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

June 2, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 2 June 2003 Lundi 2 juin 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MISSING CHILDREN

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

SENIORS' MONTH

ROAD SAFETY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HUNTSVILLE SPORTS HALL OF FAME

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL

HEALTH CENTRE

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (SUPPLEMENTAL NEWBORN SCREENING), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (DÉPISTAGE COMPLÉMENTAIRE DES NOUVEAU-NÉ

S) PHYSICAL FITNESS DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE L'APTITUDE PHYSIQUE

FAMILY RESTROOM

FACILITIES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES INSTALLATIONS

SANITAIRES FAMILIALES

SAFETY IN HIGHWAY

CONSTRUCTION ZONES STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SÉCURITÉ

DANS LES ZONES DE CONSTRUCTION

DE LA VOIE PUBLIQUE

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN DE SOUTIEN AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

DOUG KENNEDY

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SARS

PENSION PLAN

SARS

FEDERAL FIREARMS REGISTRY

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

WORKPLACE SAFETY FOR STUDENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

SPORTS FUNDING

SCHOOL FACILITIES

HOUSE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

ITER FUSION PROJECT

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

HAZARDOUS WASTE

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HYDRO RATES

EDUCATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Monday 2 June 2003 Lundi 2 juin 2003

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Linda Ouellette, a constituent of mine, has a dilemma. Imagine her amazement when she went to pick up the mail

last Tuesday and found not one letter from the Premier of Ontario, not two letters from the Premier of Ontario, not three letters from the Premier of Ontario, not four letters from the Premier of

Ontario, not five letters from the Premier of Ontario but six letters from the Premier of Ontario.

Linda Ouellette's message is simple to the government and to Ernie Eves: instead of wasting your money, our money, taxpayers' money on this senseless, ridiculous

propaganda, put it toward our hospital; put it toward people who really need it.

The fact is, this government under Ernie Eves proves its inefficiency every single, solitary day. Linda Ouellette is but one example of many across the province

of Ontario who are receiving this junk mail. She wants it stopped. The people of Sudbury want it stopped. The people of Ontario want it stopped.

Dalton McGuinty wants it stopped. The Liberals are the only party to ensure that this kind of junk mail will cease once we form the government. We're saying to

the government, show your efficiency and show your feelings to the people of Ontario. Put the money where it's needed, not in self-serving propaganda.

MISSING CHILDREN

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Last Sunday, May 25, marked National Missing Children's Day. Though it is a very difficult subject about

which to speak, I wanted to officially recognize the hard work and commitment of Child Find Ontario.

Each year, over 66,000 cases of missing children are reported in Canada, enough to fill every seat in SkyDome. This is a staggering number. These children and

teenagers are classified as runaways, wandered off or are the victims of parental or stranger abduction. Thankfully, over 90% of these children are recovered but, regrettably, as was seen in

Toronto recently, these cases sometimes end in tragedy.

It is the responsibility of all of us to protect the most vulnerable in our society. We can achieve this through making our communities safer, teaching our

children the rules of safety and by providing police officers the tools that are necessary to help keep our children safe.

The green ribbon is a symbol of hope and a reminder of the importance of child safety practices. It is worn to recognize the vital role that we all play in child

safety, to remember those who have not yet been found and to reinforce the efforts that are put into the safe return of those who are dearest.

I wish to encourage all Ontarians to wear a green ribbon and to recognize the work of Child Find Ontario, not just during the month of May each year but

throughout the entire year. If we work as a community, we can help find these missing children, and together we can help stop tragedies from happening.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): Today commemorates Italian National Day. It was on June 2, 1946, when the people of Italy voted to

abolish the monarchy and establish a democratically elected assembly and create a republic. This step made Italy a staunch democracy. Today, Italy is a leading industrial nation, a founding member

of the European Union and a vital strategic partner in NATO. The Italian consul general is hosting a reception tonight to celebrate this history.

In the early 1950s, Ottawa entered into a bilateral agreement with Rome to process large-scale Italian immigration to Canada and there followed an aggressive

Italian labour recruitment for the Canadian market. The year 1958 saw 28,500 Italians immigrate to Canada. This surpassed the number of British immigrants.

Canadians of Italian origin are one of the largest immigrant groups to settle in Canada. This has had a significant impact on the cultural, political and

economic sectors in this country.

Next week, on June 12, the first major national exhibition on the heritage and day-to-day lives of Italian-Canadians will open at the Canadian Museum of

Civilization. The exhibition, Presenza, gives voice to a generation of Italian-Canadian immigrants from across the country.

It is important that we celebrate a heritage as being part of us as Canadians.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I am pleased today to rise in recognition that June is Seniors' Month. It has been my practice in my community

of Burlington for the last 17 years to host a very major seniors' seminar that will be occurring this year on Saturday, June 7, at the Burlington Seniors' Centre, 2285 New Street in Burlington. The

doors will open at 9:30, and we'll be providing refreshments throughout the day.

This year we're pleased to announce that our headliner for this year's show is Mr Entertainment from the province of Ontario, Gordie Tapp. His humour has been

entertaining generations of people all across North America, and he's going to be very warmly received. It's his fourth visit to our seniors' seminar.

We'll also have representatives from the Ontario Residential Care Association. Jill Davies will inform people about retirement home living, and Karen Stewart

from Sheridan College's gerontology program will do a presentation on the myths of aging.

We have representatives from the police and fire departments to help seniors better understand how to safety-proof their homes and how to avoid being victims of

fraud.

Admission is free. If anyone would like to attend, they can call our constituency office at 905-639-7924. We get 400 to 500 people out every year, so call today

and get your tickets.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): In October 2002, I wrote the Minister of Transportation regarding turning lanes at Lake Huron Drive in

Desbarats.

In late 2002, I wrote to the Minister of Transportation supporting a resolution from Verna Lapish of the Bar River Women's Institute. In my letter of support, I

asked that the ministry install flashing amber lights at the intersection of Highway 17 and Kensington Road in Desbarats. This intersection provides road access to Central Algoma Secondary School,

a school with 650 students.

Minister Sterling acknowledged the need for improvements in a letter of January, which stated simply, "Improvements are needed."

On March 6 of this year, the community's concerns became reality with a tragic accident that resulted in the death of 16-year-old student Josh Brockelbank and

severe injuries to other passengers in the vehicle. The vehicle was rear-ended by a transport truck as the victims' vehicle attempted to make a legal left-hand turn at Main Street.

The minister has received hundreds of letters from students from CASS and from Johnson Tarbutt public school, parents, teachers, municipal councils, the school

board and myself. I've met with Reeve Elwood McKinnon, his council, the school board trustee and other concerned citizens.

We want action, and we want action now. We can do the following now: we can declare the area a school zone. We can install rumble strips to slow traffic and

heighten their awareness. We can install an amber flashing light at Kensington Road. We can reduce the speed limit. We can increase the police presence in the area.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I attended a press conference hosted by several environmental leaders in this province who said that the

government's Bill 25, the so-called

An Act to enhance public transit and provide for a smart transportation system in Ontario, if proceeded with, will actually be dumb growth.

I'm one, even in the opposition, to say good things about this government very occasionally if they do something right. I'm on record as saying that their Smart

Growth panels were a good idea, including the public and being able to reach consensus on smart growth. But today we find out from these leading environmentalists that in fact it's all been a scam;

it's been put on to fool the people of Ontario, to make them believe the government actually cares about environmental planning in this province.

If this bill goes through -- and these people are calling for the government to pull it and start all over again -- it will mean that transportation corridors

and major infrastructure such as power plants as well as highways are no longer defined as undertakings and will be excluded from the 25-year-old practice of applying the Ontario Environmental

Assessment Act to their planning.

Even Debbe Crandall, who is a member of the government-appointed central Smart Growth panel that made the recommendations, and whose environmental group fought

to preserve the Oak Ridges moraine, said, "We no longer have any voice on protecting the environment." Others said the same thing. A mayor is taking the government to court over this.

I demand that the government pull the bill and start all over again if they're committed to real smart growth, not dumb growth, in this province.

HUNTSVILLE SPORTS HALL OF FAME

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): This past Saturday, the Huntsville Sports Hall of Fame in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka inducted the

following new members for their achievements and support of the athletic community.

John Clayton's impressive lacrosse career began as the youngest member of the Huntsville 1965 junior B champions and as a member of four of Oshawa's Minto Cup

championship teams. John Clayton then received a university-level hockey scholarship.

Andy Longpre won four Muskoka-Parry Sound high school wrestling championships and two OFSSA championships. He then joined the University of Guelph team and the

national team. Andy Longpre continued his dedication to the sport as a coach.

R.T. "Ginger" Davies was a supporter of minor league lacrosse and hockey. Mr Davies served the sport and local clubs in many ways, ranging from treasurer to

timekeeper. His commitment and service were highly valued and he was a major force in the building of these clubs.

Dave Arnold was a member of the national gymnastics team, including the 1983 Pan Am bronze medallists. Dave Arnold went on to coach and judge nationally and

internationally, participating in a long list of top-level competitions resulting in an extraordinary list of awards and honours.

The late fire chief of Huntsville, Ross Payne, received the Jack Bionda award for outstanding commitment to the Huntsville sporting community. Mr Payne played on

the Ontario champion 1949 Huntsville Hawks lacrosse team. He went on to further make his mark as an executive member, official and loyal fan of Huntsville and Burk's Falls sports teams.

I would like to commend all these recipients for their roles in making amateur sport an important and valuable part of daily life in the Huntsville area.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): Thursday morning, our livestock industry learned that their minister was looking at closing provincial

borders to all outside beef. A national furor ensued. The minister went on in typical Tory tradition to point blame everywhere but in the mirror, claiming she was following PEI and Quebec's lead.

Reaction was fast and furious.

PEI ag minister Mitch Murphy accused Johns of "grossly misrepresenting the Island's position." Alberta minister McClellan was "totally blindsided and very

disappointed." Premier Klein publicly mused whether this was for real or whether our minister was just "flapping off."

