We will do so again in the winter and twice a year after that.

We will be setting regular forums like these with all our aboriginal partners. We will work to address Metis issues in an appropriate forum, and I'm also proud

to announce a new northern table to address the unique challenges and opportunities of aboriginal communities in northern Ontario. This Friday, June 10, Minister Ramsay and I will be sitting down

with our First Nations partners and our federal counterparts to begin meaningful discussions about improving the lives of aboriginal people in Ontario.

The McGuinty government is also moving forward in tandem with our aboriginal partners on initiatives in the areas of education, justice and health. We are

working with aboriginal people in Ontario to develop a new aboriginal justice strategy, an education policy that will make a real difference to aboriginal students and communities, and we're

working with aboriginal leadership to improve the health of aboriginal people by reducing incidence of smoking and increasing the number of healthy activities available to aboriginal

communities.

Our government is committed to developing and implementing guidelines on consultation with aboriginal people in Ontario for the first time to foster better

relationships, to meet our legal and constitutional obligations and to provide certainty to industry throughout Ontario.

We crafted these initiatives because they reflect the priorities of aboriginal communities and they are our priorities too. This government wishes to

strengthen aboriginal communities, and we want a better, brighter future for aboriginal children and youth.

Aboriginal youth are the fastest growing segment of the Canadian population. More than 50% of aboriginal people in Ontario are under the age of 27. We cannot

ignore those facts. We cannot ignore the plight of aboriginal communities, and we must prepare our children for the future. To do so, Ontario is supporting a new program to benefit aboriginal

children and youth aged seven to 15. Discussions have already begun between the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres to support the

creation of this new program. It has received the support of a number of ministries, without which we could not do this.

In short, this government is taking action to improve the lives of aboriginal children and youth. We are working to create stronger aboriginal communities by

investing in the aboriginal community capital grants program. We are investing in relationships because this government believes that by working together we can improve the quality of life for

aboriginal people today.

We are seeking achievable results. We are seeking to work with First Nations, aboriginal communities and organizations in Ontario to identify where real

progress can be made to demonstrate measurable improvements to aboriginal people.

It is a new era in Ontario-aboriginal relationships. We are working together to find aboriginal solutions to aboriginal issues.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO /

MUSÉE DES BEAUX-ARTS DE L'ONTARIO

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Earlier today, the Art Gallery of Ontario

officially launched Transformation AGO, a campaign to fund its extraordinary cultural expansion project.

C'est avec plaisir que j'ai assisté à ce lancement, où il a été annoncé que 180 $ millions avaient déjà

été obtenus auprès des secteurs public et privé. Notre gouvernement a joué un rôle important dans cette campagne en faisant une contribution de 24 $ millions.

Parce que nous avions débloqué ces fonds au début de la campagne, notre contribution a inspiré d'autres donateurs à suivre notre exemple.

The city of Toronto is experiencing a cultural renaissance with several major cultural expansion projects underway. Transformation AGO is a tremendous win for

the province of Ontario and will contribute to that renaissance celebration upon its completion in spring 2008.

We believe that Transformation AGO will reinforce the gallery as a pre-eminent cultural institution, and draw visitors from around the world. Transformation

AGO builds on the historic gift of 2000 works of art from Ken Thomson's private art collection and an innovative design by internationally celebrated architect Frank Gehry. Through Transformation

AGO, the gallery will be enlarged by 97,000 square feet, and viewing space for art will increase by 47%.

As an international cultural destination, the transformed AGO will forge a new model for art galleries through expanded collections, interactive displays and

dynamic behind-the-scenes access to education, conservation and research.

Ontarians are proud and honoured by these incredible developments which increase our appreciation of the works of art and introduce new admirers to them.

Transformation AGO will enrich and improve our quality of life.

I encourage you to join me in extending our government's congratulations on a successful campaign thus far and best wishes for its conclusion. I hope that the

people who are listening to us today will contribute to the campaign; it's money well invested.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm very pleased to respond to the announcement made today by the Minister of Labour regarding

mandatory retirement and the end thereof. I guess the question I would have for the minister is, what has taken you so long? Our government two years ago introduced Bill 68,

an act to do exactly

that. It was introduced by the Minister of Citizenship, the Honourable C. DeFaria. Two years later, we have the introduction of a bill.

If this bill had actually been approved, it would have come into law in January of this year and we already would be in a situation where we would have

eliminated mandatory retirement. Having said that, we do support this initiative, obviously. We believe it's extremely important that everybody in this province have the opportunity to make the

choice about when they would retire from work. It's particularly important for many women, immigrants and others who have maybe come into the workforce later in life and simply don't have the

financial resources or pensions that would enable them to retire earlier. We also know that many people today live much healthier, longer lives. This provides them with an opportunity. We

appreciate that this bill has been introduced today.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): Certainly, I would also want to echo the congratulations provided by the minister on today's announcement. It

is also an opportunity to look back at some extremely important investments that were made by the previous government. I'm reminded that my seatmate, the member for Erie-Lincoln, was the former

minister who began this process. I'm very proud to have been the parliamentary assistant for culture when the culture minister, Dave Tsubouchi, announced $24 million in SuperBuild funding for AGO's

rebuilding. So it matches, then, with today's announcement.

It's also interesting to note the minister has made comment about the kind of investment that this initial investment produced. In 2002, as the government we

were able to report to this House that we had invested $233 million jointly between the federal government and the provincial government through the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program to help

Toronto's seven most important cultural institutions, including obviously the AGO.

Our caucus understands the importance of Toronto's cultural institutions, recognizes how important they are to our economy and also sees the opportunity to

become world leaders in that renaissance. I also think that this announcement demonstrates the wisdom of our earlier investment. But I would just caution the minister not to rest at this point,

because I'm not sure that "Build it and they will come" is operative in this context. I don't believe so. I believe that we have an opportunity, then, to provide the kind of marketing and the kind

of tourist opportunities that these investments will provide for generations to come.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): In the absence of Mr. Tascona, I would like to respond to the minister for aboriginal affairs and

say to him that we welcome any new process which will show progress toward solving the many problems that our aboriginal communities face. I do want to say, however, that I disagree with some of

his premises that nothing has been done for so long.

I can remember sitting at the table with William Davis at the constitutional conferences back in 1982 and 1983 when Mr. Davis led the fight for the aboriginal

community to be included in our Constitution. That, of course, has sprung their continual fight for recognition and for inclusion in our government.

We welcome any new process that will enhance the solving of problems in our aboriginal communities. It is a goal which all parties have striven to meet when in

government, and we only wish the Attorney General well in his endeavours as well.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Hard-working women and men across this province in Ontario's mines, its pipe mills, its steel mills, its

forests and its auto factories have fought hard over the course of generations for not only a fairer share of the wealth that they create but for good pensions and for the right to retire at an

earlier age than their parents so that they didn't drop to death in the workplace but rather were able to spend their senior years helping raise grandkids and doing the things that their 40-hour,

50-hour and 60-hour workweeks prevented them from doing.

I come from a family that witnessed its grandparents die at work and watched its parents in that very fight in the workplace for the right to retire at an

early enough age that there were some retirement years with dignity and with a decent quality of life.

The solution to the crisis in grossly underpaid minimum-wage workers in this province, the solution to the crisis in the growing number of workers who don't

have access to a pension, the solution in the crisis of underfunding of pension plans isn't to tell workers, "Well, continue to work until you are 70 or 80 years old." No, the solution is to

address those matters, and New Democrats are going to stand firmly with working women and men and their trade unions in insisting on workers receiving a fairer share of the wealth that they create;

in insisting that workers across this province, all of them, have access to defined benefit pension plans; in insisting that workers across this province have access to retirements at an early

enough age that they can enjoy those retirements and look forward to years living and enjoying life and quality of life with their grandkids, with their great-grandkids, doing volunteer work in

their communities, travelling, doing the recreational and social things that, as I've indicated already, are denied so many working people. This government believes in working longer and working

for less. New Democrats are going to stand with workers to insist that technology and the enlightened environment of 2005 operate to their benefit, not to their detriment.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): How galling it is that the Minister of Labour chooses Seniors' Month to introduce legislation that will

keep people working into their 70s and 80s: not legislation to ensure the economic security of Ontarians as they enter their retirement years, instead of abject poverty --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could I have some co-operation, please, while the member gives her response?

