Hansard Transcripts 2006-May-16 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I rise to pay tribute to the First Ballantrae Scouts, who are celebrating their 50th anniversary today. The benefits to our communities from scouting organizations are immeasurable. Scouting fosters the values of honesty, integrity and volunteerism, and provides our young people with the opportunity to develop unique skills and values which will last them a lifetime. Scouting is based on three principles: duty to God, duty to others and duty to self.

On this occasion, I want to give special recognition to the leaders and volunteers of the Ballantrae scouting groups, past and present, who make the experience of scouting possible for the youth of the Whitchurch-Stouffville community. I ask all members of the Legislature to join me in recognizing the First Ballantrae Scouts, Cubs and Beavers, and the men and women who volunteer their time to make a positive difference in the lives of our young people.

Joining us today in the gallery representing the First Ballantrae Scouts are leaders David Martineau, Ian Rock, Doug McDougall, Suzanne McDougall, Mike Cataliano and Tim Neuman; also Scouts Hunter Strupp, Sam Hayter, Jack Tanaby Holder, Chris McMahon, Brayden Cocomello and Eddie Ameland; Cubs Brandon Martineau, Spencer Hartwick and Tyler Harwick; Beavers Calum Rock and Sam Cataliano; and last but not least, Brownie Haley Cataliano. They are joined by councillor Phil Bannon from the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville.

Please welcome them, and on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, happy 50th anniversary.

BUCHANAN PARK SCHOOL
OPERA CLUB

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I recently attended the most amazing event in my riding. I had the privilege of attending the opera of Romeo and Juliet put on by Hamilton students of Buchanan Park School. This production was hugely impressive, with all the students from grade 1 through grade 6 involved. Every scene demonstrated gorgeous, colourful costumes, musical talent, artistic sets, amazing staging, with pride in these young actors and actresses. Their eyes were just sparkling. As I sat in awe of all these wonderfully dedicated students from all walks of life, my mind wandered to all the work and time that must have been put in by parents, teachers, sponsors, volunteers and the students themselves.

Did you know that Buchanan Park Public School is the only school in Ontario that has an opera club? Since 1995, this opera club has assembled together all students and they run the show. From the technical crew, the dancers, the chorus to the lead parts, every student gets involved with the production. Huge credit goes to Dawn Martens, artistic director; maestro David Fawcett; and Mrs. O'Grady, principal, for this initiative. Thank you to John Fanning, the celebrated tenor, for his guest appearance as a green dinosaur, and a special thank you to Julia Page as Juliet and William Mastromattei as Romeo.

An added bonus was that they earned $22,282 in support of McMaster University's children's cancer and leukemia research fund for the children's hospital at Hamilton Health Sciences. Bravo to all.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House in response to a report on the CBC national news last night regarding medications given to a child identified only as J. J. was under the care of the Durham Children's Aid Society. I must comment that we respect the sensitivity of this issue. I am confident the Minister of Children and Youth Services will be following up on the many issues raised over the prescription of psychotropic medications to children in the care of the children's aid society.

Recently, I met with James Dubray, executive director of Durham Children's Aid, and Dennis Norton, president of the board. We discussed various oversight issues at the time, which was Bill 83 and Bill 210, including the suggestion that the Ontario Ombudsman have the power to review CAS complaints and services issues.

Last night's CBC report said the provincial government has the authority to establish an independent board to investigate and review cases like J.'s. It is my understanding that under the Child and Family Services Act the Professional Advisory Board can recommend that medications be adjusted, reduced or even stopped. However, the decision to establish the board rests with the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

I urge the minister to take a look and take action to establish a board that can provide advice on prescribing procedures, review practices and procedures of services provided, and respond to requests from the public for further investigation. I intend to work with you respectfully, but we must do everything to protect children in our care.

JUDITH LEON

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise today to pay tribute to Judith Leon. She has announced her retirement. People from the Beaches-East York community will know her as an absolute pillar.

She is best known for her work in Neighbourhood Link/Senior Link. Since 1975, with the founding of that organization -- and she was there -- it has grown from a very small organization to help seniors into what is today a multi-service agency that provides housing, employment, immigration, youth and senior services. Today, from that very small beginning, there are 500 volunteers and 160 staff. The motto of the agency is to promote independence, dignity and community.

Ms. Leon and the agency were most recently involved in the funding and start of a new hard-to-house seniors building at 2802 Danforth Avenue. After more than 30 years, Ms. Leon will be retiring to the country of her birth, Great Britain. Many friends, workers and the thousands of people she has helped are invited to join her on Wednesday, May 24, from 4 to 7 at the Balmy Beach Club at the foot of Willow Avenue in the Beach. We are going to be there to pay tribute to this wonderful woman and to the magnificent work she has done for all of our community for more than 30 years. I hope to see everyone there.

1340

BRUCE POWER SUPPORT CENTRE

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to attend Bruce Power's fifth-year anniversary and grand opening of their new office facility, the Bruce Power Support Centre. This marks a long-term commitment to the site and to the community, and allows for the majority of support staff to be together in one location.