Sadly, this kind of knee-jerk, thinking-out-loud, shoot-from-the-hip governing is the last thing an industry in crisis needs. The Ontario Cattlemen's Association

and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture were swift to contradict their minister, hoping for damage control as Ms Johns was forced to apologize.

This is the kind of mistake that can have possible permanent implications, and shows a complete lack of understanding of the very nature of Ontario's industry by

its very own minister.

The Globe and Mail refers to Ms Johns as "one of the most hapless ministers of the crown that her province has produced in recent years." The National Post

surmises that "Johns was either speaking from ignorance or fear, neither of which is much of a sound base for public policy," and that "she might as well have been belching, for all the forethought

that went into her remarks."

If the minister is in so deep over her head that she has to resort to making up policy on the fly, the minister should step aside.

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL

HEALTH CENTRE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I'm pleased to inform members of the House about a new era in health care in my riding of Peterborough. On

Friday, May 30, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, announced $176 million in provincial funding by the Ernie Eves government at the official construction launch of

the new Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

The total cost of the project is estimated at $255.9 million. Local funding initiatives and commitments from the city and the county have already resulted in $47

million toward the construction of this wonderful new health centre.

This new state-of-the-art health facility will replace the existing hospital that was built in 1947. It is designed to accommodate 529 beds -- a 30% increase

from the current capacity -- and will feature an expanded outpatient department, operating rooms, acute care services, mental health beds, rehabilitation services etc. The emergency department will

service an incredible 26,000 more emergency room visits every year.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Premier Eves, Minister Clement, the hospital administration and all front-line health care providers, but especially

the residents of Peterborough riding for their support and commitment to this hospital. It will ensure that our community will continue to have access to quality health care for the road ahead.

VISITORS

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have a rather special occasion. The Lewis clan is here to see their son

Timothy Lewis, one of our pages, in action. I want to welcome Jamie and Jane Lewis, Kristin and David, June and Jim Lewis and Linda Carandang, who are here to see Timothy. Thank you for coming

today.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm privileged to advise all members that we have with us in the

members' gallery today several members of the family of the late Doug Kennedy, who was the former MPP for Peel South and Mississauga South from 1967 to 1985. As you know, Doug passed away last

Monday. Members from all parties will be paying tribute to him shortly.

Please join me in welcoming the members of Doug's immediate family. His wife Kay wanted to come, but then decided she could not be here. We have Doug's daughter,

Pat Bond, and her husband Robert; his other daughter, Janet Graham, and her husband Brian; and his granddaughter, Amie Reid, who also served in this House as a page in 1983. We're very grateful

they're here today.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm sure you would want to know that a former member from Etobicoke North, Mr Ed Philip, is here along

with his wife and their little girl, Sarah. I'd like to welcome them to the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'll just add, because I had that to do, that Mr Philip, of course, was the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale in the

32nd through the 35th Parliaments. He's joined today, beside him, by former member Barbara Sullivan, who was the member for Halton Centre in the 34th and 35th Parliaments. Please welcome both our

colleagues.

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): It's certainly a pleasure for me to introduce the family of Spencer Henderson, who is a page with us

from Cobourg: his parents, Donna and John Henderson; his brother and sister, Simon and Devon; along with his grandmother, Marguerite Fluker. Please join me in welcoming them to Queen's Park.

The Speaker: We also have with us today in the Speaker's gallery a parliamentary delegation from the Moscow region, led by the deputy chair of

their Duma. Please join me in welcoming our honoured special guests from Russia.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (SUPPLEMENTAL NEWBORN SCREENING), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (DÉPISTAGE COMPLÉMENTAIRE DES NOUVEAU-NÉ

S) Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 71, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

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

All in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): Many infants and children unknowingly suffer from medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, which

may be the cause of 100 infant deaths thought to be SIDS or Reye's. Families in Ontario are aware of the importance of expanding their newborn screening of fatty oxidation disorders and other

metabolic disorders that can be detected through tandem mass spectrometry. This procedure is currently conducted in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. The sample taken at birth for PKU

testing is the same sample that can be used to test for FOD and other disorders. Supplemental newborn screening for FODs could detect MCAD and allow children to live normal lives through

treatment.

PHYSICAL FITNESS DAY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE L'APTITUDE PHYSIQUE

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 72,

An Act proclaiming Physical Fitness Day / Projet de loi 72, Loi proclamant la Journée de l'aptitude physique.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): The intention of introducing this bill is to stress the importance of personal responsibility in our own health. In

that respect, physical fitness is an important contributor to health. I move that the first Friday in September of each year would be deemed Physical Fitness Day.

FAMILY RESTROOM

FACILITIES ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES INSTALLATIONS

SANITAIRES FAMILIALES

Mr Parsons moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to facilitate families by requiring that all buildings open to the public be equipped with family restroom facilities / Projet de loi 73, Loi

visant à assister les familles en exigeant que tous les bâtiments ouverts au public soient équipés d'installations sanitaires familiales.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This is a reintroduction of a bill from the previous session which provides for young families and

for persons with disabilities access to a washroom where others can be present to assist. It will apply to public buildings and to private buildings such as shopping centres, arenas and stadiums

that have significant public access.

SAFETY IN HIGHWAY

CONSTRUCTION ZONES STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SÉCURITÉ

DANS LES ZONES DE CONSTRUCTION

DE LA VOIE PUBLIQUE

Mr Hoy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 74,

An Act to improve safety in highway construction zones by amending various Acts to implement the recommendations from the inquest into the death of

Dick Van Rooyen / Projet de loi 74, Loi visant à améliorer la sécurité dans les zones de construction de la voie publique en modifiant diverses lois pour mettre en oeuvre les

recommandations faisant suite à l'enquête sur le décès de Dick Van Rooyen.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): This is a reintroduction of a previous bill of mine. This bill implements all the recommendations made by the

coroner's jury as a result of the inquest into the death of Dick Van Rooyen. This bill calls for increased fines and loss of demerit points. There are also provisions to use police to protect the

safety of workers, and the bill requires the closure of the travel portion of controlled-access highways while the work is being done, with the diverting of traffic to the other side of the

highway.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE PROGRAMME ONTARIEN DE SOUTIEN AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

Mr Parsons moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 75,

An Act to amend the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 to empower the Integrity Commissioner to determine the level of income support /

Projet de loi 75, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur le Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées en vue de donner au commissaire à l'intégrité le pouvoir de

déterminer le niveau de soutien du revenu.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Again, this is a reintroduction of a previous bill that amends the Ontario Disability Support

Program Act, 1997, to empower the Integrity Commissioner to make recommendations concerning the level of income support to be set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the program and the

time and manner of providing it.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand that this is the

reintroduction of another bill. I still would ask that it be reviewed by yourself with respect to revenue implications. Unless the member is suggesting, if the Integrity Commissioner reviews it,

that he would be offering a reduction in levels of support, I don't see how this is anything but a revenue bill.

The Speaker: I thank the member. As you know, we will review it, as we do all the bills, for appropriateness and, if so, we will report

back.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall

meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, June 2, and Tuesday, June 3 -- pardon me, Marilyn?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Finally we're sitting nights.

Hon Mr Stockwell: Thank you so much.

Monday, June 9, and Tuesday, June 10; Monday, June 16, and Tuesday, June 17; Monday, June 23, and Tuesday, June 24, 2003, for the purpose of considering

government business.

With the heckling of my friend Ms Churley, I would only presume she's voting in favour of this motion.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Stockwell has moved -- dispense? Dispense.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1359 to 1404.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

Curling, Alvin

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Young, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 77; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

DOUG KENNEDY

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for all parties to have up to five minutes to

comment on the passing of my uncle Doug Kennedy, a former member of this House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Chudleigh: Doug Kennedy was a man much loved by his constituents and members of this House alike. To understand Doug Kennedy, I think you

also have to know where he came from and to understand the adversity and the joy that was his youth.

He was a born on farm in the village of Dixie, in what is today part of Mississauga. When Doug was 13, his father passed away, leaving his wife, Evelyn, with

nine children: seven boys and two girls. Doug was a true Canadian of his era, because at the early age of 11 he fell forward playing hockey and knocked out one of his front teeth and ever since was

identified of course as a Canadian hockey player.

Growing up on a poor farm in the Depression of the 1930s was not easy, and thank goodness his mother, Evelyn, was a resourceful woman and a keen entrepreneur

of the day. You can imagine the trouble the seven Kennedy boys would get into on any given day. Today we might suggest that you could make a soap opera out of these goings-on. Well, in the middle

of the Dirty Thirties, his mother did. Of course, these were the days before TV and so a radio serial show had to take its place. She wrote to CFRB, CBC and CKEY, and was eventually accepted by all

three. On Saturday mornings, the 9 kids would pile into their 1927 Pontiac and head for Toronto along the Dundas highway. With nine kids in the car, I am sure you could have had a whole season's

worth of shows just on the trip into town alone. The family came up with the subject of the show, Doug would type the script and the show would air live. After all, there was no taping in those

early days of radio. Apparently, the younger members would quite often flub their lines, but that only seemed to make the show better.

One such show was about bringing in straw used for bedding in the barn. After the wagon was loaded, the best place to ride was on top of all the straw, where

it was nice and cool and you got a nice breeze. That's where Doug was. His next youngest brother, Arthur, wanted Doug to get down. He wanted to get up there. He told Doug he had a match and Doug

had better get down right away. Doug ignored him and soon the straw was engulfed in fire. The fire truck arrived from Port Credit to put out the fire and save the barn, which was only about 50 feet

away. Luckily, the fire brigade knew the way to the Kennedy farm well, and there was no wind that particular day. Some two years later, the barn did burn down, but due to spontaneous combustion in

the haymow, not to one of the boys. One day Gordon, Doug's oldest brother, bought firecrackers from the local store left over from the May 24th celebrations. He kept them upstairs in a cupboard.

Hal, the second youngest, wanted to see if those fireworks still worked, so he dropped a match in the box. Well, the fire department had to chop a hole in the roof to get that fire out.

Doug was about 13 when he was enjoying doing odd jobs and chores on the farm. They had a very tame team of horses, which was referred to as a drowsy team in

those days, and he was mowing hay on a very drowsy, warm day in June. As Doug would tell the story, on a drowsy day and with a drowsy team, he was holding the reins very limply in his hands.