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Stop the clock.

The Speaker: I'll be sure to make up for the time you've lost.

Ms. Horwath: -- not legislation to protect erosion of pensions by inflation, so people can depend on a decent quality of life in their golden

years; not changes to the Pension Benefits Act and the pension benefits guarantee fund to protect the pensions of Ontario's retirees and people approaching retirement; not real pension reform,

knowing full well that 60% of people do not have a pension to retire on, knowing that 80% of workers in the province of Ontario and the private sector do not have a pension they can rely on when

they retire.

Shame on this minister for not dealing with the real issues in this province around pension reform. I say to anybody watching this announcement today on

mandatory retirement: Be bold in what you stand for, but careful of what you fall for. That's from Ruth Boorstin, an editor.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): In French, we have a saying, and that is, "Plus ça va, moins ça change." Translated into

Today, we had the minister responsible for native affairs standing up in the House saying, "Last year, we made a commitment to meet with Ontario aboriginal

leaders once the government's new policy on aboriginal affairs was complete. This morning, we delivered."

You don't have to be a brain scientist to figure out what needs to be done in aboriginal communities around this province. For example, this government could

quite easily pass Bill 97, or at least allow it to come for a vote in this House, so communities can share in revenues of development in their own backyard when it comes to mining and forestry

policy. Those particular projects would be able to assist those communities.

I ask the minister and the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, how many COMRIF applications did this government approve for First Nations in the latest

round? Not one. We have communities that have failing water and sewer systems that don't work, and they sit there and say, "That's federal responsibility." If you want to have a new relationship,

it would be a great place to start.

You can do something really simple: The minister responsible for birth certificates could allow what Mr. Hampton and I have been asking for, which is that

First Nation chiefs be able to sign birth certificate applications so they can register children so they can qualify for benefits. Instead, they have done nothing: more consultation, more big hugs,

more "I love you," but no action.

VISITORS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a point of order: We have some very important special guests with us: the president of the Canada-China

Overseas Exchange Association, Mr. Tony Luk, and with him, the winner of the top 10 environmentally friendly building design award from China, in Shanghai, Mr. Meng Xian Ling.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The long-standing member from Davenport knows that's not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. For many months, we've been asking you questions about

your new regional health care bureaucracies, which you call local health integration networks, and so far, very few answers have been offered.

As you said in September 2004, the so-called LHINs are key to your health transformation agenda. Will you now agree with me that it is unclear how your

Ministry of Health will manage the complex fiscal implementation and stakeholder issues associated with bringing LHINs on-line, and that there's insufficient detail regarding your restructuring

plans?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): No, I would not agree with the assertion by the honourable member.

Mr. Tory: That, of course, is the most direct answer ever received in this House.

I would point out to the minister that the words I read were not words that came from the Leader of the Opposition or from anybody in the PC Party. They came

directly from page 1 of this cabinet submission, leaked by your ministry, highlighting the fatal flaws of your own scheme to implement your new regional health bureaucracies.

Fresh from revelations that you're spending $27 million of the taxpayers' money to fire 150 local health officials, now we see, according to these documents,

that you're spending an additional $52 million to hire at least 560 new bureaucrats, who will do absolutely nothing to improve front-line health care. Minister, is this what you consider value for

money for the Ontarians who are paying double the health tax this year: tens of millions of dollars spent to fire and then hire hundreds of bureaucrats?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I would think there'd be some value for money provided if the Tory researchers could get the odd number right. Evidence

of the inadequacies of the honourable member and his staff come, just as an example, in his reference to the issue of severance costs related to district health council employees.

Yesterday in this House, your seatmate, herself a former health minister, used the same figure that you've repeated today, even though there has been plenty of

evidence offered that the figure was inflated by more than $12 million.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): It's your cabinet document.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Well, do you want to deal with reality or some numbers that were put down on a piece of paper?

I answered the question very, very clearly yesterday. The costs associated with the wind-down of district health councils amounted to $15.9 million, and

associated with that is a reduction in 184 employees.

Mr. Tory: Not that I answer this member's questions, but if we have a choice between believing the public service of Ontario in a cabinet

submission or believing the information you come in here and make up, we'll take their numbers 10 times out of 10.

Let's read another quote from Management Board's condemnation of your proposal to hire 560 new health bureaucrats with their hard-earned money: "There is

insufficient detail regarding: restructuring plans for regional offices; whether a full impact analysis on ministry, provider and community stakeholders has been done; how the ministry will

coordinate a network of 14 LHINs into a provincial system, etc."

Minister, Management Board is saying that you have not done your homework on this. Will you now admit that your scheme to impose regional health bureaucracies

is fatally flawed and does not provide value for money for Ontarians, who are paying twice the health tax this year as they did last year?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: No, I won't, because I'm not one of those who's going to come face to face with a challenge and back down from it.

The reality is, in the Ontario health care system, we use the --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: There is the heckling -- decorum in the House from the member who has already said he's out of here. Well, maybe he

should just go now.

The point is, in the Ontario health care system, we haven't been performing like a system at all. So our government is doing the thing that other health

ministers from previous governments, from your party, have said that they think is the right thing to do, and that is, for the first time in the history of Ontario, to bring together planning with

the coordination around local service delivery and important decisions around what local priorities are.

As local health integration networks come to life, what you see for the first time in the province of Ontario is a coordinated strategy around the delivery of

health care living up to the word "system," and for the very first time, taking powers from the Minister of Health and pushing them down to the community level, where decisions around important

local priorities are going to be made.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): We'll believe that when we see it from the originator of command and control at the centre. What

people will see when they see this LHIN, as the minister just talked about, is something, but something we can't afford.

Page 2 of your leaked cabinet document shows that you have secretly ordered the consolidation of 42 community care access centres, the organizations that

provide home care services. This very document, the cabinet document, shows that another $50 million in severance costs, $14 million in legal costs and another $25 million in wage costs will be

needed to close and consolidate these centres. This is another $90 million going into your hiring and firing and legal costs, not going into patient care. None of it is being used to hire nurses or

doctors or to fund hospitals. Is this what you had in mind when it came to putting every single penny of your health tax into health care?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member offers further evidence of his lack of preparation for

today. He claims there is some hidden agenda with respect to the role of -- oh, the Tory staffers over on the side are waving their paper around and acting inappropriately, just like their leader

over here, John Baird.

The reality is, there is no secret about this. The Ontario Association of Community Care Access Centres has, for months and months now, been playing an active

role, working with local CCACs on a plan to consolidate in line with local health integration network boundaries. The member's suggestion that this was some secret process is further evidence yet

of his lack of preparation for today and the sheer price that is to be paid for a political party that doesn't have a health critic.

Mr. Tory: Well, the minister is certainly stretching when he talks about whether we have a health critic or not. I notice one thing he didn't

do was to repudiate a single one of the numbers that I mentioned.