Bruce Power provides thousands of jobs in the community and surrounding areas and is a huge economic driver. This new building alone will hold approximately 1,100 people. Bruce Power is well respected throughout the community for their continued involvement and active support of different initiatives. The Lieutenant Governor was also present to help celebrate this great event. Bruce Power was a major contributor to the Lieutenant Governor's book drive for native children.

I would like to say congratulations to Bruce Power on everything they have achieved thus far. I wish them all the best for the future and continued success in the riding of Huron-Bruce.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): This afternoon we will be debating an opposition day motion on tourism. During the course of that debate, our party will address the US-led passport issue, which is of serious concern to all of us. In response, I hope we can expect something better from the McGuinty Liberals than their line of late, which is to assign blame to Stephen Harper for this problem. How can this government claim that they want to work with other governments across Canada and on an international stage when they bash and blame their own national government for the problem they claim they want to solve?

Let's accept their premise for just a moment. If it is all the federal government's fault that the passport issue is looming on the horizon, then where was the federal Liberal government on September 23, 2004, when the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was introduced in the US Senate? Where were the Paul Martin Liberals when this bill was being debated and when it was passed by the Senate on October 6, 2004? Where were the federal Liberals when it was being debated in the House of Representatives and passed that same month? Where were they when the Senate and the House were discussing the bill in conference? Where were they on December 17, 2004, when the bill, having been passed by Congress, was signed by the President?

Why didn't Prime Minister Martin forcefully defend Canada's tourism interests when he met with the US President on November 30 and December 1, 2004, before the American security bill was law? And why didn't he push for a Canadian exemption when he met with the President on two subsequent occasions?

In the course of this afternoon's debate, let us hear the Minister of Tourism address these issues and answer these questions, and if he won't, he should stop pointing fingers to deflect attention away from his own government's lack of support for tourism.

PETERBOROUGH PETES

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I am very pleased to be able to speak to the House today to congratulate this year's Ontario Hockey League champions, the Peterborough Petes. Under the direction of president Dr. Bob Neville, general manager Jeff Twohey and coach Dick Todd, the Peterborough Petes capped an already tremendous season by winning the prestigious J. Ross Robertson Cup.

Peterborough is steeped in rich hockey tradition, and the 2006 Petes have just added to this glorious history. Our hometown heroes have recently celebrated their 50th anniversary, and will soon add a ninth Ontario Hockey League championship banner to the Memorial Centre rafters.

The Petes won the championship in record fashion, going a perfect 10 and 0 at the Memorial Centre and posting the best record in franchise history at 16 and 3. As well, they were a perfect 8 and 0 in overtime.

Since their inaugural season in 1956, the Petes have developed a long list of representatives in the National Hockey League: Bob Gainey, Steve Larmer, Cory Stillman, Mike Ricci, Larry Murphy and Doug Jarvis, and coaches Scotty Bowman and the late Roger Neilson. Our current coach, Dick Todd, coached the Petes from 1980 to 1993, and then was an assistant coach with the National Hockey League's New York Rangers from 1993 to 1998. He has since returned to Peterborough.

The Petes will now represent Ontario and head to the Memorial Cup in Moncton, New Brunswick, where they will play the Vancouver Giants, the Moncton Wildcats, and the Québec Remparts this Friday night.

Congratulations to the 2006 Peterborough Petes and good luck in Moncton. As we say in Peterborough, "Go, Petes, go."

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): This past weekend, my colleague Deb Matthews and I had the privilege to shadow a critical care nurse practitioner in the cardiac surgery recovery unit at University Hospital in London.

Nurse practitioners in critical care work in the hospital's intensive care unit with adult patients who are suffering from a life-threatening trauma or illness. They work collaboratively with others in the health care system to assess and plan the care of patients. They have many responsibilities, including ordering drugs, ordering and interpreting tests, performing complex procedures and providing support to patients' families. Many nurse practitioners are also involved in research and education. Nurse practitioners streamline the patient care process and enhance quality of care, lower total hospital costs and increase satisfaction of staff, physicians, patients and their families.

I would like to thank University Hospital in London and especially the incredible nurse practitioner we shadowed, who provided us with a greater understanding of the important work that nurse practitioners do in Ontario.

The McGuinty government understands just how critical nurse practitioners are to the health care system in Ontario. I am proud to be part of a government that has recently announced the Grow Your Own Nurse Practitioner initiative, which will attract additional nurses to nurse practitioner education and practice, and has also announced an expansion of the number of nurse practitioner education seats beginning this September.

RIDING OF PARKDALE−HIGH PARK

Mr. Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It is a great pleasure to rise in my place today as the representative of the people of Parkdale−High Park to say thanks to the organizations and people who make up Parkdale-High Park. It is an area with strong community organizations such as St. Joseph's Hospital, which recently received approval from the McGuinty government for a $70-million expansion, reflecting as well, though, community support that has come forward for it and other community-based organizations. It is providing tremendous health care in the south end of the riding in terms of the southwest part of Toronto in total.