Suddenly, the horses bolted -- a bee sting or something -- and headed for the barn, which unfortunately was two fields away. The reins were jerked from his hands, and he held on to his seat for all

it was worth. The horse and mower hit a small ditch, and when the mower came down, Doug was hanging on to the toolbox with his legs dragging behind the mower. The horses were heading for a gap in

the headland on their way to the barn, and Doug knew there was a big rock in the gap. He swung around parallel and let go, rolling to a stop, unhurt. The horses passed through the gap, but the

mower was smashed on the rocks. Life on the farm was never dull, and there were always lots of stories for the radio show.

Doug graduated from Port Credit high school and the Ontario Agricultural College, earning a bachelor of science degree in agriculture.

I mentioned his mother, Evelyn, being a very resourceful lady. She managed to get four of her seven boys through university. Doug graduated in 1940 from the

Ontario Agricultural College and, of course, enlisted in the service, where he served for four and a half years. After that, he worked with returning veterans on the Veterans' Land Act, helping

returning vets get established on farms across Ontario. He also served on the board of education in Peel and on the hydro commission before being elected to this Legislature.

Doug Kennedy was a man who served his country, a man who served his community and a man who served his province. Doug loved his family. God bless you, Doug.

We'll miss you.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I had the privilege of serving, in my early days in the Ontario Legislature, with Doug Kennedy. I think

all of us who were here at that time recognized him as a very popular member of this Legislature as well as a person who was beloved by his constituents because of a genuine concern for his

constituents. He had that combination, which is sometimes difficult to achieve, of being a very thorough, complete and assiduous constituency person while at the same time making a contribution

within the legislative precinct, particularly in committees. Doug was selected by his party to serve on a number of what I would call significant select committees of the Legislature. As I look at

a former House leader across from me, my friend Mr Sterling, I must say that those were the good old days, Norm, of select committees, where specific items were put before members of the

Legislature and they could concentrate on those and bury their partisan hatchets a little bit for a while and come up with a report. Doug was very good in that regard. Yes, he was a strong and

loyal Conservative, but he was also an individual who could see the viewpoint of members of the other political parties and tended to be a person around whom you could coalesce in terms of what he

had to say.

Unlike most in the Legislature now because of age, Doug served in the armed forces. I don't know if anybody in this House at this time has served in the armed

forces, but he did serve in the armed forces. When his country called upon him, he was certainly prepared to serve in the armed forces and was very loyal to his country. I think that was the case.

I remember he was from Mississauga, and I was talking to Margaret Marland the other day about this incident. Members of the government may not know this -- particularly the newer members -- but in

those days, government members didn't ask questions. You know how they now ask what some might define, unfairly of course, as lob-ball questions, easy questions for the ministers -- I've seen that

with three different political parties, so I can say it's not unique to this government. Doug Kennedy, I remember, got up and asked a question, which was quite unique in the government benches at

that time. Very few questions came from the government benches. They had to be recognized by the Speaker; there was not a rotation where the government members were entitled to ask a question.

I remember there was an issue that was very significant to his constituents in Mississauga, and Doug was prepared to get up in the House and ask the Premier of

the province a question about it. I can tell you he didn't pull his punches when he asked that question. It was something rather revealing for the government, and the opposition of course was

delighted that a government member was prepared to do that.

As I mentioned, Doug was very interested in a number of fields within this precinct. One was education, and it was because of his background. He used to talk

about his days on the local board of education and on the local hydro commission as two areas where he had gathered some expertise at the local level, on the front line if you will, and was able to

utilize that expertise when he got to the House as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education from 1976 to 1981.

The routine today is to move parliamentary assistants much more, but the Ministers of Education of the day appreciated Doug's expertise and support, and he

managed to stay on as parliamentary assistant for the period from 1976 to 1981, and then in intergovernmental affairs, which was important because we were always involved and engaged in matters of

national importance. The Premier and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs both required a person with his expertise and diplomacy to be in intergovernmental affairs, and he was involved in

that as parliamentary assistant in both the Davis cabinet and the Miller cabinet.

I notice he was on the Ontario Committee on Taxation. It was a select committee in 1968, an important committee and, I must say, one that has been there for a

long time. Different governments have tried committees on taxation, and they've had varying results in terms of the reports being implemented.

He was a member of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism in Canada from 1971 to 1975. He was on the select committee on highway safety --

and Mr Sterling, as a former minister, and other ministers who have been involved with transportation would know that some of the ideas Doug came forward with were exceedingly important -- and then

on the Inco and Falconbridge layoffs.

Obviously Doug Kennedy's early days remained etched in his mind: his concern, his compassion for his constituents, his recognition that a lot of hard work is

required by an individual to succeed when coming from a modest or perhaps financially poor background, that that is necessary, and he showed those attributes.

For 18 years the Legislature of Ontario was pleased to have Doug Kennedy as a member, as were his constituents, who were very loyal to him. He was not an

individual who was invited to leave; he was an individual who left of his own volition at the point in time he felt was appropriate for himself.

To members of the family, to the constituents of Doug Kennedy, who will remember him fondly, we all offer our condolences, our sadness at his passing but our

happiness that he was a contributor to our society and particularly to our province and his constituency.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is my honour to stand here today to speak about Robert Douglas Kennedy, a man I unfortunately never

had an opportunity to personally meet. I remember, though, coming here as a much younger man, when I was a student at the University of Toronto, just across the street, and watching the debates

from 1967 to 1972. I remember when he became the chief government whip. I remember all too well those days. They were fractious, but I don't think quite as fractious as today. I remember Mr Kennedy

speaking passionately in this Legislature for what he believed in.

He was a man whom I think all of us would admire and all of us would wish to have known. He served four and a half years in the Canadian Armed Forces, serving

his country in times of war, and he rose to the rank of captain.

After the war he did what most veterans did: they came back and tried to re-establish their lives. He took it upon himself to work for the federal government.

I can empathize with that because I myself worked there for some 20 years. He worked helping veterans with the Veterans' Land Act and the Farm Credit Corp, and he did so with distinction and

honour, choosing to leave only at the time that he was seeking elective office to the Legislature of Ontario.

He served his community at the board of education from 1955 to 1963, and also at the Toronto Township Hydro Commission from 1963 to 1967. He knew and

understood the people of Mississauga. He knew and understood local government.

In 1967, the centennial year, he was elected to the Legislature of the province. He was elected four more times after that. It is trite to say that he knew the

people of Mississauga, and the people of Mississauga knew and trusted him. They elected him each and every time, no matter what the fortunes of his particular party. Whether it went up or down, he

was there. They voted for him, they trusted him, and he spoke for them.

One has to look at what he accomplished as an MPP. I think his biggest accomplishment probably came at the time he was the chief government whip. He got the

whip to be included in cabinet meetings and to be recognized within this Legislature for the important role that person takes on.

As a private member, he also introduced many bills. I don't know how successful they were but I do know that if you read what his private bills were, what his

passions were when he was not constrained by the Legislature or by the party, he did an awful lot of things we can all be very proud of today. He tried to protect the personal privacy of Ontarians

through personal privacy act changes. He tried -- and succeeded, I believe -- to get parking for the disabled. This was 20 or 30 years ago when one did not see disabled stickers everywhere and one

did not see them in parking lots or on the streets. He also tried, unsuccessfully -- and I think we may come to revisit it soon -- a ban on non-returnable bottles, being a true environmentalist who

realized how bad those non-returnable bottles are for the environment.

He leaves behind his wife, four children, 10 grandchildren and 12 great-grandchildren. In so doing, I think he leaves them not only with sorrow in their hearts

that he is gone but a proud memory of a husband, a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather who has truly made a remarkable contribution to the people of this province and this country. He

served his country, his province and his community in times of war, he served them in times of peace, he made a mark on history and he fought throughout for what he believed.

I am reminded of a line from II Timothy, which I'm going to paraphrase: he fought the good fight, he finished the course, he kept the faith, and we are all

thankful that he did so.

The Speaker: I thank all members for their kind words. I will ensure that copies of the Hansard go to the family.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I seek unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 56, which is

the Tommy Douglas patients' bill of rights.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. Premier, in November 2000, the cabinet appointed Mr Don Weiss both chair

and CEO of the Ontario Pension Board. This board oversees the pensions of 66,000 current and former provincial employees. Under the law, the province is responsible for any deficit in this

plan.

Before his appointment as the head of the Ontario Pension Board, Don Weiss was the executive director of the PC Ontario fund. Don Weiss was your biggest

fundraiser. The Ontario Pension Board oversees $11 billion in the pension fund. Is it appropriate to have the party's top fundraiser in a position to make investment decisions with

taxpayer-guaranteed money? Premier, did you not see the potential for conflict when you and the cabinet approved this decision?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think appointments are based on the ability of the individual who's being

considered for the office.

Ms Pupatello: Beginning in October 2002, the Ontario Pension Board provided mortgages totalling more than $150 million for a land deal in

Brampton. I have copies of the titles and mortgages here: $27 million to MCN Heritage in October; $79 million to MCN Financial later that month; $21 million to MCN Heritage in January; $22 million

more to MCN Heritage in February. All of these companies are owned and operated by Mario Cortellucci. Mario Cortellucci is the single biggest donor to the Ontario PC Party. Premier, could you

please explain how you see your biggest fundraiser making a $150-million deal with your biggest donor using taxpayer-guaranteed pension money as appropriate?

Hon Mr Eves: I think the Chair of Management Board can respond to that question.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I'd like to address the first part of the question. Mr

Weiss appeared twice before the standing committee on government agencies. As we all know, this is an all-party committee, chaired by the official opposition. Before going to the Ontario public

service pension board, Mr Weiss had a 30-year career in the financial services field.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (Vaughan-King-Aurora): How come he's lending money to Cortellucci?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Despite the yapping from the member from Vaughan-King-Aurora, when Mr Weiss appeared before the committee, Gerry Phillips

from Scarborough-Agincourt, who is the critic for finance, said to him, "I have no doubts about your professional credentials." This is in Hansard, March 27, 2000. Clearly, as the Premier has said,

Mr Weiss has the qualifications to deal with the pension fund.