Let's add it up. It's based on a Liberal cabinet document -- not something that came out of our opposition research offices anyway. What we know is that

taxpayers are being forced to pay $90 million to consolidate home care services, $27 million to fire and potentially rehire local health officials and $52 million to hire over 500 new bureaucrats,

not to mention the $91 million you spent to fire nurses, paying them not to come to work, or whatever you call it. These are all from sources within your own ministry who are blowing the whistle on

you. It adds up to a quarter of a billion dollars that Ontario taxpayers will not have available in their health care system because you're spending it on lawyers and bureaucrats. Do you think this

is what they wanted you to do with their money?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member, in his very question, said that I haven't verified any of the numbers. That's because I'm not

going to substantiate these numbers that have come from a cabinet document that the honourable member says has been signed and sent by me. I'm not standing in support of a document that I have not

been provided with. I cannot suggest that it's evidence of anything except the honourable member's desire to operate off a document. If you want to provide it to me, I'm happy to work toward these

numbers.

Here's what I can tell you with respect to community care access centre consolidation. We do expect, of course, that as we seek to consolidate community care

access centres, there could be some disruption of employment for people. The laws of the province of Ontario dictate that we provide severance to those individuals. The numbers that the honourable

member has spoken about are dramatically inflated.

Mr. Tory: I guess, if they're dramatically inflated, you'd come to this House and share exactly on all of these accounts: the hiring and

firing in connection with the district health councils, the hiring and the firing in connection with the LHINs, the legal costs, the Xerox costs and the lease costs. Maybe you'll come in and give

us exactly what those numbers are. If you're so sure my numbers are wrong, then come in here, bring those numbers here tomorrow and provide those to the taxpayers of Ontario.

While you're at it, maybe I could ask that you bring to us the accountability plan, which you were told to have and that you don't have, a way to measure

performance, which you were told to have and you don't have, and a way to stay on schedule, which we certainly know you don't have. This whole thing is a shambles. Why don't you just start over

again and admit that you're wasting tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and not getting it to patients?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Mr. Alvin Curling): Order. Just one at a time. As soon as he completes, then you can do it.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The shambles comes from an honourable member who can't take fact for information. He wants information with respect to

district health councils. Yesterday in this House, I provided it, and in the scrum subsequently, as is reported in the paper today. But I'm very, very happy --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member from St. Catharines and the member from Nepean-Carleton seem to be engaging in talking across. I would like some

co-operation -- and also the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Minister.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Speaker, I'll ask a page to send this over to the honourable member. It confirms the information that I provided

yesterday in the Legislature and in the scrum, as it relates to district health council.

The honourable member today again repeated information that he knows to be inaccurate. He predicted a number of $24 million related to the cost of --

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would ask you to call the member to order. He said that the Leader of

the Opposition was deliberately misleading the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm just waiting for the Minister of Finance and the member for St. Catharines to come to a bit of order.

Minister of Health, you made some unparliamentary comments. Would you withdraw them, please.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I will withdraw those, Mr. Speaker.

I provided information in this Legislature yesterday and in the scrum subsequently that was reported in the media today, and today you chose again to come back

with a number that had by then been proven to be inaccurate. You chose to do that.

Here are two numbers to try and help you along. DHC windup costs: $15.9 million, 184 jobs. I'll send you a note with all of that detail.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. Across this province, when I go to workplaces what I encounter

are workers who are trying to figure out how they can retire earlier with dignity and a decent pension. Today the McGuinty government introduced legislation that goes in the opposite direction,

that says older workers can work longer and harder for less. Can you tell us why the McGuinty government has done nothing to ensure that workers will have a decent pension, that in fact they'll be

able to do what they want to do, which is retire earlier in dignity, not work longer and harder for less?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): Today I was very pleased to be able to introduce legislation that will end the practice of

mandatory retirement. This legislation will ensure that people who are 65 and over actually have the choice whether they continue to work or not. There are those opposed to choice, but for the

individual workers out there who have not had the protection of the Human Rights Code, we think it's high time they had the right to make the decision for themselves and not have somebody else like

the leader of the third party make it for them. It's the right thing to do. It will support respect, dignity and a sense of self-worth in all Ontarians. It's time we moved into the 21st century,

not be stuck in the 19th.

Mr. Hampton: The McGuinty government talks about choice. The only real choice workers will have is when they actually have a pension and can

look forward to some economic security when they want to retire.

I just want you to know a few things about Home Depot, where you made your announcement. Home Depot has no pension plan, and in the United States it's facing a

class-action suit from older workers for denying pension benefits and for denying overtime pay. Here's how one older worker at Home Depot in the United States describes their job: "Over the

weekend, myself and four other seniors were told by management that we have 15 days to bring up our numbers or else, on that 15th day, we will be terminated."

Is this the McGuinty government's idea of choice? Older workers with no pension plan working for low wages at Home Depot and being told, "Work harder or we'll

terminate you"?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: Unfortunately the leader of the third party seems to have missed the point, which is about the choice of workers to have the

right to decide for themselves whether they work or not. We are in Ontario. I was very pleased to be at Home Depot today to assist in making this announcement about the intended introduction of the

legislation. Home Depot has respected the rights and abilities of workers who are older than 65. They've recognized that they can make a contribution. It was a feel-good announcement today.

The leader of the third party would want himself to make the choice for all older Ontarians. His answer is not going to assist the economic security of anyone

65 and over. He'll just deprive them of the right to work, and that does nothing for anybody's self-worth, dignity or economic circumstances.

Mr. Hampton: The issue for workers is that they want to be able to retire earlier. They want to be able to retire in dignity with a decent

pension. If the McGuinty government was really interested in older workers, you would have brought forward legislation to ensure that more older workers can have a pension, you would have brought

forward legislation to index that pension so it won't be eroded in terms of inflation, you would have brought forward legislation to index that pension so it won't be eroded in terms of inflation,

you would have brought forward legislation ensuring pension portability, so that workers, as they move from one employer to another, can take that pension with them.

Your agenda has nothing to do with ensuring dignity and financial security for older workers. You're not talking here about freedom 55; the McGuinty government

is talking about working longer and harder until you're 75. Can you tell me, how could you have missed the real agenda of older workers so badly?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: It's interesting: We get all these ideas about progressive moves from the NDP when they're not in power. Where were they

when they were in power? Nowhere, absolutely nowhere. Remind me: Wasn't that the party that provided a pension holiday which places at risk the pensions of the very workers they talk about? Talk

about undermining the economic security of the future of workers.

Today's announcement is about a human right: the right to decide for yourself whether you'll work beyond when you're 65. We will continue to work very hard to

advance the rights of all Ontarians for better rights, better conditions, better wages, better pensions. But today's announcement wasn't about that; it was about the human right to decide for

yourself whether or not you're going to work when you're 65. Why would the NDP deny that?

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

Mr. Hampton: To the Minister of Labour -- the Minister of Labour wants to lecture people on human rights and choice. Tell me something: What

choice is there when 60% of workers in this province have no workplace pension, when 83% of the workers who work in the private sector have absolutely no inflation protection? It seems to me that

what you're offering seniors in terms of choice is exactly what Home Depot wants in terms of those 15 senior workers: "Come and work with no pension plan. Come and work for close to minimum wage.

And if you don't work hard enough, we terminate you."

Where is the choice for all those workers in Ontario who don't have a pension? What is the McGuinty government doing for them?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: Once again, today's announcement, today's legislation is good news for all Ontarians. It's not the answer to every economic

issue in the province. It is a historic advance, if passed, to support human rights and dignity for all Ontarians.

The fact is that Ontarians are retiring earlier, on average. The fact is that 100,000 Ontarians turn 65 every year, and those Ontarians should have the right

to decide for themselves whether they wish to continue working or whether they wish to have a retirement year. That's up to them; it shouldn't be up to statute. You should be able to make your

decision on whether to work on the basis of your willingness to make a contribution, not on the basis of your calendar age. That's our position.

Mr. Hampton: There is a glaring exemption in the government's legislation. Who do they exempt? They exempt themselves. Judges in Ontario,

provincial court judges, will for some reason be exempted. So if the minister is going to lecture the rest of us, maybe he can tell us why the McGuinty government exempted some of your own

employees.