I also want to pay testament to individuals in the riding, to people who in different parts of the riding have had a tremendous struggle and have taught me everything there is to know about perseverance under difficult circumstances. Last year, 9,000 people were helped by my constituency office: 1,000 in terms of cases, 1,500 who dropped in and people who reached us by phone, and thousands more who came to committee council meetings, which I held every month or every six weeks within our riding. This is a part of Ontario that knows how to be determined and knows how to get things done.

Our relationship with Parkdale-High Park began in opposition. They chose the McGuinty Liberals because they relate to getting results, they relate to having concern for diversity and for the widest interests of Ontario. That relationship began in part as York South 10 years ago, and the rest of it seven years ago as Parkdale−High Park. That relationship with the McGuinty Liberals will continue for many years to come.

VISITORS

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to welcome Philippe Stanier's family. Philippe Stanier is one of our outstanding pages, and in the west gallery are his father, Michael, his mother, Andgelina, his brother, Gabriel, his sister, Olivia, and his very proud grandmother, Helen Borovic. Welcome.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd also like to welcome some folks here today from the beautiful town of Penetanguishene: David Dupuis, Peter Homeniuk, Yvon Gagne and Paul Daoust, and they are accompanied today by Alex Roman. Welcome everyone.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to welcome my cousin, who came to watch the democratic process in this place. His name is Tarek Ashmar.

1350

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT
(WASTE MANAGEMENT), 2006 /
LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR
LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (GESTION DES DÉCHETS)

Mr. Chudleigh moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 114, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act to protect the Halton waste disposal site / Projet de loi 114, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement afin de protéger le lieu d'élimination des déchets de Halton.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): With that overwhelming support, I'm tempted to move first and second, but I'll go with my preamble first.

The regional municipality of Halton fought a bitter and expensive battle to create its own waste disposal site over 15 years ago, with costs borne by the residents. All other Ontario municipalities refused to enter into reciprocal agreements with the regional municipality of Halton when it required landfill capacity to bridge the time between closing its former waste disposal site and opening its current site.

Other Ontario municipalities have not taken the responsibility for their own landfill requirements. That abrogation of responsibility could cost the taxpayers of the region of Halton. It is not equitable to impose costs of that kind on any municipality without its consent. Essentially, that is what my bill does: It protects Halton taxpayers.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that not withstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members' public business: Mr. Dunlop and Ms. Scott exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Dunlop assumes ballot item 62 and Ms. Scott assumes ballot item 40; and that pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 40.

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

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that the following substitution be made to the membership of a committee: On the standing committee on general government, Mr. Tabuns replace Ms. Horwath.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley has moved government notice of motion 141. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1354 to 1359.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Tabuns, Peter

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51; the nays are 23.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to introduce in our east gallery today a grade 10 class from Thomas A. Stewart Secondary School in Peterborough, Ontario -- they're great Petes fans -- under the direction of Mr. Gary Fenn, their teacher. Please welcome them to Queen's Park.

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is my honour and pleasure to introduce the parents of our page Vanessa Sidwell, who are here with us today from the super riding of Eglinton-Lawrence. They are Paul and Suzanne Sidwell. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

YOUTH SERVICES

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): Our government has confidence in our youth -- all of our youth. That's why we are committed to providing support and improving opportunities for young people, including those at risk of engaging in violent behaviour or already in conflict with the law. We recognize that to give our youth every opportunity to succeed, we need to ensure they have the resources and opportunities they need to help them cope, and indeed excel, even in the face of adversity and significant challenges. This is what we have been hearing from educators, organizations that work with youth and young people themselves.

Unfortunately, in the Ministry of Children and Youth Services we too often see the negative outcomes that youth experience when the support they need to overcome the significant challenges that they face every day is simply not available to them. We also realize that these negative outcomes can affect not only the youth, not only their families, but also their peers and the communities where they live.

Earlier today, I was pleased to join the African Canadian Legal Clinic in launching a new program for youth in conflict with the law. Developed through a partnership between the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and the African Canadian Legal Clinic, the African Canadian youth justice program is an innovative program that will help young people who have come into conflict with the law choose better paths and experience better outcomes. The Ontario government is investing more than $600,000 in this project's first year.

Under the new program, which will operate out of four youth court locations -- in downtown Toronto, Scarborough, North York and Brampton -- youth will be provided with appropriate community-based, culturally sensitive services and referrals. This is one of the many ways our government is giving our youth the opportunity to choose better paths.

A month or so ago, I announced that our government is providing $9.5 million, up from $7.5 million last year, to establish and support 27 youth intervention centres across the province, and $12.5 million to support other community programs for young people in conflict with the law. Our government is also investing $28.5 million in the first three years of a new youth opportunities strategy, to expand employment and training programs and support the hiring of new outreach workers in at-risk communities across the province.

When we support and guide our youth so they can rise above the challenges many face every day, we help them to believe in themselves and, in turn, we create a brighter future for all of us.