Ms Pupatello: Premier, I would like to direct a question back to you. Your biggest fundraiser made a $150-million deal with your biggest donor

using taxpayer-guaranteed money. According to Professor Robert MacDermid at York University, Mario Cortellucci and his companies have donated more than $1 million to the PC Party and leadership

candidates since 1995. He owns Adams mine. Here's what Professor MacDermid said about big donors like Mario Cortellucci: "When you are giving huge sums of money to help political parties get

elected, the perception, quite naturally, is that you are expecting something in return."

Mr Cortellucci gave your fundraisers $1 million. Your biggest fundraiser lent him $150 million -- every penny of it guaranteed by Ontario taxpayers. Premier,

how could you appoint your biggest fundraiser to a position where he can lend $150 million to your largest donor?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I indicated the credentials Mr Weiss has. Let's talk about some facts here. First of all, the fact that the plan invests in

real estate is not new. In fact, in 2002 it invested more than $1 billion -- that's "billion" with a "b" -- in real estate. Secondly, the public service pension plan is the only major public sector

plan that reported a gain in 2002. Clearly, this is an indication of the expertise there since we're the only major plan that had a gain. It has $11.5 billion in assets in more than 500 different

companies in more than 10 different countries. Clearly, results speak for themselves. When all the rest of the world's concerned about pension investments, this particular pension has the only gain

in a major sector. So there you go.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Ms Pupatello: Premier, you're responsible for avoiding these kinds of conflicts. I am directing my questions at you and I would like you to

answer this question. This is not a typical investment deal. We've taken a very close look at these properties in question. These lands are located in the northwest Brampton planning area. It's raw

farmland. There's no sewer connection. Brampton's planning report says that there's no anticipated growth within this planning area until the year 2026 -- that's 23 years from now. The property

won't be developed for 23 years. According to the planning report, there's no guarantee that it will ever be developed. Your biggest fundraiser gave your biggest donor a $150-million deal to

develop land that won't be developed, maybe, for another 23 years. Premier, I ask you, responsible for this appointment and this conflict, why is your biggest fundraiser in a position to lend $150

million in a deal to your largest political donor?

Hon Mr Eves: I'm sure the Minister of Finance can respond to the question.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): The honourable member well knows there are rules around pension plans in terms of the investments that

can be made and the decisions that can be made by a board. If there is any question about this particular pension plan, we will certainly look into that.

Ms Pupatello: My question is for the Premier, and I'd like the Premier to answer this question. There is more going on here. Around the time

that Don Weiss became the chair of the board, the Ontario pension plan changed their policy with regard to real estate purchases. The Ontario Pension Board 2001 annual report states, "OPB invests

in income-producing real estate to provide stable long-term returns. Recently, we have identified opportunities to invest in alternative investments, such as private placements...." Before the time

that Don Weiss arrived, this kind of investment wouldn't even be on the radar. Suddenly, the Ontario Pension Board is lending money to developers to engage in high-risk, 25-year speculation.

Premier, why did this policy change, and what link is there to the arrival of your largest fundraiser to the Ontario Pension Board?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the honourable member well knows, many pension plans invest in real estate and other issues in order to make sure that they

are providing their pension members with a wide array of protection. This board is no different. If there is anything that is untoward here, the government will certainly be prepared to investigate

it to make sure that the assets and investments of pensioners and the workers who are protected by this plan are indeed safe, to make sure that they have the pension plans that they have been

promised.

Ms Pupatello: My final question on this is to the Premier. Liberals warned you at committee about this kind of appointment and said there

could be a conflict. You were warned about putting Don Weiss in such a position. The facts are irrefutable. They are public documents found in the land registry office. They're from planning

reports. They're from annual reports tabled in this Legislature.

Your government appointed Ernie Eves's biggest fundraiser to become the chair. The policy changed to allow riskier real estate developments once Don Weiss got

there. Ernie Eves's biggest fundraiser then gave Ernie Eves's biggest donor a $150-million deal to buy land. The land won't be developed for another 25 years, if that. The facts are clear. Your

biggest fundraiser gave your biggest donor a deal valued at $150 million. Premier, surely you have something to say about this kind of conflict going on in this province.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again, as the honourable member well knows, pension plans must ensure that they're protecting the pensions of their workers.

There are requirements --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: They're not interested in listening.

The Speaker: We'll wait until they're quiet for the minister. Order.

Minister of Finance?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Once again, they are sitting there taking someone who has a 30-year career in the financial services sector, of whom their own

critic said they had no question about his professional services.

There are rules around investments and pension plans. There are protections in place to make sure that --

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Mr Speaker, the honourable member is yelling so hard we can't even hear ourselves speak over here. Goodness gracious.

There are rules protecting the pensions of the workers and the pensioners in this plan. As my honourable colleague the Chair of Management Board said, this

plan has actually been more successful than other plans that are facing significant challenges.

If there is anything untoward that has occurred here, the government will be quite prepared to investigate facts, not the kind of speculation the party

opposite indulges in.

SARS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Today your health minister said nurses should "hunker down and get the

job done."

Nurses, specifically the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, have been asking your government to conduct a public inquiry into the re-emergence of SARS.

They have stated very clearly that they raised warnings with hospital administrators and other officials early on that SARS was re-emerging in our hospitals, yet their concerns were ignored. They

insist that there needs to be an inquiry so all the information can come out.

Premier, 31 people have now died. Thousands are under quarantine. Instead of telling the nurses to hunker down, don't you think it's time to listen to their

advice and conduct a public inquiry so that all the facts about SARS can emerge into the public?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I said earlier today, and I'll repeat in the House this afternoon, that we

are committed to an open and public process. We think the Ontario public has a right to know what goes on in their health care system.

As a matter of fact, less than an hour ago I came from a meeting with the RNAO's Doris Grinspun, the ONA's Barb Wahl, the OHA's Hilary Short, the College of

Nurses's Anne Coghlan, the College of Physicians and Surgeons's Dr Gerace and the Ontario Medical Association's Dr Boadway. We agreed on some basic principles: the public does have a right to know

through some sort of process; whatever we do in terms of a process should not interfere with front-line services being provided to combat SARS right now; we should not be pitting one sector of

health care workers against another as we go forward; and bearing in mind that there should be no duplication of the review of the system which is currently ongoing and being led by Dr Walker. I

think that all in attendance basically agreed with those four principles.

Mr Hampton: Premier, there's a basic issue that nurses want to establish: nurses went to senior officials in the hospital system on May 20 and

said they believed SARS was re-emerging in our hospitals.

You're talking about a review. But a review will not provide nurses with whistle-blower protection. This is one of the concerns; nurses want to be able to tell

the public what they suspected and when they suspected it.

A public inquiry such as Walkerton provides you with whistle-blower protection. You can come forward and tell the public exactly what you suspected and why

without threat of losing your job.

This isn't about pitting one health care worker against another. This is about providing a process, a mechanism, whereby all the facts can be put on the public

record. You're talking about a review, which doesn't accomplish that. We want a public inquiry, which provides whistle-blower protection for nurses so they can come and tell the public what they

knew and when they knew it. Why won't you support that?

Hon Mr Eves: We are talking about two things: we're talking about the ongoing review, being led by Dr Walker, of the health care system in the

province of Ontario and how we can adapt it in the future so it can respond to situations like SARS; and we're talking about a public process that would be open, where the public, including nurses

of course, can come and talk about what's going on in the health care system and how we can make it better.

With respect to the second, virtually everybody in the room -- with the possible exception of Doris Grinspun -- including Barb Wahl of the Ontario Nurses'

Association, said that they do not think a public inquiry is the best route, but do agree that a public process or mechanism of some kind is needed, as do I.

Mr Hampton: Premier, the question is this: will nurses have whistle-blower protection or not? Will they be able to come forward and tell the

people of Ontario the full facts, as they understood them, without threat of losing their jobs or without other disciplinary action? Nurses have said publicly that in at least two hospitals they

came forward on May 20 and said, "We suspect the re-emergence of SARS." A quarantine was not issued until three days later, after many more people had contracted SARS, after many more people were

very sick. So it's a critical issue, Premier. Do you support a public inquiry process whereby nurses have whistle-blower protection? Do you or don't you? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Eves: We are in favour of a public process, as is Barb Wahl, the head of the Ontario Nurses' Association, as is the Ontario College of

Nurses, whereby nurses and other members of the public will be free to come forward and talk about whatever issues they have.

With respect to North York General Hospital, I'm sure the leader of the third party is aware that the CDC has been on-site since Saturday, and they are totally

reviewing all the facts of that particular hospital.

PENSION PLAN

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A further question to the Premier: Premier, you will know that the trusteed pension system, the

co-operative pension plan in Ontario, is in serious trouble. You'll know that a number of retirees have had their pension cheques more than cut in half. You will know that it is very clear that the

Financial Services Commission of Ontario was part of the process of this pension failure because they failed to properly regulate what was happening.

There's a report in the Ontario Farmer that says your government might be prepared to put new money into the insolvent pension plan affecting the more than

2,300 co-operative employees and pensioners. These are people who paid their taxes, worked hard, made their contribution, but they are now suffering. Premier, on behalf of the 2,300 retirees, can

you tell me if this report is true? Are you prepared to support that pension system so that the retirees can collect their pension? Yes or no?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I am sure the Minister of Finance, with the responsibility for pensions, can

respond.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Finance): As the honourable member well knows, staff have been meeting with the pensioners, and the regulator has

been reviewing the windup report from the board of trustees. As the honourable member well knows, there were decisions made by the board of trustees; those are potentially the subject of a legal

process. In the meantime, we are working with the co-op pension to try and find what solutions we can to help the pensioners that are involved here.

Mr Hampton: These people are out millions of dollars. Your government, the Financial Services Commission, watched while this pension plan

deteriorated; it watched while the investment manager made incredibly risky investments with the pension system that should never have been invested in such a risky way. So the question is, are you

going to support this pension plan financially or not? While you're at it, are you going to look at the other pension plans in this province that are equally in risky positions, and are you going

to implement a reform of pension legislation and pension regulations so that what happened to the co-op plan doesn't happen to other pension plans in this province as well? Are you going to do any

of those things?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, the regulator was aware of this situation. As you well know, there are requirements for pension plans to report.