But again, I want to say to the McGuinty government, the majority of workers across Ontario are trying to figure out, "How can I retire earlier? How can I

retire when I have good health? How can I retire in dignity and with the economic security of a pension?" Today, the McGuinty government legislation provides absolutely no answers.

So tell me, why would you exempt yourself in terms of provincial court judges, and why are you missing in action when it comes to the real issue for Ontario

workers? They want and need a decent pension.

Hon. Mr. Bentley: First of all, the comments about judges are interesting. They've been recognized as being different because they're

appointed through a different process, and they have to have independence. Independence: that's the essence of the judicial position. So historically, they have been allowed to continue judging

until they are 75, and that's going to continue, along with a few other judicial types of exceptions in the act. So that isn't really, I suspect, what the member is concerned about.

Our position is that all Ontarians get the choice that they've never before had in the history of this province. Why is it that only NDP politicians should

have the choice? What about the working people in the province of Ontario? Why does Ed Broadbent get the right to work after 65 but not the working people in Ottawa?

Mr. Hampton: I'm sure older workers in Ontario will be happy to know that the McGuinty government has a future for them -- at Home Depot: no

pension plan, minimum wage, and if you don't produce exactly what they want on time, you're terminated.

But I want to ask you, where, for example, is legislation to deal with inadequacies of the pension benefit guarantee fund? Where is the legislation that will

ensure that when workers retire and for some reason there is a shortfall in the pension fund, there is a guarantee to back it up? Sixty per cent of Ontarians are without pensions; 83% of private

sector workers have pensions with no inflation protection; workers are unable to take their pension with them when they go from job to job.

I say again: You say you want to offer real choice to Ontario workers; where is the legislation that would deal with these issues, so workers would have a

choice to retire earlier in dignity with the financial security of a good pension?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: I'm once again happy the leader of the third party is reminding us about the pension benefit guarantee fund, once again

another mess the NDP left us to clean up and once again another act by the NDP to undermine, potentially, rights of working people.

You know, this was a great announcement today. CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, Fifty-Plus, is in support of this. We have so many people

today in support of this. You shouldn't be limited by your age in whether you actually decide to work after 65. You should have the right to make the choice for yourself. Why is the NDP afraid of

people choosing for themselves whether they decide to work? Why would the NDP say to people, whether they're a clerk in a store, whether they're a university professor, whether they're working for

any number of employers in the province of Ontario -- why does the NDP not want a perfectly well-contributing member who is 64 to have to retire when they're 65?

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. The leaked cabinet document clearly illustrates that

Management Board believes your transformation scheme is fatally flawed. You are spending millions of dollars in cash and human resources without any plan or even a stakeholder impact analysis.

Yesterday, we spoke about the fact that there was a risk to patient safety by closing down the DHCs without having the LHINs up and running. The cabinet

document today is very critical of your implementation plan for LHINs. You haven't met the timeline, of course. It says: "It's unclear how the ministry will manage complex fiscal implementation and

stakeholder risk associated with operationalizing LHINs." And then it says, "MBS recommends that the ministry be directed to ensure" there's a plan for stability.

Minister, can you today guarantee that your flawed plan will not put patient safety or stability at risk?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member, herself a former health minister, continues to operate

on this wild assumption that district health councils were playing a day-to-day role in the provision of health care services in the province of Ontario. They were not. This is well known to every

member of this Legislature and to the people who serve on district health councils. It's not to suggest that some value didn't come from that work, but over a period of time, district health

councils found themselves by and large operating in anonymity, without any impact whatsoever to take the good planning work that they did and give it the opportunity to influence the way we do

service delivery in the province of Ontario.

Our government is moving forward with something that every other jurisdiction in Canada has done: the provision of health care in a fashion that coordinates

the responsibility for planning with the decisions around service delivery. We are going to add a strong local element to make sure that local community voices are there to help prioritize the most

essential services. At the end of the day, that is all about --

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

Mrs. Witmer: If we take a look at the leaked cabinet document, we see that there is certainly no plan of action. We also see that the minister

has failed to meet the timelines outlined, and there is just no impact analysis whatsoever. We also see that there's no transparency. Part of the document states that the end state role of LIHNs

will be the "Exercise of powers and authority conferred by legislation to drive integration and coordination -- including powers to move or consolidate programs and customize services."

Minister, is it your plan, as you already attempted to do through Bill 8, to eliminate hospital boards?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: No.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Are you familiar with

section 29 of the Election

Finances Act, which strictly forbids constituency associations from accepting contributions from any person normally residing outside Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I am familiar with that

section of the act.

Ms. Churley: Minister, your riding association's annual report reveals that you accepted a donation from one Neal Belitsky. He is a resident

of Michigan, USA, not Ontario. He is also the executive vice-president and general manager of the Detroit and Canada Tunnel Corp. That is a division of a powerful private consortium that owns a

large part of the 407 and is lobbying Ontario for more P3 partnerships. His contract with the city of Windsor expires in two years. Could you tell us about your relationship with Mr. Belitsky and

why you accepted what appears to be an illegal campaign contribution from him?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I don't know who the individual is. Obviously, I believe our report was filed and audited by the riding association's

independent auditor. At this point, that is all I can say. The act has been followed, to my knowledge. I look forward to hearing more about that. I'm not familiar with the individual in

question.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION /

CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE ONTARIEN

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Ma question s'adresse à la ministre de la Culture.

A few weeks ago, the Ontario Heritage Amendment Act received royal assent. As that happened, we witnessed an incredible expansion of the tools available to

protect our cultural and historical heritage here in Ontario. The amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act have had the following benefits: The heritage act now allows for increased protection of

heritage conservation areas, maritime heritage sites and archaeological sites; the province and municipalities have new powers to not only delay but completely halt the destruction of buildings

with heritage a designation; the province has increased capacity to designate sites of cultural and historic importance to Ontarians.

Madame la ministre, quels autres projets d'appui au patrimoine avez-vous annoncés récemment?

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur (ministre de la Culture, ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones): First of all, let me say thank

you and congratulate the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh for all the work he did in heritage and will continue to do this summer.

C'est avec beaucoup de plaisir que je me suis retrouvée jeudi dernier sur le site d'un aussi beau projet que Evergreen au site Brick Works, et je continue

à me réjouir face à cette initiative, qui permettra aux amoureux de la nature d'en savourer toutes les beautés préservées au coeur de la ville de Toronto.

Le gouvernement McGuinty reconnaît la valeur de cette propriété officiellement désignée comme site patrimonial. C'est pourquoi

j'étais fière d'annoncer que notre gouvernement a investi 10 $ millions pour sa préservation et son développement dans le cadre du projet Brick Works, mené par

l'organisme Evergreen.

Des projets tels que celui-ci protègent et soutiennent le patrimoine irremplaçable de notre population et de notre province.

Mr. Brownell: Merci. I'm impressed with the quality and the range of different partners that have gathered around the Evergreen project. At

the same time, this does not surprise me and it should not surprise this House, given the multifaceted aspect of Evergreen. It seems there is something there for everyone. By investing in Evergreen

Commons at the Brick Works, the Ontario government will continue to build strong communities and nurture a healthy environment while celebrating Ontario's rich industrial roots.

Minister, can you elaborate further on how the Toronto Brick Works site is important to Ontario's heritage?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Could I just have less conversation on the floor while we have question period.

Minister, you may respond.

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: The Brick Works provides a foundation to celebrate Ontario's rich industrial past and helps us to experience and enjoy

nature in the city. The Brick Works project will give our young people a chance to learn about our past and will expand what the city has to offer in the future. The Don Valley Brick Works produced

the bricks that created some of our most memorable buildings, such as the old city hall and Queen's Park.