POLICE WEEK

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I rise today to help pay tribute to the men and women who keep Ontarians safe. This homage is tinted with profound sadness as we have learned of the death, while on duty, of Senior Constable Don Doucet of the Sault Ste. Marie police. The 12-year veteran member of the police service died as a result of a serious collision between his patrol vehicle and another car. To his family, friends and colleagues, we convey our profound condolences. This tragic event underlies the heartfelt gratitude all Ontarians express towards police officers.

Sunday marked the beginning of Police Week in Ontario. This year's theme is Safer Communities: Police and Communities Working Together. I was pleased to join members of the Toronto Police Service and its community partners yesterday to launch this significant week. Police officers play an important role in our communities by protecting us, so it is only fitting that we take a minute to recognize them.

The recent tragic deaths of senior constables John Atkinson of the Windsor police and Don Doucet of Sault Ste. Marie remind us once again of the valour of those who choose this profession. They paid the ultimate price because they believed it was their duty to protect their neighbours and their communities.

Police Week helps us acknowledge the great debt owed to senior constables Atkinson and Doucet and to the thousands of other police officers who put their lives on the line every time they report for duty. We also remember Ontario Police Constable Andrew Potts, whose name was added to the Ontario Police Memorial on May 7. The Premier and I were honoured to join the Lieutenant Governor and hundreds of police officers from across the country to pay tribute to these fallen heroes. The officers whose names are inscribed on the memorial have made the ultimate sacrifice. To them, their families and to the thousands of police officers who patrol our streets every day, we extend our sincerest thanks and appreciation. They do keep our families safe.

The McGuinty government is on the side of the police, and on the side of Ontario families concerned about crime and safety. We've made the reporting of gunshot wounds mandatory and are putting 1,000 new police officers on Ontario streets. Our government is also doing its part to promote partnerships between police and communities by giving police the tools and resources they need to do their jobs and to make our communities safer. That's why we're investing $51 million in new initiatives to get criminals with guns off the street, including increasing the number of police and prosecutors assigned to the Toronto guns and gangs operation centre.

We're building a stronger, safer community by creating opportunity for every Ontarian. It's about making sure that everyone has a fair chance for success. That can happen only if Ontarians are and feel safe. That's why we're investing in our greatest asset, the people of Ontario, and it's why we're investing in the safety of the communities where Ontarians work, learn, grow and raise their families.

Our government also recognizes that part of ensuring a prosperous future for this province is making sure that the sons and daughters of the parents in our communities have a bright future. That's why our government launched the youth challenge fund, which will provide $30 million for community-led programs targeted to young people in the GTA. We also announced the $28-million youth opportunities strategy to help offer positive alternatives to a life of crime to young Ontarians. And just a few weeks ago, Premier McGuinty announced a new $3-million program to offer kids positive alternatives to guns and gangs.

1410

It's important to talk about these initiatives because Police Week showcases the joint efforts of police and communities. These partnerships are the key to ensuring the success of these crime prevention programs that help make our province safer.

The McGuinty government is focusing the fight against crime in six key areas: guns and gangs; organized crime, specifically marijuana grow ops; dangerous offenders; youth crime; domestic violence; and Internet luring and child pornography.

Our government's Safer Communities -- 1,000 Officers Partnership program is allowing police services to devote more resources to the fight against crime. We are providing more than $37 million every year in perpetuity as an investment in crime prevention and law enforcement through this program. In fact, we're accelerating the implementation of the Safer Communities -- 1,000 Officers Partnership program by providing an additional $14 million in funding in 2006-07. So if police services want to hire their allocation this year, they will be able to do so.

I'm glad to say that over 790 officers have already been hired, of which 390 are already on duty across the province and 400 are currently training at the Ontario Police College. I was pleased to join the Premier earlier this month at the graduation ceremony of the newest class of police officers of the Toronto Police Service. Fifty-three of the new 141 police officers were hired under our government's Safer Communities -- 1,000 Officers Partnership program. They now join 46 recently graduated officers, who were also part of the program and are now patrolling Toronto's streets.

These 1,000 new officers will play a key role in helping make Ontario safer. Half of them will be assigned to community policing duties, including school visits, crime prevention and traffic enforcement. The other 500 will be assigned duties in the fight against crime in the six priority areas I mentioned earlier, including approximately 209 to fight youth crime and guns and gangs. This program means more police officers patrolling our streets and it means more officers dedicated to the fight against guns and gangs that's so important here in Toronto.

Together with our commitment to fund the previous government's program, we are now investing an unprecedented $67.1 million for 2,000 new officers every year, in perpetuity. It's only by working together, though, that the fight against crime will be successful. Police can't do it alone. We all have a role to play. Police Week is an excellent opportunity for Ontarians to see for themselves the way police work to protect them.

I join thousands of Ontarians who will express their gratitude to police officers at events and activities throughout the province during Police Week. Our sincerest thanks for a job well done.

2006 CENSUS /
RECENSEMENT DE 2006

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I rise today to speak to you about the 2006 Canada census, which the government of Canada is collecting this year and which will be collected today, Tuesday, May 16, otherwise known as Census Day. Today on Census Day, households across the country will be participating in an important initiative that will make sure we have an accurate understanding of how our country is formed.