When there are concerns that have been identified, the regulator moves in to try and resolve those concerns, as they have in this particular case. Our goal is to see what we can do to help the

pensioners that are involved in this.

Again, as the honourable member knows, the decions around a pension plan -- the investments that are made, the process that is followed -- are up to the board

of trustees in this case. This is not a plan that has the benefits guaranteed, as the honourable member well knows. Today, he is sitting here expressing concerns about the status of pension plans

in general. Well, maybe that concern should have guided his government before they made decisions in the early 1990s to relax the rules around payments into pension funds. So here we are in a

situation where pension plans are having challenges because of the investment climate in meeting the commitments that they've made, and some of those challenges are attributable to the --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up. New question?

SARS

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. After the tragic events of Walkerton, a public inquiry was held in order

to find out what went wrong and to ensure that the tragedy would never happen again. As an outcome, Justice O'Connor's Walkerton report is a road map for quality drinking water in Ontario. With the

latest SARS outbreak, Ontarians and health care workers want to know what lessons would be learned to protect our health. The only way we can ensure that the tough questions are going to be asked,

including questions around government policy that may or may not have contributed to the spread or the late closure of SARS -- those questions simply won't be asked without a public inquiry.

For the last several weeks we've been asking you, Premier, for a public inquiry. Will you today stand in this House and tell us that you will call a public

inquiry into SARS?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm sure the honourable member was paying attention when I responded to the

leader of the third party a few moments ago as to what we are prepared to commit to and what everybody in the room, including the Ontario Nurses' Association and the Ontario College of Nurses,

agreed to this afternoon. Surely the honourable member is not going to play politics in the gutter with the lives of people in the province of Ontario.

Ms Pupatello: The questions that we have been asking have been tough questions, and it is hard for you to address these very difficult issues.

We're talking about the public health of Ontarians here. We want to know: did the government call off the dogs too soon on SARS? Those are tough questions -- questions you shouldn't be afraid to

ask. I believe, and my party believes, that a public inquiry is the only way to get people to come to the table and speak and tell people the truth. I believe that it's the way we can get to the

bottom of this. We can get to the bottom of how to prevent it in the future, how we can learn from this experience for the future.

Premier, it is perfectly reasonable for you to call a public inquiry. Do it in the name of the people who did die. Do it in the name of the health care workers

who are on the front line. We don't believe it's unreasonable. We've done it in this House before. We have come with unanimity to the agreement that the Walkerton report helped us for the future

regarding water. We are asking you reasonably. We are asking for a public inquiry into SARS.

Hon Mr Eves: We have committed, if she was listening to the response to the question asked by the leader of the third party, to a review,

which is going on in the health care system right now led by Dr Walker, and we have committed to an open and public look at what has happened and what could be done better as we go forward.

The representatives that I talked about earlier all agree that this is the correct approach. I don't know what more the honourable member wants. In fact, she

would do well to listen to her own leader, who on Thursday in a CFRB interview said, "I don't think there's a lot to be gained in finger-pointing in terms of what happened with the second

outbreak." I couldn't have said it better myself.

FEDERAL FIREARMS REGISTRY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Attorney General. One issue that my constituents often bring to my attention is the

federal Liberal long gun registry. For many years now, many complaints -- we hear them day after day, week after week -- have been levelled at this complicated, costly and ineffective registry.

This boondoggle registry is not an effective method of reducing gun-related crimes. Instead, it punishes and turns otherwise law-abiding hunters and farmers into criminals.

Could the Attorney General please inform this House and my constituents about what Ontario is doing to ensure that law-abiding hunters, farmers and other long

gun users are freed from unnecessary persecution.

Interjections.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Members opposite are showing how out of touch they are

with rural Ontario, with our hunters, with our gun club members and those kinds of people. This is still a very important issue to that constituent.

They laugh about a useless gun registry. They laugh about a billion dollars being wasted by our federal government when it could be spent on much better

matters.

Our government wants to get tough on criminals, we want to get tough on people who use guns illegally, but this gun registry has done nothing for law

enforcement or to take guns away from criminals. In fact, Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino has stated on the issue of street crime, "A law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes

nor helped us solve any of them."

Mr Dunlop: It is disappointing to see how much the Liberal opposition despises rural Ontario citizens.

Whenever one of my constituents raises this issue to me, the gun registry's cost is always a factor. Even Jean Charest's own Auditor General, Sheila Fraser,

has savaged Ottawa's cost, reckless spending and poor accounting practices. Allan Rock, the father of bill C-68, originally told Canadians that the long gun registry would cost only $2 million, if

you can believe that. Today, spending on this boondoggle has gone up to well over $1 billion and counting. It has been an unmitigated failure, and it represents a shining example of what is wrong

with the Liberals' policy and the Liberals' lack of accountability to the taxpayers of our country. Instead of wasting the money of hard-working Canadians on the black hole of bill C-68, could the

Attorney General please inform us what the federal Liberals should be doing to fight crime?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Sterling: They continue to laugh about a billion dollars wasted by our federal government on this issue of gun registry. Let's be clear

about where the Liberals stand. In October 1998, Mr McGuinty said to us, the Harris government at that time, "Be it resolved that the Harris government fully implement the federal gun registry law

in the province of Ontario." That's what the Liberals said. That was before the boondoggle. That was before we told the federal Liberals that this was going to be a boondoggle.

We believe that the federal gun registry is a waste of money, a waste of time, and an affront to law-abiding citizens who want to hunt and enjoy nature in this

beautiful province of ours. This government will not stand behind the registry.

Interjections.

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): My question is for the Premier. Would that you could work up some of this enthusiasm on behalf of the

69,000 children in Toronto Catholic schools.

Last week, Mr Premier, you said you were postponing an election in deference to the fact that 69,000 kids were out. Well, today is the 12th day of failure for

you -- the 12th day when you have not succeeded at restoring school to these 69,000 children, by your choice.

You know, Premier, that the bill we introduced would have put those kids back to work a week ago, and there isn't a single benefit to those children that

arises from hanging on till your bill can pass tomorrow.

Premier, I would like you to stand in this House today and explain to those children, to their parents, many of whom went to school today anticipating it

should have been there for them, why it is you have extended this lockout and why it is you're against a peaceful solution to get those kids back to their schools with some stability and goodwill

in their classroom.

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The honourable member and everybody on that side of the House could have

supported our bill 12 days ago and voted unanimously for second and third reading on the same day.

What is it about our bill you don't agree the teachers should be providing in the classroom?

Mr Kennedy: The Premier stands in his place unable to say one thing in his bill, not a single thing. Some of his members opposite have been

pretending that somehow it would end work-to-rule. Our bill would restore relations in schools and work-to-rule. Why won't you pass our bill?

A week ago you could have passed our bill and put kids back to school. Instead, Premier, you appeared in an expensive pre-election ad campaign about banning

strikes and lockouts. Instead, you brought in the first bill in this House to seek unanimous consent with a poison pill in it.

Premier, again, stand in this House and explain to the 69,000 children how it is that you've held them up, taken school away from them for an entire week, and

you haven't got one single benefit for those children when your bill passes tomorrow after 13 days that you took their school away from them.

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member knows full well that the teachers in the board he's talking about were locked out. He knows full well that

two weeks ago he could have had the courage to stand up in this House and vote for our bill -- but you didn't have the guts to do it, did you, Gerard?

Talk about playing politics with the issue: it took them a week to draft a new bill. What is it about this bill that we have that you disagree with? Do you

agree that teachers should fill out report cards? Do you agree that they should administer tests? Do you agree that they should be meeting with parents and teachers? Do you agree that they should

be participating in co-op education? Do you agree that they should be attending graduation ceremonies? If you do, vote for our bill; vote for it today. We can do it by unanimous consent.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Culture. Last year I recall your announcement with Premier Eves

that demonstrates this government's unparalleled commitment to cultural institutions in this great city of Toronto. In total, I recall that you committed $233 million for a number of institutions

around the city.

Minister, I understand that last Wednesday you and Premier Eves took

part in the official groundbreaking ceremony at the Royal Ontario Museum, which I believe

arguably is the most prestigious museum in the country, and that this museum received more than $30 million from the commitment that you made last year.

I know that ROM has undertaken a very elaborate capital project, funded in part by the Ontario government, and I understand that this is one of the many

cultural corridor projects that Premier Eves announced in the spring of 2002.

Minister, can you tell this House why this project is so important to cultural development in Ontario?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): I would like to thank the member for Scarborough

Centre for the question. I also want to compliment Her Honour Hilary Weston on her abilities with a backhoe, which was quite interesting.

At the groundbreaking, the CEO of the ROM, William Thorsell, spoke about the ROM being the promise of possibilities. I had to think to myself what that

actually meant. When I think about it, the Royal Ontario Museum is probably our most inclusive institution of diversity in this country, because no matter who you are or what your background is,

the ROM certainly has the ability to indicate something about your background. So what does this mean? I believe this celebration of diversity will certainly lead us to more understanding of all

our various and diverse cultures here in Ontario. This, in turn, results in a great degree of harmony within this province. This is important for many reasons, but the major reason is that the

Royal Ontario Museum is a vehicle of diversity, but also sets a tremendous aim and future for our youth.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that response, Minister. It sounds like we have a real treat in the new crystal design, which is something we can

look forward to. I'm sure the new wing will indeed be a stunning addition to the city, and I'm very excited about seeing its completion. In fact, I plan to watch its progress as I walk past the

building, which I often do, and on-line by way of a Web cam showing its up-to-date progress.

I know that government money alone is not enough to fund a large-scale capital project like this, and that it depends on the generosity of people like Mr

Lee-Chin, who recently made an incredibly generous $30-million donation to the museum. I also suspect there are a number of other individuals and corporations who have taken advantage of the

numerous giving opportunities associated with this project. What can you tell this House about some of the other donors, and how can people make a contribution to this wonderful project?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'd like to add my thanks to Mr Michael Lee-Chin for his contribution of $30 million to this very important project for the

city of Toronto's cultural institutions. I'd also like to applaud the Premier and his leadership in ensuring that the province also contributed $30 million to this project.