I would like to commend the city of Toronto for designating this site, as it is a great addition to attractions in the city. I extend my congratulations and

thanks to everyone who decided to get involved and worked so hard to make this project a reality. Our government is pleased to partner with them on this great adventure that allows us to celebrate

the past, present and future together. Personally, I look forward to my next visit to Evergreen, when I will be able to enjoy a nice organic coffee on a sunny terrace after a long, relaxing walk in

the park. I hope you will come.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Minister of Health. Management Board took one look at your regional

health bureaucracy proposal and condemned it as a failure of public policy. Even Management Board says you have no plan for health care, and that is, quite frankly, frightening.

We don't know about timelines for LHINs. We've heard nothing about a stabilization plan for hospitals that will be taken over by LHINs -- no transition plan

for the implementation.

Minister, do you have clearly defined roles for LHINs with an accountability framework and performance measurement standards that you can report, and if so,

can the people of Ontario know them now, please?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's always very interesting to hear an honourable member who is one of the

most active lobbyists for Ministry of Health initiatives, including things like family health teams, which have been a signature initiative of our government in representing a pretty important part

of our plan. The honourable member would now stand in his place and say that we don't have one.

Am I to assume, therefore, that all of the letters of support that he offers, the invitation he had for me to attend Deep River, I think it is, this Friday --

are all those things reflective of a view from his riding that the Ministry of Health doesn't have a plan? I don't think so.

To the nature of the specific question that the honourable member asked, I can confirm that we have done a tremendous body of work as it relates to local

health integration networks. As the Legislative Assembly committee is currently completing its review of the candidates for appointment, we're certainly going to be in a position very, very soon to

give the honourable member more of the information that he seeks.

Mr. Yakabuski: I was pleased to hear the minister speak so glowingly about the work I'm doing for the people in my riding, and I will continue

to do so.

Those were basic questions that you failed to answer not only in the House today but when you went to the Management Board of Cabinet and asked for hundreds of

millions of dollars for your misguided adventure.

According to the document leaked to us by a senior official in your own ministry, you were sent packing from Management Board, and rightly so. You were sent

back to the drawing board because you and your ministry failed to answer even one of those basic questions.

Minister, who are we to believe: you, who cannot even answer these basic questions, or Minister Phillips, who rightly sent you back to the drawing board with

this failed scheme? Who are we going to believe, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Firstly, on the theme of transparency that the honourable member has been identifying, he should send a copy of the said

document forward. As everyone who has served will know, there are documents from time to time that make their way around that don't have signatures on them. I think we need to take a look at

that.

But to the heart of the matter, obviously the government is of one point of view on this: It's time that we build a system in Ontario, it's time that we bring

together planning and coordination around service delivery and give local people, including those people from the Ottawa Valley, the opportunity to make important health care decisions around where

priority investments should be made.

I would think that the honourable member, advocating as he does for the local people in his community, would stand in his place and support the idea that it's

time. It's time, after all, to take power from the Minister of Health in the Hepburn Block and push that down to the local level, and to ask the local people to help make those informed decisions

about what local priorities should be supported.

DISABILITY BENEFITS

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In November 1997, you stood on this

side of the House and passionately spoke against the misguided policy of Mike Harris to deny older Ontarians, aged 60 to 64, from receiving ODSP benefits. During that debate, you spoke of

individual hardships, you spoke about the futility of his retraining plans and the meagre $520 a month that someone gets on Ontario Works. You called it "a disgrace." You said it was unfair. You

said you and your party were totally opposed.

For nearly two years, you have had an opportunity to undo this travesty, but you have chosen instead to do nothing. You have chosen to continue implementing

Mike Harris's legacy. My question to you is simple. Why have you abandoned the very people you used to champion?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I hope the member opposite had an

opportunity to review a report tabled today called Who's Hungry. It's work done by the Daily Bread Food Bank. What's important to the members on this side of House is that we will have fewer people

who have to use food banks. What we are doing since we took office is more than has been done in the last 15 years of this government.

I want to remind the member opposite in that seat that while you weren't a part of that party in 1993 when they launched the social contract, they had no

respect for people who were going to suffer by those agencies that got cut, just like the rest of the government did. Your party did that, with no hope of helping those who were helping vulnerable

people. For you to stand today in the House to give me a lecture about what we've done is a little bit galling.

But I will say that in these first 18 months of our government, we have worked across the board to change policies, to actually set some policies --

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

Mr. Prue: Minister, I am talking about 2,500 seniors who have lost their disability benefits. You said, "Our concern surrounding the 60- to

64-year-olds is significant. We find that the treatment of this group is really offensive."

These fragile seniors are often forced to participate in job retraining programs under Ontario Works, even though few employers will hire them because of their

age and/or disability. It's only a small group of people we're talking about, Minister, but it's a group that really needs your help. You are the one who said this policy was wrong. Will you

restore the dignity of these seniors by making them eligible for disability benefits, or are you more content to act just like Mike Harris?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): That's mean.

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I was going to say that was really mean. That was outrageous.

Let me just say this: In 18 months we have moved on virtually every single front when it comes to dealing with poverty, when it comes to dealing with

individuals who are on welfare or ODSP.

I hope the member opposite, who is the critic for this particular area will, at a minimum, acknowledge while he's speaking in this House -- I want to know

which one of the several improvements that member disagrees with. Is it the 3% increase for the first time in 12 years? Is it the amount of people who are out there getting placed through the Jobs

Now initiative that this particular member wanted absolutely nothing to do with? We have hundreds and hundreds of people today, because of that pilot, who are now being placed with actual jobs.

Stand in this House today and tell me which of our initiatives you disagree with. Tell me which ones you would not do so you could help these people who need more help from government than

others.

The Speaker: Thank you. It would be more helpful if you'd direct the question and answer to the Speaker.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. On May 25, 2005, you released a

five-year, $30-billion infrastructure plan entitled ReNew Ontario. This plan addresses infrastructure investment projects that are long-overdue and urgent new initiatives. While my riding of

Brampton Centre looks forward to the completion of our new hospital in 2007, we are still eagerly awaiting and anticipating the start of construction on the long-awaited Highway 410 extension.

Recently, the infrastructure gap was estimated at roughly $100 billion. How will this new plan address such a huge deficit in required infrastructure

investment?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): That's a great question. Ontario's economy depends on infrastructure that is

modern, reliable, efficient and affordable. Our government is investing $30 billion over the course of the next five years. We understand the need to invest in infrastructure, because it has been

neglected for far too long by too many governments. The McGuinty government will not wait any longer to rebuild Ontario.

We will be investing, as I said, $30 billion toward the infrastructure gap, because this province and our government are committed to supporting key priorities

of health care, education and economic prosperity. We'll be investing more than $11 billion in public transit, highways, borders and other transportation, more than $10 billion in schools, colleges

and universities, and more than $5 billion in hospitals and other health care facilities.

Mrs. Jeffrey: We have an ambitious, multi-billion dollar plan to repair and upgrade the province's deteriorating infrastructure. I understand

we're faced with hospital buildings that are, on average, 43 years old, schools that date back to the 1920s and water systems that are over 100 years old. Minister, how are we going to address the

infrastructure deficit created through past neglect and meet the needs of a growing population that puts the public interest first? Is there more that can be done by the federal government to help

Ontario address this gap?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: The member for Brampton Centre is quite correct: There is more that can be done to help Ontario reduce its infrastructure

gap. We think the federal government should provide Ontario with a greater and, we believe, a fairer share of infrastructure investments. For example, federal infrastructure programs since the year

2000, including the new federal gas tax money, will deliver $73 per person in Ontario compared to $93 per person for projects outside Ontario.