Le recensement est effectué au Canada tous les cinq ans. Il dresse un portrait détaillé du Canada -- des particuliers, des familles, des ménages et des communautés qui forment notre magnifique pays.

Once compiled, the census provides a valuable set of socio-economic data about our country. These data are used daily to support and inform decision-making by governments, businesses, community groups and researchers.

There are many social or demographic groupings for which the Canada census is the only source of detailed data. These include data sets about family structure, ethnic groups and so on. Ensuring a thorough collection and getting accurate data is one of the best ways we can ensure a solid understanding of the social and demographic forces which shape our country, our province and our communities. The census is a national initiative, and its collection reflects every province, every municipality, every community and every household. We're all in there.

Here in Ontario, the census can affect our future. Many federal transfers are allocated on a per capita basis and the federal government uses the data to determine the per capita size of each jurisdiction. Five years ago in the 2001 census, more than half a million Ontarians were not counted. The result of this oversight is less money for the things Ontarians care about most: health care, education, support for new Canadians, training and infrastructure.

Il est important que nous, les dirigeants, encouragions fermement les citoyens de l'Ontario à remplir les formulaires de recensement et à nous aider à assurer une représentation exacte de la province.

Households started receiving their census packages on May 2. Completing them is easy. Most households just need to answer six questions. One in five households, a random sample of the population, will receive the longer form of the questionnaire. Seventy per cent of deliveries will occur by mail and the remaining 30% will be delivered by census enumerators and, for the first time, citizens have the choice to do their census forms online.

This is for everyone. Every household and farm, every ethnicity and language, every possible family structure is all part of the story that makes our province and our country so great. I encourage all members of this House to urge their constituents to complete their census surveys and help make sure that Ontario is fully represented.

SCHOOL SAFETY /
LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES ÉCOLES

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the progress that we're making to improve school safety and help kids deal with issues such as bullying. We want to make sure that every student feels safe and is safe, both in school and on school grounds. I'm happy to take a moment to thank our caucus member Liz Sandals for chairing our safe schools task force, which led to such a tremendous number of recommendations. She has done a super job with her team.

Nous voulons faire en sorte que chaque élève se sente en sécurité et soit en sécurité tant à l'école que dans les installations scolaires.

This year we've taken more steps to make students feel safer, including taking the lead on addressing bullying in our schools, because bullying has no place in our schools. According to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, roughly one in three students in grades 7 to 12 report having been bullied in school, and just under a third report having bullied someone else. The numbers are disturbing. Safe schools are a prerequisite for student achievement. That's also why we're committed to making sure that every publicly funded school has a bullying prevention program and resources for better school safety.

To tackle bullying head-on, the government has established an ongoing $3-million, three-year partnership with Kids Help Phone. In fact, we're the first province to embark on a partnership with Kids Help Phone. This will double the 24-hour line capacity to provide anonymous counselling to students in Ontario who are dealing with bullying. These extra counsellors are expected to help some 30,000 students each year

We've launched a registry of bully prevention programs so schools can find programs that work in their settings. We've also invested $7.8 million this year to help schools purchase, create or expand their bullying prevention program.

But that's not all we've done to make our schools safer. Our government appointed a safe schools action team to implement new measures to protect students. These measures include funding for province-wide school safety audits, funding for new security devices, bullying prevention programs in our schools, bullying prevention training for principals, and a review of the Safe Schools Act. But again, we haven't stopped there.

Nous améliorons la santé et la sécurité des écoles en : allouant des fonds aux écoles publiques de l'Ontario pour effectuer des réparations dont le besoin est criant; allouant des fonds pour embaucher des enseignantes et enseignants spécialisés dans des matières comme la santé et l'éducation physique; demandant aux conseils scolaires de supprimer les aliments sans valeur nutritive des machines distributrices des écoles élémentaires; et en instaurant 20 minutes d'activité physique quotidienne obligatoire pour les élèves de l'élémentaire.

Earlier today I was at Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic School. I met Milton from TVO. He's a superstar to our kids in Ontario. I love getting out to see how these programs actually work, and Milton is quite a character. He sat down with a grade 5 class today and talked to the kids about bullying. He talked to the kids, and then, in unison, every student in this class knew the number for Kids Help Phone. For everyone's benefit, that number is 1-800-668-6868. Those of us who know Kids Help Phone, they do a tremendous job. Help us pass along that number to our kids and to our parents.

1420

At Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic School, they know, like we do, that ending bullying and creating a more peaceful school environment is about changing attitudes, one student at a time. That's why all of the students participate in programs in that school that teach them values and how those values relate to everyday experiences. Students in grades 5, 6 and 7 have been taught co-operative games, so they go out at recess time and play appropriate games with the younger kids that teach each other about respect. Grade 5 students also participate in Roots of Empathy, where they bring an infant into the classroom. Over the course of the year, they follow the progress and development of a baby and learn about nurturing and how to care and be kind to other human beings. It's a great program.

Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic School is a good example of how our government sees schools improving student safety. Kudos to the principal at this school. Principal Vitale has done a tremendous job organizing all of these programs in those classrooms. In fact, all of our initiatives make me confident that our government's safe schools strategy will help make Ontario's public education schools a safe place for our students to learn.

POLICE WEEK

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased today to be able to respond to the minister on this Police Week. I'd like to begin by paying our condolences once again and our tributes to Senior Constable John Atkinson's family and Senior Constable Donald Doucet's family. Probably the most important thing by far that has happened this week in Police Week is the fact that we are paying tribute to these two magnificent officers, and also to the family of Andrew Potts, who was killed last summer in a terrible accident up in Muskoka and whose name just recently was added to the wall of honour here on May 7. As the wall of honour says, they are, "Heroes in life, not death." I know a number of people in this House probably have this button that I've got on today. A number of people are wearing them until after the funeral on Thursday of Donald Doucet.

I also want to say that this being Police Week, there are a number of events throughout our province. I want to say I've been involved myself in about three or four events recently. Last Thursday, we kicked off the 20th annual Torch Run for the Special Olympics at the OPP general headquarters in Orillia. We had around 400 young people involved in this fundraising event. We started on Friday. We went to Orillia Square Mall in Orillia. That also being emergency management week, we had fire services, paramedics, nurses etc. from all across our community paying special tribute to emergency management and Police Week at the same time. Tonight I'll be attending the Crime Stoppers dinner here in Toronto where Chief Blair will be the guest of honour and the guest speaker.

I heard the minister mention the fact that the government is finally putting in place the 1,000-police-officers commitment. Well, that's because, as you know, they were embarrassed into it. They made the announcement seven or eight times and, finally, after our leader came out with the Time for Action report on youth violence last December, after that point, they adopted recommendation number 1, and that is to have 1,000 net new police officers on the streets by the end of 2006. We expect that to happen and we'll be monitoring that very closely.

In closing, I just want to say to all police officers how proud we are in our caucus of the work you do in our communities, across our country and across our province. They do fine work and each and every day they put their life on the line in the line of duty. I want to say to all police officers, I want to assure you that John Tory and the PC caucus are on the side of police officers and their families in Ontario.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): In response to the Minister of Education's announcement today -- interesting. Today is May 16. I have an exact release dated November 16 from the previous Minister of Education, with exactly the same information. This government does in fact master the art of spin.

What I would ask the minister is whether she will do what the previous minister did not do, and that is respond to a request from Lions-Quest, which is a program that was developed by the Lions Club organization a number of years ago. It is specifically designed to deal with bullying in schools. It has classroom-specific and appropriate materials that have been developed. It is highly successful. It is being used in school boards across the province.

The Lions organization simply wants to have an opportunity to meet with the Minister of Education. The former minister denied repeated requests to meet. Will this minister agree to meet and look at the Lions-Quest program, which is so highly successful? I know it's being used very effectively in York region, for example. Rather than continue trying to reinvent the wheel, will this minister look at this program and give it her support, the appropriate financial support and policy support that this very effective program deserves?

I would also encourage the minister to listen to principals from across the province who have been telling us in standing committee that schools are becoming less safe by the day because of this government's policy relating to supervision and the lack of funding for supervision in our schools.

The minister is now new at her job. Will she take the practical steps rather than just continuing to make re-announcements of old announcements as was the habit of the former Minister of Education?

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): In response to the Minister of Education, and in part to the Minister of Children and Youth Services: I thought today she was going to announce a rehauling, a total review or that the review has been done of the Safe Schools Act, but we have nothing. What we have is a re-announcement of an anti-bullying program, the kids' helpline. We had from the Liberals a previous promise that they were going to take action -- and I emphasize -- they were going to take real action in December 2004 on the Safe Schools Act, and they did nothing.

The government promised. through Monsieur Kennedy, who was here a while ago, a complete review of the Safe Schools Act -- oh, there you are, Gerard. Very nice to see you, Gerard. They promised a complete review of the Safe Schools Act in September 2005 -- and nothing.

What we know is that the human rights commissioner has reviewed the act, has talked to a whole lot of parents of kids who have been affected by the Safe Schools Act, and former human rights commissioner Monsieur Norton said that a whole lot of kids who come from families who are black are disproportionately affected by the Safe Schools Act. Kids who have disabilities are disproportionately affected by the Safe Schools Act. They are expelled disproportionately and/or suspended unfairly and disproportionately. We wanted a complete review from Minister Kennedy. We were hoping for a complete overhaul of this Safe Schools Act by the current minister, and we got nothing.

Here's what one expert on children at risk at an Ontario university told the Human Rights Commission:

"Once kids are out of the mainline and expelled, then they are on a different path, for sure. First, they don't have much to do during the day. They may make contact with older kids or other kids who are having difficulties. That can escalate their anti-social behaviour.... There is some literature that points out if you put anti-social kids together it escalates their anti-social behaviour. When they are pushed to the outside and come in contact with other anti-social kids, that escalates their behaviour. It can have an impact on the community in which they live."