It's not simply a matter of the province and the big contributors -- and there are a lot of them. All three chairs of the museum -- Jack Cockwell, Jim Temerty

and Liza Samuel -- each gave $5 million. But it's also about the small gifts they've been receiving as well. I had an opportunity to speak to one of the volunteers who was recalling to me that when

he was 10 years old, his mother took him to the Royal Ontario Museum -- this was about 40 or 50 years ago, he said to me -- and since that point in time, he's been a volunteer and has been giving

to the museum. Here's an example of how any member of the public can give to the Royal Ontario Museum, which is a tremendous institution for all of us in this province, if not the country.

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier.

Interjection: Gone.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): If we could stop the clock.

Mr Hampton: If not, I'll ask the Minister of Energy.

The Speaker: Continue.

Mr Hampton: Minister, last Friday at 5:30 in the evening, after most of the press gallery had gone home, you issued an announcement that

you're going to hold a review of the financial and energy disaster at the Pickering nuclear station. People across Ontario wanted to see an independent, neutral and respected party conduct that

inquiry. They were hoping for the Provincial Auditor, who has already conducted a review of the Bruce nuclear station. Did they get the Provincial Auditor? No. What they got were three people who

are already associated with failures in the nuclear industry. This doesn't look like a review or an inquiry; this looks like a whitewash. Why wouldn't you appoint a respected, neutral third party

who already has some experience in this? Why did you appoint three people who are tied to previous nuclear failures?

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): I think it is regrettable that your leader, Ms Churley,

chooses to really slap down the credibility of three outstanding individuals.

I think anyone who has known Jake Epp, the former federal Minister of Energy, knows him to be someone of high honour and credibility.

Another member of the team served as secretary to cabinet in both the NDP and Liberal governments. Peter Barnes is a very well recognized and respected former

public servant in Ontario.

We also felt it was important to have someone with some nuclear experience. I think Dr Robin Jeffrey, who has a PhD in this field, will bring a lot of

experience from his role as chairman of Bruce Power, which has been an unqualified success. If you read the Toronto Star, it highlighted that success.

I find it regrettable that the member opposite makes this an issue of personality rather than the issue at hand.

Mr Hampton: Minister, Robin Jeffrey, one of the people you have appointed, presided over the debacle known as British Energy in Great Britain.

In fact, on Friday, November 22, 2002, the Edinburgh Evening News said, "Troubled British Energy Ditches Top Man in Shakeup." Who did they ditch? Robin Jeffrey. This is a company that had to borrow

$4 billion from the British government in order to stay afloat. You're going to appoint him to conduct an inquiry of Pickering.

Then there's Jake Epp. What is Jake Epp's history? Well, while he was Minister of Energy, he persuaded the then Liberal government in Ontario to pour several

million dollars into nuclear projects -- someone also tied to the nuclear industry.

Minister, this is a project that is $1.5 billion over budget. It's three years late. All kinds of people argue that there are serious management problems, if

not a financial scandal going on. Why wouldn't you appoint a neutral, independent, respected, experienced third party like the Provincial Auditor? Why did you go out and find two people who are

tied to the nuclear industry, who presided over --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the member's time is up.

Hon Mr Baird: It seems the leader of the third party says that someone with experience in nuclear technology or nuclear physics shouldn't be

involved in a review of a nuclear power plant. I find that of great interest.

I think we're very pleased with the Honourable Jake Epp, a well respected, well regarded person of outstanding character and judgment, who worked very well

with all three political parties during his tenure as Minister of Energy; as did Peter Barnes, someone who served all three parties in government very capably, someone of outstanding moral

character, a distinguished public servant in Ontario as well and recognized as such.

We felt it was important, as part of the review, to have someone with nuclear experience, and I think Dr Jeffrey certainly brought a wealth of experience as

chairman of Bruce Power in Ontario.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, I and many others long

suspected that your Smart Growth exercise has been about political cover and not about vision.

When you released your central Ontario strategy, you claimed that you were fully committed to implementing its recommendations. Weren't municipalities and

panel members alike shocked to see your government's Bill 25? Your own Smart Growth panel members, Mayor Rob MacIsaac of Burlington and Debbe Crandall, are both on record opposing this bill. Why?

Because Bill 25 drastically changes long-standing rights of municipalities to plan and manage community growth, including the right of appeal to the OMB. It also eliminates environmental assessment

in establishing major new highways. Maybe you can explain to me how you reconcile Bill 25 to your Smart Growth plan. The provisions of this bill repudiate your own so-called growth strategy and

your commitment to consultation. Does this mean, as I believe, that Smart Growth is a sham, or were you simply asleep at the switch when this bill came to cabinet?

Hon David Young (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for his thoughtful and respectful question, but I think it's

more appropriately directed to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to respond to the individual. I would strongly suggest, first of all, that the

member take the time to read the legislation. The legislation makes it very clear that in no way is the environmental assessment process interfered with through Bill 25. What it does is give a

long-term perspective to planning, which there hasn't been in this province for many years. That's what it does. What it does do is allow us to identify, for the first time in many years, where

potential corridors should go with regard to traffic in this province.

Any decisions that are made will, in fact, be subject to the environmental assessment process. Please tell your people that. Let's inform the people out there

that what this is about is smart growth, consistent with Smart Growth --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

Mr Caplan: I have read the minister's bill. Clearly, he hasn't. Subsection 2(5) of Bill 25 permits the Ministry of Transportation to designate

the location of highway corridors in complete isolation from other planning and environmental considerations. Read your own bill. All rights of municipalities and the public to participate in these

decisions under the Environmental Assessment Act are eliminated. Instead, under your bill it will be a Ministry of Transportation bureaucrat who will make these decisions for all of us. This is

completely outside your Smart Growth principles.

Debbe Crandall said that Bill 25 makes a farce of Smart Growth. Mayor Rob MacIsaac is challenging the bill with your environmental commissioner, alleging that

the posting of this bill by the Ministry of Transportation on your Environmental Bill of Rights registry is "highly misleading."

Admit that this part of the bill is a big mistake. Agree to do the right thing and withdraw Bill 25.

Hon Mr Klees: Either the member doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand, and insists on perpetuating facts that are simply untrue.

The fact of the matter is that this bill subjects itself fully to the environmental assessment process. Any recommendations, I might say to you, that would in fact be recommended, either by the

Ministry of Transportation or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, would take their lead from the Smart Growth planning process. It is not up to the Minister of Transportation to simply

make a designation.

What we are saying, and what the bill clearly states, is that any recommendations that are made would be subject to the environmental assessment process and, I

might say, the expropriation procedures in place in the province today.

Read the bill. We'll help you understand it. I will offer to provide the member, and any other members, an opportunity for a complete briefing on --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

WORKPLACE SAFETY FOR STUDENTS

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, the school year is ending. What are you doing to

protect young workers on the job this summer and throughout the year?

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I thank the honourable member for the question.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Do you have the answer right there?

Hon Mr Clark: Are you going to listen? It would be a first time.

As Minister of Labour, young worker health and safety is a priority for the ministry and for me personally. That's why we publicly challenge students,

employers and parents to make this summer an injury- and illness-free one. We're calling it the "Safe Summer Challenge for Young Workers."

Specifically, I say to the employers: make sure your workplace is as safe as it can be. You have that responsibility to provide appropriate training and

supervision for young workers.

To the parents: talk to your sons and daughters about safety on the job. Make sure they're getting the training that they require for the tasks that they

have.

To the young workers: check out our new Web site that is dedicated to Ontario's young workers -- www.worksmartontario. Remember the lessons that you learned in

the Live Safe! Work Smart! program that we introduced in the secondary school curriculum. Say no to unsafe work. It's your right. Do not do anything that you believe can put you in danger.

Mr Miller: Some people have recently suggested that there is no component for workplace safety in Ontario's secondary school curriculum. But I

know this is not the case because you've just mentioned the Live Safe! Work Smart! program that high school students have been receiving.

Can you tell me about your involvement with this program?

Hon Mr Clark: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. Again, it allows us to address this misconception.

Health and safety lessons are included throughout the high school curriculum. Students from grade 9 to grade 12 learn critical safety messages in science,

career studies, technology and five other subject areas. The Ministry of Labour, along with the Ministry of Education, created the Live Safe! Work Smart! program to provide health and safety

resources to all Ontario teachers to help make sure our students are safe on the job. The program is supported by Ford of Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers union. The goal of the program is to

encourage a feeling of empowerment among young workers to inspire them to understand and exercise their rights and responsibilities for workplace safety. Working together, we can achieve that goal

to ensure that all our young people come home safe after this summer.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Education. Your funding formula is geared toward larger

schools and larger classrooms. All the research shows that this is not better for children. Your appointed supervisor claims that by closing schools in Hamilton, he will be able to improve the

quality of education in the classroom. This isn't true. School closures are happening too quickly and are premature. Hamilton parents are concerned that the remaining schools will not be able to

accommodate the influx of students.

Your supervisor also believes that our schools are somehow disconnected from our communities. A good example is Woodward school in the north end. Minister, at

the very least, I ask you to visit this school and I know you will personally reverse the decision. They are at 105% capacity. Children from working class parents -- hard-working people -- go

Minister, do you agree with your supervisor when he says that the quality of life in our community is not his concern?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I think it's very important to keep in mind that school accommodation reviews

have always been the norm in this province. They occurred under Premier Peterson and under Premier Rae; they continue to this day. It has always been incumbent upon school trustees to do an

accommodation review to determine where new schools will be required, renovations required, additions required and, in other cases, where school closures are going to take place.

When they do so, they do so in consultation with the local community so that there can be ample input from the local community. I might let the member know

that school renewal and maintenance spending is up by $1.14 million this year. Obviously, the accommodation review that is taking place is taking place in a way that school accommodation reviews

have always occurred: in consultation with the community. Having said that, I can tell you that school closures are always difficult.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the same minister. Minister, your supervisor under your direction has basically ordered

a closure of 1,900 spaces in Hamilton. What you've done is you've ordered the closure of numerous schools. You don't get the difference between school closures because they're not in the best

educational interests of the kids and school closures because you've put a bounty on the heads of those kids.