We believe the federal government is hearing our message, but Ontario deserves a fairer share. We continue to call on the federal government to increase

Ontario's share of infrastructure investment. Together, Canada and Ontario must increase our investments in strategic shared priorities such as the Windsor-Detroit and other border crossings,

highways and public transit expansion, and especially, high-quality post-secondary education

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): There seems to be a bit of a traffic jam in front of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services, and it concerns our ongoing discussion around the adoption legislation. A week ago, the minister introduced 40 pages of amendments

to the bill, and yesterday, additional amendments were introduced. Some of these do address, in whole or in part, some of the issues that have been raised in this House by our caucus and by others

elsewhere. Other issues, however, remain unaddressed.

We support the steps you've taken to improve this bill by providing added protection to adopted children who were the victims of abuse. Will you now do the

same thing -- I would say the right thing -- and provide the same kind of increased protection for the rights of women who gave up children for adoption after being sexually assaulted?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Let me correct the record,

firstly, and suggest that many of those amendments that the Leader of the Opposition saw were from members of your own caucus and members of the NDP, who all submitted amendments to the bill. Many

were technical in nature. Several, I will say, were things to do with regulatory work, which we will do. We've not eliminated or said no to those amendments; they are all items that will be dealt

with in regulation. This member knows, with his own background, what belongs in the law versus what belongs in the regulations. That's number one.

On the second point, the amendment that was introduced this past Monday is a direct response to your previous query of a week ago today, where I said that

those items that you want will be in regulation. If you are more comfortable seeing it not in the regulations but in the law, we are prepared to deliver that amendment to you. But we have said from

the beginning that there are two pillars here that we will maintain: retroactivity and an open adoption process. What we're saying today is that the bill is as we have discussed in the past. The

things that you've asked for, you have certainly seen.

Mr. Tory: I have just asked for the same kind of increased protection for women who are the victims of sexual assault, and I'll leave that

with the minister.

Minister, the entire debate that we're having here, which is one that I think is something we should be doing here, is about ensuring a better piece of

legislation. So while on the one hand we're quite rightfully extending the rights of one group, namely adoptees, we must also ensure at the same time that we don't infringe upon the rights of

others. We've heard the privacy commissioner express serious concerns. We've heard of possible constitutional challenges, and we have the precedents of other provinces.

My question is, are you willing to work together to find a way to protect these privacy rights for all citizens who wish to assert them and, at the same time,

dramatically extend the rights of those who want more information? By your own numbers, we could provide expanded access to information for fully 97% of the people who want it, while at the same

time making sure we protect the privacy rights of all people, in particular the 3% who apparently, based on history, choose to assert them. Why can't we work together to make sure that we have that

kind of win-win for as many people as possible?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: Let me say this: From the 1960s and onward, there have been thousands and thousands of people who have simply been denied

information about who they are. The United Nations, in the conference on the child, has ultimately landed on the rights of the child. That adult child today has a right to that information about

who they are, to know, which is extremely different from their right to a relationship.

Today, because of the bill that is before the House right now and at committee, we are for the first time protecting these individuals by giving them the

opportunity for a no contact to be placed on that file. In today's world what is happening, in the absolute absence of any structure, is a lack of any protection for these same women you are

purporting to want to support. But when you don't support the bill, you are suggesting that -- they have no support. They will have no protection. They're able to place a no contact, and no

contact, as has happened in every jurisdiction that uses it, has worked.

We believe, however, that adult adoptees have the right to information, and we are deciding on the side of that adoptee.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the minister responsible for native affairs. In the McGuinty budget for this year,

on page 29, you boast about cutting the budgets of 15 ministries. One of the ministries that you boast about cutting the budget in is the ministry of native affairs. We are told that there's a 22%

budget cut. We're told that part of that budget cut will be a termination or a substantial reduction in the aboriginal economic development program. Minister, is this what the McGuinty government

calls a new approach to building stronger First Nations?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I thank the

member for this question. I find it passing strange that it comes from this member, considering that the reason that the budget went up last year was because this government -- the McGuinty

government -- signed the largest land claim settlement in the history of Ontario in that member's riding.

I am proud to have been there at the signing ceremony for the Rainy River First Nation. I was proud to stand there with the member opposite, who just asked

this question, who in fact thought that the land claim settlement was a very positive day for his community and a positive day and part of the new approach for aboriginal affairs. So my question to

the member is, have you changed your mind?

Mr. Hampton: I want to quote from a letter from the chief of the Rainy River First Nation addressed to the Premier, with a copy to the

minister. He raises the issue of a 22% cut to the Native Affairs Secretariat. He says, "ONAS historically has been underfunded and treated fiscally unfairly and disproportionately to other

government ministries," and he says that, if anything, the Native Affairs Secretariat deserves a funding increase.

But I want to get back to the question. We've been told by people who work out there, in the area of economic development with First Nations, that they have

been instructed by your government not to plan anything beyond June 30 of this year: Don't plan any projects; in fact, don't plan on having a job. I say to the minister again, is this part of your

new strategy for developing relationships with First Nations? I ask the minister, stand today and announce to all First Nations across Ontario that there will be no cuts --

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: Actually, I wasn't done. We didn't settle just one land claim. This government has settled three land claims since we

took office. If the member opposite is suggesting for one moment that the chief for Rainy River First Nations does not support the largest land claim settlement in the history of Ontario, which

benefits his community, I think the member may be getting his facts wrong. Lastly, just so everybody in this House is clear, funding for the redesigned aboriginal community capital grants program

in last month's budget was increased from $1.6 million to $3.1 million. This is a member who should stand up and be proud about the new approach to aboriginal affairs brought forth by the McGuinty

government. I certainly am.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Our economy depends on consumers' trust in

the contracts they sign; namely, that information is stated accurately and services received are the ones they contracted for. I know from my constituents that this is often not the case. Many have

expressed dissatisfaction about their lack of recourse when pressured into signing contracts they don't have all the relevant information about. Fitness clubs are a prime example of this. Minister,

how will the consumer protection we've passed help consumers to feel more comfortable when making these often high-pressured decisions?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I want to thank the honourable member from Willowdale for his question and for

his concern about consumer protection. I'm very pleased that on July 30 of this year, the McGuinty government will be proclaiming the Consumer Protection Act, and we will become a national leader

in consumer protection across the country. Under this new legislation that was passed by the Legislature, consumers and businesses will have new rights and responsibilities.

The Consumer Protection Act, for instance, institutes a 10-day cooling-off period for prepaid services such as fitness clubs, lawn care agreements, and

timeshare and vacation club contracts, also cooling-off periods for door-to-door salesmen. Not a day goes by where my ministry is not contacted by an individual who has been ripped off as a result

of a door-to-door salesman selling air purifiers or aluminium siding or vacuum cleaners. This is going to actually put teeth in the law.

Mr. Zimmer: Smart consumers are good for business. I know that this provision will put many consumers' minds at rest. Another common concern

for my constituents is often the unpredictable world of estimates, whether you're having your washing machine fixed, your house panted or your lawn fertilized. It's frustrating and costly when the

cost of services does not match the estimates you took in good faith. Minister, can you tell us how the Consumer Protection Act will give consumers the confidence they need when having work done on

based on estimates, and what fines exist for those individuals and corporations that don't honour their estimates.

Hon. Mr. Watson: The Consumer Protection Act ensures that the final cost of service cannot be more than a variance of 10%, and if the estimate

is not honoured, the law provides for a number of things, including maximum fines of $100,000 for individuals, and $250,000 for companies. Additionally, consumers will have the right to cancel many

of the types of consumer agreements if goods are not provided or services are not started within 30 days of the date specified.