We were hoping that the minister would have programs for bullies and not just their victims. We were hoping the minister would have something for children who are at risk. What we need are mandatory alternatives for all suspended and expelled students, and we need alternative programs in the school. We don't have that, and that's what we need. We need to restore the community advisers, youth outreach workers, attendance counsellors and social worker positions that were cut under the government and were promised to be restored by the Liberal government.

We don't want kids to simply access the $600,000 the Minister for Children and Youth Services is making available to deal with the law once they're in trouble. We want programs in the school system such as tech courses, home economics courses and industrial arts so that kids have real programs to hang on to, not the ability to go out and say, "Here's money from the $600,000 so you can now deal with the law." That's not what we need. We need programs in the school that help the kids, and we need the Minister of Education to deal, once and for all, with the Safe Schools Act that's throwing out thousands and thousands of black kids in particular and kids with disabilities. Deal with that and then we can talk.

1430

POLICE WEEK

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats join with others in paying tribute to police officers across Ontario, women and men who serve their communities with professionalism and at great risk to themselves, as we've regrettably had to witness over the course of the last week and a half. But I say to the minister, his words begin to ring hollow when we learned yesterday on the justice policy committee that the policing standards manual recommended board policy for occupational health and safety for police officers in those police services boards has not been adopted yet by a majority of police services boards in Ontario.

Even more dramatic and shocking was that the ministry's designated equipment list, equipment designed to protect police officers when they have to deal with biohazardous materials, among other things, at a cost of no more, we're told by Bruce Miller from the PAO, than $10 per kit, to be available to those police officers in the trunks of their cruisers, providing some of the most basic safety equipment so that a police officer could have a bit of a chance of going home as healthy as he was when he began work, is not yet the reality for police officers in a uniform way across Ontario.

We should start paying attention to these police officers' needs, rather than just giving them hollow words of --

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

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TOURISM

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. According to your own Ministry of Tourism, there were 2.1 million fewer US border crossings in 2005 than in 2004. That's about a 10% drop. US border crossings to Ontario reached their lowest level since 1972. These visitors, as the Premier will know, account for more than 26% of tourism spending in Ontario and 90% of total international visitation, according to the Tourism Federation of Ontario.

We're on the side of tourism operators and the hospitality industry of Ontario. Given that these numbers are from your own tourism industry, and you'll have seen them, I'm sure, I wonder if you think the appropriate response to this kind of development, where we're seeing these kinds of border crossings and visitations diminish, is what your government has done, which is to cut millions and millions of dollars out of the tourism budget. Do you think that's an appropriate response to that kind of number?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'll be pleased to take the first question. I know the Minister of Tourism is eager to speak to this as well.

I say, with the greatest of respect to the leader of the official opposition, that there's no doubt about it: American visits to Canada have dropped, and surely you're not going to claim that somehow our policies in Ontario are responsible for the diminished number of travellers in Manitoba and BC as well. But I can say that we are doing much to continue to work with our partners in the tourism sector here in Ontario. The last budget specifically contained $49 million worth of new investments in cultural centres here in Toronto. We've invested in other events, ranging from bringing Conan O'Brien to Toronto to investing in the Toronto International Arts Festival.

I can say as well that there is some really good news on the horizon. When it comes to attracting international tourists, those from beyond the US, that increased by 7.2% last year, and so far this year it's up by 11.3%. So there is good news and more and more people are coming --

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

Mr. Tory: The fact is, though, that while it is good news to have people coming from other countries, as I mentioned, from the tourism federation figures, 90% of international visitation comes from the United States. So it's fine to say we're expanding our markets elsewhere, but the fact of the matter is that the Americans are not coming, and when they're not coming is precisely the time you don't cut back. It is the time you invest, and the fact is that your government has cut back. The fact is as well that you can blame the external circumstances if you want, but other provinces, particularly Quebec and British Columbia, have lost a lesser number of US visitors than we have, so it shows that the decisions of your government to cut back are having a bigger effect, because of your policies on US visitation, than is the case elsewhere.

Wouldn't it have made a little more sense to pay more attention to the tourism file, to support the Ministry of Tourism, rather than cutting millions and millions of dollars from their budget, as you've done? Why have you done that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Minister of Tourism.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): It's always interesting watching my friend the Leader of the Opposition, because I always have to figure out when I come in if this is going to be a spend more day or a you're spending too much day. Today, apparently, he wants to spend more money, yet he has chastised this government on numerous occasions. He had his finance critic the other day saying that we were spending -- I would never use this term myself -- like drunken sailors. He had former Minister Flaherty who used to chastise the government over expenditures.

What we have in essence is a very good expenditure on marketing in the United States and other places. We've initiated some new marketing programs, which I just announced this particular week. We have cultural ads out there that people are just raving about, bringing in more and more people. We anticipate that we're going to see a significant increase.

What we need is your help when dealing with another issue that I know you'll want to address in your last question.

Mr. Tory: The fact of the matter is that the spending cutbacks are right here in the budget. It's $100 million year over year in terms of cutbacks. I can tell you right now, if you want to know if there should have been more spending on tourism, you could have taken some of the $160 million you're spending on more bureaucrats in the LHINs, on big salaries and office decoration, or the tens of millions of dollars you're managing to find for your friends to hand out ad contracts to the people who got you elected on the famous "I will not raise your taxes" ads. There are some places where you could have found money and given it to tourism operators instead.