You have said that for every one of those kids you displace, for every one of those 1,900 spaces, the board will get an additional $590. That is a bounty

you've put on the heads of those kids. What you're saying is that it doesn't matter if it's in the educational best interests of those kids; if you don't close those spaces, then you're not going

to get additional money. You're destroying communities, Minister. You're pitting community against community, neighbourhood against neighbourhood. Your formula is flawed. It doesn't work. It hurts

kids; it hurts neighbourhoods. You don't seem to get it. I challenge you to come to Woodward Avenue school and tell those parents, where it's at 105% capacity, that it's in their best interest to

close.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I understand full well that school closures are always difficult. I don't think there's ever been a school closure that hasn't

been difficult. But I would remind the members opposite that we have had school closures under Peterson, 1985-90, 184 schools; under the NDP, 1991-95, 134 schools.

I would just let you know that since 1998 to September 2003 -- this is with the new funding formula -- school boards will have built about 316 new schools,

undertaken over 291 additions or major renovations, and 200,000 new pupil spaces have been created since 1998. We've reduced portables --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

SPORTS FUNDING

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question today is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

Interjections.

Mr Johnson: For anybody that's interested, I can talk into this microphone, and the people watching TV will hear it, but nobody across the way

is paying any attention whatsoever.

My question today is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Honourable Brian Coburn. He represents Ottawa-Orléans. The good news about this is

that there's something good going on in the city of Hamilton. I'm surprised I haven't heard any more about it this afternoon, especially from the member for Hamilton Mountain, and that is that I've

heard a lot of rumours that Hamilton is vying for the Commonwealth Games in the year 2010.

Minister, my question is, knowing that our government has always been interested in sports -- very supportive and so on -- could you tell me what our

government is doing in support of giving the games bid --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid the member's time is up. Minister?

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I tell you, there's not too much that escapes the scrutiny of the hard-working member

from Perth-Middlesex.

You're absolutely right. There was good news in Hamilton this week: the bid for the Commonwealth 2010 Games. We have been solidly behind that from the get-go.

We provided $500,000 initially to help prepare the bid package. That culminated in an announcement last Monday in Hamilton, where I was joined by the Honourable Brad Clark and the Honourable Frank

Klees to announce $500 million in support of the Commonwealth Games. I want to also add the great work that Minister Klees, Minister Clark and my parliamentary assistant, Wayne Wettlaufer, have put

into this initiative. The funds announced cover infrastructure renewal and new infrastructure operating costs. That also goes toward promoting programs for amateur sport and the enhancement of

amateur sport here in Ontario.

Mr Johnson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. It's obvious that Hamilton is the only choice for 2010, and I look forward to seeing

athletes, not only from our home but overseas, competing in the great city of Hamilton.

The financial commitment from our government is great news for Ontario athletes. Could you tell me more about the other support the government is giving for

sports in this province?

Hon Mr Coburn: The Eves government is dedicated certainly to promoting leadership, commitment, dedication and teamwork in our province's

athletic sector to help create role models for Ontarians and all ages. Last year we committed about $148 million for sport and recreation in the province of Ontario. That's a huge investment for

our young athletes, through innovative programs like SuperBuild, culture and tourism programs, the foundation for athletes, and sport training programs. We've recently embarked on developing an

Ontario action plan as well, in concert with the federal government and our provincial counterparts right across the country. That helps create a comprehensive strategy for successful sport

development here in Ontario. We've also taken on managing the Ontario Games program. Our government certainly has always understood the importance of community sport, and we continues funding many

worthwhile community sport and recreation programs.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, once again under your government, people are

getting hit in the pocketbook and communities are being undermined.

Your hatchetman, Paul Christie, wants to charge parents for parking when they fill their vehicles with equipment and stay to watch their kids play baseball,

soccer or whatever on school grounds.

First you force the boards to charge much higher fees for community groups using our schools, and now you want to charge them for parking. What's next? A cover

charge to watch the games? What's worse: meanwhile, how much do MPPs pay for parking at Queen's Park? Zero. Zip.

Minister, this is wrong. We get free parking, yet your henchman is going to start charging parents to stay at their school grounds to watch their kids play.

Why don't you call your Conservative buddy and tell him to drop this community-killing fee today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): I can understand that the member is upset. In fact, I would say to the member

opposite, I was very surprised to read in the paper today that this decision had been made.

I have since had the opportunity to follow up to find out what's really going on as opposed to speculating on what's going on. I have learned that it's going

to be a pilot project in July and August at about 14 or 15 schools. It is intended for people who park there in order to commute and use public transportation. It's like a public parking lot, and

people who are using the school facilities will not be paying any parking fee. If it's determined in August that they won't continue, they won't continue. But I knew nothing about it until today

and I wanted some answers, and that's what I have learned.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I will seek unanimous consent to

move a motion respecting tomorrow's sitting time.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Stockwell: I move that notwithstanding standing order 9 and any other order of this House, the House may continue to meet beyond 6 pm

tomorrow in order that the Speaker may put the question on government motion number 28, standing in the name of Mr Eves, at 5:50 pm should that be called as the first order of the day, and that

immediately following that vote a new sessional day is deemed to have commenced and the order for second reading and, if necessary, third reading of Bill 28 may be called, and following the

disposition of Bill 28 the Speaker shall adjourn the House until Wednesday at 1:30 of the clock.

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

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Health Canada approved Visudyne on June 1, 2000, as therapy for the treatment of the wet form of age-related macular degeneration; and

"Whereas clinical trials have demonstrated that this treatment safely and effectively stabilizes vision loss in 67% of patients and improves visual acuity in

13% of patients; and

"Whereas patients requiring therapy using Visudyne face a cost of $1,750 for the drug and $750 for the clinician procedural fees each time therapy is

administered, and to complete a full therapy cycle, a patient would be required to pay $15,000 to preserve his or her sight; and

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Health in May 2002 announced Visudyne funding criteria that is not retroactive to June 1, 2000 and effectively excludes 80% to

90% of all eligible patients who suffer from macular degeneration;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario Ministry of Health immediately change its unfair restrictions on macular degeneration patients and reimburse those patients

who have used their own financial resources to receive this vital treatment."

I affix my signature. I am in complete agreement.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in Ontario, adopted adults are denied a right available to all non-adoptees, that is, the unrestricted right to identifying information concerning

their family of origin;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

"Whereas these rights are denied to persons affected by the secrecy provisions in the adoption sections of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts of

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas research in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that disclosure does not cause harm, that access to such information is beneficial to adult adoptees,

adoptive parents and birth parents; and that birth parents rarely requested or were promised anonymity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"Permit adult adoptees unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information;

"Permit birth parents, grandparents and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate when the adopted person reaches age 18;

"Permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children;

"Allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file a contact veto restricting contact by the searching party; and

"Replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

Of course, I will affix my signature to this petition.

ITER FUSION PROJECT

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed ITER fusion research facility would result in 68,000 person-years of employment and an estimated $9.4 billion in foreign investment;

"Whereas ITER would bring international scientists and researchers to Canada and place our nation in the forefront of new developments in research and

technology;

"Whereas ITER is strongly supported by business, labour, educators, elected officials and citizens throughout Durham region, the host community;

"Whereas the province of Ontario has already recognized the economic importance of ITER to Canada and the world by committing $300 million to support the

Canadian ITER bid;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: that the Parliament of Ontario take the necessary steps

to strengthen the Canadian bid for the ITER research facility, including the commitment of more funds and other resources to support a successful Canadian bid; and that the province of Ontario ask

the federal government to show the leadership and commitment necessary for Canada to win the ITER bid."

I present and sign this in support of my constituents and their request.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario proposes to pass legislation known as the Smart Transportation Act (Bill 25) and this legislation will, if brought into

force, have the following ... detrimental effects on the environment and the citizenry of ... Ontario: removal of important environmental safeguards currently in place during the planning and/or

construction of major infrastructure projects such as new highways, removal of the democratic rights of Ontario citizens to participate in hearings and other meaningful consultation during the

planning and/or construction of major infrastructure projects, removal of current rights of municipalities to control their land use planning and to have access to remedies when those rights are

infringed during the planning and/or construction of major infrastructure projects such as new highways;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly shall use its powers to ensure that the Smart Transportation Act (Bill 25) is not passed and is not brought into force."

I'm pleased to give this to our wonderful page from the great riding of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, Kaitlynn-Rae.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I've brought to this Legislature over 5,000 signatures from my constituents who have signed the

following:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Clean Harbors, the former Safety-Kleen, is trucking in highly toxic sludge from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Ontario;

"Whereas the Clean Harbors, formerly Safety-Kleen, hazardous landfill and incinerator is the only facility on the North American continent that has a permit to

landfill untreated hazardous waste;

"Whereas Ontario has become the dumping ground and haven for toxic hazardous waste;

"Whereas it is not in the best interest of the people of Ontario to import hazardous waste; and

"Whereas this Clean Harbors site near Brigden will have long-term consequences to the environment, to human health and eventually contaminate the

groundwater;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to stop the landfilling and disposing of untreated hazardous waste in Ontario and stop the shipment to

Ontario from the Domtar tank in Sydney, Nova Scotia."

I affix my signature to this petition.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's very short. It says:

"Whereas Bill 25 eliminates the Environmental Assessment Act provisions from new highway planning, freezes property rights along new highway corridors, and

enables the Minister of Transportation to override local municipal plans and zoning;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly shall use its powers to ensure that municipalities and landowners continue to have the power under the Environmental Assessment

Act to participate in -- and challenge -- economic, planning or social impacts used in planning new highways or transportation corridors, and that the evaluation of air and water quality, toxic

runoff and increased congestion impacts continue to be assessed, and that Bill 25, as presented to the Legislature, and as a matter of public urgency, be defeated."