One of the final things we're doing -- I regret that the Leader of the Opposition is not here to hear this -- is that the McGuinty government, once and for

all, is going to make it illegal to allow negative-option billing in the province of Ontario. I know the Leader of the Opposition would stand and applaud that this government is saying no to this

terrible attack on consumers in the province of Ontario.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is for the Minister of Education. People for Education released their 2005 secondary school tracking

report yesterday. According to that report, over one quarter of schools that received funding for ESL/PDF reported that they had no ESL/PDF teachers -- this under your watch, Minister. Can you tell

the House, if in fact these schools received the funding, how much of that funding did they receive? How much money was sent to these schools, to these boards, for ESL/PDF, and if it didn't go to

ESL or PDF, where did it go?

language, because it is probably the first time in the last eight or nine years we've heard someone in the party he belongs to talking about that particular aspect.

The members opposite redefined the assistance and denied it to students. They defined it as how long they were in the country instead of how much assistance

they need. We've expanded that assistance significantly, and we've made it available. Of course, it can be delivered by a specialist teacher. It can also be delivered by teachers who have been

trained through AQ courses and so on. It doesn't require a special teacher, for example, in a small elementary school.

But this year, we're taking it even a step further. The ESL dollars that we deliver will be more focused on getting results. We think the worst reason for

anyone not to obtain a great education in this province would be because they don't have the language of instruction. It's a problem we know how to fix, and now that they've survived the last

government, it's a problem that's going to be fixed for the future they're going to have.

Mr. Klees: Well, this report relates to last year, when this minister had the responsibility for ESL funding. This report says that under this

minister's watch, 25% of the schools that received ESL funding didn't even have an ESL teacher. Minister, I'm asking you this question, or maybe I should ask the Chair of Management Board the

question: How much money was involved, where did it go and how was it used? That's my question. Please answer the question.

We gladly accept the input from People for Education. We are going to sit down with them as an organization and go through the things. But I should note that

they have given the government credit for a number of things we've done: for turning around the tone of education, for making students and teachers and parents more optimistic about public

education, for having the ability to be a disciplined government and focus our investments on exactly the things that matter to the people of Ontario, investing in an education advantage for all

they're going to get the help that they deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I know it would be nice if we had more than an hour for question period -- you're all anxious to do that --

but I have to say it's the end of question period.

PETITIONS

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from one of the many Royal Canadian Legions that have sent them to me. This

happens to come from Branch 155, Southampton. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

and

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

facility; and

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

regard to our veterans;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario exempt Legion halls, navy clubs and other non-profit, private or veterans' clubs from government smoke-free legislation."

I've also signed this.

HIGHWAY 406

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province's greenbelt legislation and Places to Grow plan have significantly restricted how Niagara can grow and develop; and

"Whereas the development-ready land in Niagara's southern tier lacks adequate transportation infrastructure to facilitate economic development; and

"Whereas the 406 highway from Beaverdams Road in Thorold to East Main Street in Welland is one of the busiest two-lane highways in Ontario, with 27,000 cars

daily; and

"Whereas the accident and fatality rate double on the two-lane stretch of the 406 highway in comparison to the four-lane segment of the 406 highway; and

"Whereas the expansion of the 406 highway will attract much-needed new investment and job opportunities for Niagara; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario will receive compensation in 2005 from the federal government in the form of a percentage of the gas tax to be applied

towards transportation and infrastructure projects;

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

"That the Premier of Ontario together with the Minister of Transportation fulfill their existing commitment and place the expansion of the 406 highway in the

capital plan for infrastructure projects in Ontario in 2005."

I have affixed my signature, and page Kai will be delivering this to the Clerk's desk.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly regarding the banning of smoking in public places in

Ontario. I'm pleased to thank and acknowledge two constituents of Mississauga West, Yingbo Guo of Belvedere Crescent in Erin Mills and Fredric Abalos of Bartholemew Crescent in Meadowvale, who are

both in the visitors' gallery making their first visit to the Legislative Assembly.

The petition reads as follows:

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

"Whereas some 16,000 Ontarians each year die of tobacco-related causes; and

"Whereas the inhalation of direct and second-hand tobacco smoke both lead to health hazards that can and do cause preventable death; and

"Whereas more than four out of every five Ontarians do not smoke, and this large majority desires that enclosed public places in Ontario be smoke-free at all

times; and

"Whereas preventing the sale of tobacco products, especially to young people, and banning the use of tobacco products in public and gathering places of all

types will lower the incidence of smoking among Ontarians, and decrease preventable deaths;

"Be it therefore resolved that the Ontario Legislative Assembly enact Bill 164, and that the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care aggressively

implement measures to restrict the sale and supply of tobacco to those under 25; that the display of tobacco products in retail settings be banned; that smoking be banned in enclosed public places

or in workplaces, and banned on or near the grounds of public and private schools, hospitals and day nurseries; that designated smoking areas or rooms in public places be banned, and that penalties

for violations of smoking laws be substantially increased."

I wholeheartedly agree with this petition. I've affixed my signature to it, and I'll ask page Benjamin to carry it.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition sent to me by Hazel Pratt, CAW 4207 unit chair, RR3, Elmwood, Ontario. It's a

petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government has announced in their budget that they are delisting key health services such as routine eye exams, chiropractic and

physiotherapy services,

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

"To reverse the delisting of eye exams, chiropractic and physiotherapy services and restore funding for these important and necessary services."

I've signed my name.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the 2003 election campaign Dalton McGuinty promised to establish a standing committee on education to ensure transparency in education funding;

and

"Whereas such a committee has not been established; and

"Whereas Ontario's education system is not properly funded and there is no transparency in funding;

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

"To immediately establish a standing committee on education to hold public hearings every year on the effectiveness of education funding."

I agree strongly with this petition, and I'm signing it.

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition with regard to reducing littering in parks to protect our environment. It reads as follows,

to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and especially to the Minister of the Environment:

"Whereas we find lots of pop cans and beer bottles in our parks plus children's playgrounds;

"Whereas it is therefore unsafe for our children to play in these parks and playgrounds;

"Whereas many of these bottles and cans are broken and mangled, therefore causing harm and danger to our children;

"Whereas Ontarians are dumping about a billion aluminum cans worth $27 million into landfill every year instead of recycling them;"

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Crazy.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, that's crazy.

"Whereas the undersigned want to see legislation passed to have deposits paid on cans and bottles, which would be returnable and therefore not found littering

our parks and streets;"

Interjection.

Mr. Ruprecht: I agree that we should fix it.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, strongly urge and demand that the Ontario government institute a collection program that will include all pop drinks, Tetra

Pak juices and can containers to be refundable in order to reduce littering and protect our environment."

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

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I'm pleased that Meredith Williams is here to receive this petition as one of the pages, because she's the

granddaughter of Duncan Allan, who is a former deputy minister of agriculture. In the 1970s, I worked in the deputy minister's office and I was pleased to work with Duncan. So I worked for your

grandfather.

This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

and

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

facility; and

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

respect to our veterans;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario exempt Legion halls, navy clubs and other non-profit, private or veterans' clubs from government smoke-free legislation."

I agree with this petition, and I will gladly sign my name to it

TEACHER QUALIFICATION

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): I'd like to read this petition into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the 2005 graduates of the publicly funded faculties of education in the province of Ontario will have met all the requirements of the individual

faculties; and

"Whereas these same publicly funded faculties of education in the province of Ontario have all met the stringent standards as outlined and controlled by the

Ontario College of Teachers; and

"Whereas the 2005 graduates of the publicly funded faculties of education in the province of Ontario will be placed at a severe disadvantage if they are given

a provisional certificate of qualification by the Ontario College of Teachers;

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

"To make the changes necessary to the Education Act and/or its regulations in order to grant the 2005 graduates of the publicly funded faculties of education

in the province of Ontario a permanent certificate of qualification, or

"To deem that the bachelor of education degree granted to the 2005 graduates of the publicly funded faculties of education in the province of Ontario deems

them to have completed the equivalent of the Ontario teacher qualification test, thus allowing the Ontario College of Teachers to grant these same graduates a permanent certificate of

qualification."