This petition is signed by Barbara Sullivan of Campbellville. I wholeheartedly agree with it, and I too have affixed my signature.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has designated certain routes for a proposed mid-peninsula highway, and the major proposed route would cut a swath

through the Niagara Escarpment, a UN-designated biosphere reserve;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly shall use its powers to ensure that there are no new cuts through the Niagara Escarpment to create a new highway, and that the

Niagara Escarpment will be protected, as envisioned in the Niagara Escarpment plan, for current and future generations."

I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has mismanaged the electricity policy of the province of Ontario;

"Whereas last fall the McGuinty Liberal call for rebates, although fiercely rejected by the government, gained huge public support. With no options open, the

government introduced and passed a plan to rebate $75 to customers and place a cap on electricity commodity prices at .043 per kilowatt hour;

"Whereas Mike Brown, MPP, has been fighting for rural rate assistance;

"Whereas the Ernie Eves government forces Great Lakes Power customers to pay into a fund for rural rate assistance; and

"Whereas rural rate assistance would reduce the distribution bills for customers by hundreds of dollars each year;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, support the efforts of Mike Brown, MPP, to have the rural rate assistance program extended to the Great Lakes Power service

area immediately."

These petitions are signed by hundreds of my constituents, mostly from the Wawa area.

EDUCATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government has spent over $385 million to fire teachers and education workers in our public school system;

"Whereas there are 26% fewer teacher-librarians and 22% fewer physical education teachers in our schools today than there were in 1997;

"Whereas the Eves government diverted over $100 million in federal transfers for early childhood development into tax cuts for corporations and slashed all new

grants for child care spaces;

"Whereas there are almost 40,000 students with learning difficulties waiting to be assessed by a professional;

"Whereas a study by the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto says that `teachers are demoralized, student achievement has

stalled, and school and school districts report great difficulty in meeting local needs';

"We, the undersigned, call on the Eves government to return peace to our public school system and return $1.6 billion in essential services that has been

removed from the public education system and used to pay for misguided corporate tax cuts and partisan government advertising campaigns."

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed in this petition.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): I have a petition entitled "Fair Rent Increases Now." I want to thank Joyce Richardson and all the

residents who signed these and submitted them to me.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the number of tenants receiving above-guideline" rent "increases is growing exponentially, and;

"Whereas many of these increases are for increases in utility costs, many of which have gone down since; and

"Whereas tenants should not have to pay for improvements forever, even when the costs have been realized by these rent increases; and

"Whereas the Tenant Protection Act does not give a tenant relief due to the costs being realized or a drop in utility costs; and

"Whereas tenants should not be receiving rent increases where there are work orders issued for the building;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to immediately pass MPP David Caplan's Bill 134 entitled the Fair Rent

Increases Act at the earliest possible opportunity so that tenants can get relief from above-guideline" rent "increases once the bills have been paid."

I'm in complete agreement with this petition, and I have affixed my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'd like to thank Andrew Baird of Bruce Bay Road in Bruce Mines for assembling these petitions and

sending them to us.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Highway 17, known as the Trans-Canada Highway, between Ripple Rock on the west and Mink Point Road on the east in the township of Johnson, is unsafe,

particularly in light of the fact that school buses enter and exit on to this stretch of the road to serve a secondary school of 650 students and an elementary school of 150 students; and

"Whereas there have been several accidents, the latest of which resulted in the fatality of a 16-year-old male;

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

"That the Ministry of Transportation do immediately make changes to the signage, speed limit, width of lane and/or install caution lights in order to make this

section of this highway safer for our students as well as for all travellers on this

section of the highway."

I agree with this petition. Many of my constituents, from Thessalon, Desbarats, Echo Bay, even Richards Landing and many places on St Joseph Island, have

signed this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This is a petition that arrived some time ago, but I feel

I should read it into the record.

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% or $7.02 per diem

effective August 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the increase in the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term-care services this year is less than $2 per resident per day;

and

"Whereas according to the government's own funded study, Ontario ranks" dead "last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a

resident for nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for Ontario's

long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan" way back "in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

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

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce his 15% fee increase on seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities and increase provincial government

support for nursing and personal care to adequate levels."

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by the folks who signed this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order

Education Act and the Provincial Schools Negotiations Act, when Bill 28 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage

of the bill without further debate or amendment, at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may then be immediately called; and

That, when the order for third reading is called, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or

amendment; and

That no deferral of the second and third reading votes pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Clark has moved government notice of motion 29.

Debate?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I know my critic for education will be here soon and he will be speaking and putting some good

lights to this bill itself.

I listened very carefully as the member put forward this closure motion. It is becoming quite a habit for this government to put closure, shutting down

democracy itself. It's common for this government to do so. I'm going to ask my colleagues to add to all this as I go along.

I want to emphasize to the people outside that we have now ceased to talk about the motion before us, Bill 28. The government has now locked the students out

from going to school -- as a matter of fact poisoning the environment, and even inviting the students to go back to school without any teachers, who have been locked out. Therefore, eventually,

they have locked those students out of school.

In all this time allocation time, we could have had this bill in place for a long time if only the government had put the Liberal bill in place, which is a

very clean bill that would not in any way have played any kind of politics in all of this. It's very regrettable.

What I feel about education is that it is a very strong cultural subject. It's a subject about our people, our expression and our education. This government

has now played so much politics in all of this that we find ourselves again in this mess that this government has put us in. Because of the politics this government has played for all this time,

since they have taken charge, we now find ourselves debating about time allocation.

I think it was last September when the Toronto Catholic school board was negotiating its contract, and nothing was done then. At long last, here we are in May

-- as a matter of fact, in June -- eight days into the negotiations, and what has this government done? The school board decided, after eight days of talking, to lock those teachers out, eventually

locking the students out, they, in turn, losing their time of education. It is regrettable. It is regrettable that the poisoned atmosphere this government has brought to education has now caused

these students to almost lose their year.

I have heard many members on the other side talk about putting students first, and that is far from the truth. If this government was serious about putting

students first, they would not have locked 69,000 students out of the schools. I know the parents today are pretty upset about that. If you speak to the teachers, they want to be in the classroom.

They want to be with their students. They have known those students over the years and they know their dreams and aspirations. They have worked with them. This board, working along with the

government, which supported them very strongly, has now locked those students out.

I am very disturbed about this. In the area I represent, Scarborough-Rouge River, I know that these parents are wondering now if these opportunities are lost

to their children. Will they be able to regain that momentum, that relationship they have with their teachers? Will that relationship they have with education, their love for books and all that --

many of them will be turned off. I think it's about time this government stopped that game of poisoning the atmosphere of the educational field so that people and children can have a better

education. It is pathetic.

But as I always said, when democracy has been manipulated in the way this government has, the hope we have is that when an election is called, the people out

there would have the right sense about them -- which I know they do, because the people are always right -- to elect not to replace this controversial, poisonous atmosphere that this government has

put forward, and select a government like Dalton McGuinty's, which has put forward a very constructive way to have a better environment for education. I am confident that when the time comes for an

election, when we start to educate our children in our society, we will have a better society and not the angry environment that this government has done.

I am so scared about what I see in the government's plan, The Road Ahead. The road ahead for students, the road ahead for faculty, the road ahead for the

education system is full of potholes, bumps and bad turns, and if we continue in this respect, we will have a bad economy and people all fighting each other.

I want in my time here just to emphasize the fact that if we can vote today, ask and call the motion that we put forward -- Dalton McGuinty and Gerrard Kennedy

have advocated so strongly an environment in which we can have good education -- we could be there today. We would have been there eight days ago and the children would be back in school, but this

government seemed not to have done that. I just want to make my contribution in that respect and say how upset I am that now we have come back again to close the motion, to a shutdown of democracy,

which is a part of this government all the way, to make sure that we are unable to express our views in regard to the way in which they are going.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre): I want to take a moment to discuss this ongoing labour dispute affecting the Catholic elementary school

teachers and students of Toronto. As you know, approximately 69,000 students are out on the street. Instead of being in class and learning, they and their parents are helpless pawns in a struggle

between the teachers' union and the school board.

We have introduced legislation that, if passed, would allow the teachers to go back to the classroom, legislation that encourages the teachers' union and the

board to get back to the bargaining table.

This act that we've had the allocation motion for represents the decisive action the Ernie Eves government is taking to ensure students are able to complete

their studies without the threat of school year disruptions because of strikes, those hideous lockouts or so-called work-to-rule campaigns. We all know that a lost day of instruction is a lost

opportunity for success.

Many people are concerned about this current labour dispute, most notably parents. They want to know that their children are getting the best education

available. They want to see report cards and test results. They want to be assured that if their children need extra help in a subject, it will be available to them. They want to see their tax

dollars pay for education, not for a power struggle between the teachers' union and the school board. But most importantly, they see their children's futures at risk.

This government is not prepared to sit idly by while these children, these students are left out on the street. That is why we have taken action and introduced

the bill and, as well, this time allocation motion to put this bill through.

If passed, this bill would put an end to the practice of using students and their parents as bargaining chips in contract negotiations. It protects students

and their opportunity to learn and succeed. The Eves government has taken action to bring labour stability to Ontario's schools by implementing these particular phrases.

We've already invested almost $700 million to provide 6% increases to teachers' salary benchmarks. Clearly, then, the problem is not solved by throwing money

at it. The problem needs strong and decisive action. That's what we are doing.

The Eves government believes that strikes, lockouts and work-to-rule campaigns in schools, even for one day, have a detrimental effect on students, their

parents and the broader community. McGuinty and his Liberals would rather bow to union pressure than make the decisions necessary to put the children and their families first.

Let's get the students of the Toronto Catholic District School Board back in school while the board and the union work to resolve their differences without

affecting the classroom. Let's put the students of Ontario above the disputes between the adults. Let's work together to get these students back in the classroom.

This government takes the education of children very seriously. The members on this side of the House take the education of our children seriously. We know

that teachers are dedicated professionals who want to be in their classrooms, teaching. My wife has been a high school teacher for 29 years. I myself have spent 12 years at the front of the

classroom, teaching. We do not want to be on strike. We do not want actions that we know are detrimental to the education and safety of our students.