I will attach my name to this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition signed by many good citizens of Cambridge, addressed to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas gasoline prices have increased at alarming rates during the past year; and

"Whereas the high and different gas prices in different areas of Ontario have caused confusion and unfair hardship on hard-working Cambridge families;

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

"

(1) That the Ontario McGuinty Liberal government immediately freeze gas prices for a temporary period until world oil prices moderate; and

"

(2) That the Ontario McGuinty Liberal government and the federal Martin Liberal government immediately lower their taxes on gas for a temporary period until

world oil prices moderate; and

"

(3) That the Ontario McGuinty Liberal government immediately initiate a royal commission to investigate the predatory gas prices charged by oil companies

operating in Ontario."

As I agree with this petition, I will affix my name thereto.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the so-called Tenant Protection Act of the defeated Harris-Eves Tories has allowed landlords to increase rents well above the rate of inflation for

new and old tenants alike;

"Whereas the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ... created by this act regularly awards major and permanent additional rent increases to landlords to pay for

required one-time improvements and temporary increases in utility costs and this same act has given landlords wide-ranging powers to evict tenants; and

"Whereas our landlord, Sterling Karamar Property Management, has applied to the Ontario Municipal Board ... to add a fourth high-rise unit to our compound in

order to circumvent city of Toronto restrictions on density and the city's opposition to its project" --

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Don't rush it, Tony.

Mr. Ruprecht: I know you agree with this petition.

"Whereas this project would lead to overcrowding in our densely populated community, reduce our precious green space, further drive up rents and do nothing to

solve the crisis in affordable rental housing;

"Whereas this project will drive away longer-term tenants partially shielded from the post-1998 ... rent increases, thereby further reducing the number of

relatively affordable units in the city core; and

"Whereas before ... October 2003 ... `real protection for tenants at all times'" was "a radical overhaul of the pro-developer OMB; ...

"We, the undersigned residents of Doversquare Apartments in Toronto, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To institute a rent freeze until the exorbitant Tory guideline and above-guideline rent increases are wiped out by inflation;

"To abrogate the [existing] `Tenant Protection Act' and draw up new landlord-tenant legislation which shuts down the notoriously pro-landlord ORHT and

reinstates real rent control, including an elimination of the Tory policy of `vacancy decontrol';

"To keep the McGuinty government to its promise of real changes at the OMB, eliminating its bias toward wealthy developers and enhancing the power of groups

promoting affordable housing, sustainable neighbourhoods and tenant rights."

This petition has been signed by over 200 residents. I will pass this forward to you for your consideration.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and Kai is here to receive it for me. Kai is a very

avid page. When you give Kai a job to do, he does it very quickly. I can tell you that from personal experience.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

and

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

facility; and

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

respect to our veterans;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario exempt Legion halls, navy clubs and other non-profit, private or veterans' clubs from government smoke-free legislation."

I affix my signature to this petition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The time available for petitions has expired. We now look to the government to call the orders of the

day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

Mrs. Dombrowsky moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act in respect of enforcement and other matters / Projet de loi 133,

Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement et la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario en ce qui a trait à l'exécution et à d'autres questions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Mrs. Dombrowsky has moved Bill 133. I look to the Minister of the Environment to lead off the debate.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very honoured to have an opportunity to speak at the third reading of an important

bill before the Legislature, a bill that has been amended. It has been to committee twice.

It's important, particularly for those who are watching but also for the members who are with us this afternoon in the Legislature, to talk a bit about the

history of the bill and its journey here to third reading.

I want to share with the members of the Legislature that in the St. Clair River -- a very important part of the province of Ontario; it forms the boundary

between our great country and our neighbour to the south, the United States -- between August 2003 and February 2004, there were five major illegal chemical spills into the St. Clair River. The St.

Clair River is a source of drinking water for people who live in communities along the river. These spills forced the closure of water intakes in Wallaceburg and other downstream communities.

People were understandably very worried when they were unable to access drinking water from their taps. That has an impact on local community public facilities like hospitals, schools and nursing

homes.

As a result of what I thought of as an unacceptable rash of illegal spills, I asked the Ministry of the Environment SWAT team to go to the Sarnia area. I asked

them to inspect the petrochemical facilities that are significant in that community and to bring me their ideas around: Why are these spills happening? What could we as government do to ensure that

these spills do not continue? What incentives could we put in place for the safety of the people in those communities?

As a result of their good work, I'm very pleased to say that we introduced Bill 133, which we believe will go a long way to encourage compliance in the

industrial community and also to provide communities that are affected by these events with resources to address the emergencies when they occur. I think all of us in this province would agree --

and I have to say that over the course of our deliberations with stakeholders and at committee, we heard from environmentalists, from people who had lived in communities affected by spills. They

don't believe it's fair that the taxpayers in those communities bear the burden of managing in those events, but rather, that it should be the individual or the company responsible for the spill

who pays for all the costs associated with that kind of emergency.

Our government introduced Bill 133 in October. We paid very careful attention to the people who came to us following its introduction. There were some

concerns. There were people for whom the notion of spills was not new, but certainly new in this province. We felt that we had a responsibility, because we are so committed to ensuring as we go

forward that we have sound legislation that will protect the people in our communities, that will protect our environment, that will inspire good and sound environmental practices within the

industries in this province. We took the opportunity to listen to the many stakeholders -- environmental stakeholders, industrial stakeholders, community stakeholders -- and the points they wanted

to share with us on this bill, and I'm very proud to say that our government has listened.

We introduced amendments to Bill 133 that I know reflect some of the requests that were made by the many deputants who spoke to Bill 133. We've also made some

changes that reflect the ideas that came to us from both opposition and third party members.

I'd like to just take a few moments to talk about the nature of the amendments we have introduced, so that the people of Ontario can understand that we

continue to have a sound piece of environmental legislation but also one that I believe demonstrates that we are prepared to consider some of the important issues that came to our attention.

We have ensured that only a Ministry of the Environment director can impose an environmental penalty, not a provincial officer. That was something that

stakeholders brought to our attention, and this government believes it's certainly a reasonable consideration that we've made in the bill.

We've also clarified that environmental penalties shall only be imposed against the company, not the company officials or the company employees. Again, that

came to us from companies that I think put a compelling case. From our perspective, we're interested in ensuring that the people and communities are compensated. We felt that as long as we're able

to ensure that the people get those resources they deserve, we were able to accommodate this.

A company that receives an environmental penalty will not have that penalty taken as an admission of guilt in a subsequent prosecution, and we think that is

fair, of course.

We will also draft regulations that will ensure that a company's actions to prevent or minimize or expedite a cleanup will be taken into account when a penalty

is considered. So when a company is able to demonstrate that they have done their best to prevent a spill or that when a spill happened, they moved as quickly and expeditiously as possible to

mitigate its negative impacts on the local community and the local environment, we think that should be taken into account when considering the amount of a penalty.

While the officials may not be penalized, corporate officers and directors still have the responsibility to ensure that their corporations do comply with

provincial environmental laws. We also introduced a motion that will require directors and officers to ensure that corporations satisfy their duty to notify the ministry when spills occur and to

clean up after that spill.

We've moved to amend Bill 133 so that it very clearly states that the court shall consider the payment of an environmental penalty in determining a fine.

In response to stakeholder comments, we will also introduce a motion that will require those industries specified in regulations to prepare spill contingency

and spill prevention plans. This is a very key part of this legislation, where now our government will have the ability to say to industries that we want them to demonstrate what they will do to

prevent a spill from even happening. It's one thing to have a contingency plan in place -- "In the event of a spill, we will do this, this and this" -- but people in co