The bottom line is that Americans are not coming here in as great a number as they did before and that you have responded to that by cutting back on support for tourism in the province of Ontario. This is costing these tourism operators an estimated $1 billion a year. It's costing your own government $112 million in lost revenues because of those visits. Why don't you stand up and fight for the tourism industry, as is your job, and get back that money your government is cutting so this industry and the jobs that go with it can remain safe and secure?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To the Leader of the Opposition, first of all, he knows darn well that the ministry was divided with recreation. He knows there was a $30-million, one-time grant to Ottawa for the Ottawa Congress Centre, that the program that's involved in capital along with recreation has wound down this year. He knows that. The marketing is the same.

Do you know who I want to stand up for the province of Ontario? I want you to join us in standing up on the issue of the passport. You're busy apologizing for the inaction of your federal friends. Instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with all members of this Legislature to fight an issue that will have a profound effect on tourism and is already having a profound effect, you're an apologist for your federal colleagues. May I give you some advice, as one who has sat in opposition with a federal government of the same label? You should stand up for Ontario and not for your political friends in Ottawa, sir.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question?

Mr. Tory: My question again is to the Premier. I'm sure the tourism operators across the province will take great encouragement from that answer and from the demonstration of the Liberal members. Because the fact is, you've cut tens and tens of millions of dollars out of the budget --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Leader of the Opposition, the question is to whom?

1440

Mr. Tory: Further evidence of who is on whose side here, and certainly that you're not on the side --

The Speaker: The question is to whom? To which minister?

Mr. Tory: I said at the outset, before I sat down, that it was to the Premier. I said it was to the Premier earlier, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: We'll start over. To the Premier.

Mr. Tory: Premier, further evidence that you're not on the side of the tourism industry comes from the press release issued by the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel Association yesterday condemning you and your government for trying to sneak a new retail sales tax on beer and drinks into your City of Toronto Act, adding a fourth taxation.

Let me quote them. This is their press release. They say, "The industry simply cannot sustain another tax." They go on to say, "Our sales lag significantly behind the rest of Canada. Our profit margins are razor thin and among the lowest in the country. Another tax will decimate our industry, with many operators simply closing their doors and walking away."

With the devastating tourism numbers I referred to in the earlier question, we now have these people saying that another measure taken by your government, in addition to cutting back millions on tourism investment, is going to devastate their industry. Why do you make it even harder for these people to continue to create jobs and stay in business? Why are you doing that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I appreciate the passion that the leader of the official opposition is willing to muster with respect to the potential increase in alcohol taxes by the city of Toronto, but I wonder where that passion was when, in their recent budget, the federal government raised alcohol taxes across the country. Where was it at that particular point in time? Why did he not seize the opportunity at that point in time to declare to his colleagues on Parliament Hill the considerable damage that that new tax would impose upon our tourism industry in Ontario?

Mr. Tory: Of course, to engage in the compare-and-contrast, as the Premier likes to do, that was a budget that cut taxes 29 times for every Canadian -- something you've never done and something that compares to your record, having brought in the biggest tax increase in the history --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's going to be a long afternoon. I can wait. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: We have the government of Canada with 29 tax cuts and we have Mr. McGuinty, the Premier, and his government with the biggest tax increases in the history of Ontario -- and now this, just to add to it.

We have this industry, which employs 400,000 people in Ontario, saying that your beer and drink tax will negatively affect more than 4,100 businesses. We're on the side of the hospitality industry in saying that they can't take any more of these kinds of taxes, such as you're proposing to add. Why don't you just stand in your place and say no to this tax and that you're going to remove the power to create this tax on beer and drinks which will hurt the hospitality industry? You have the chance to say, "I'm not going to bring it in; I'm going to take it out of the bill and help the hospitality industry." Will you do it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To support the observation made earlier by the Minister of Tourism, it really is hard to figure out where the leader of the official opposition stands from one question to the next. At first he said that we should be spending more money on tourism. Then he tells us that we should be cutting taxes. Now he's telling us that the discretion we've given to the city of Toronto, as a demonstration of respect, something he happened to campaign on -- now he says he no longer believes that.

Something else I would ask the leader of the official opposition to take note of is that, in the budget we just recently introduced in this House, the province has removed the gallonage fees on beer, wines and spirits. That alone will save the hospitality sector an estimated $25 million. It will be interesting to see where the leader of the official opposition votes on this.

Mr. Tory: This is the typical sleight of hand that this government engages in every single day. It's the sleight of hand that appears to "giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other."

The fact remains, though --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Negative-option billing: That was a sleight of hand.

The Speaker: Minister of Health. Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It might be you. Order. The Attorney General, order. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: We have businesses that are struggling because of a reduction in visitors from the United States. That's a fact, and it's due to a variety of circumstances, including in particular the policies of this government to cut back substantially on investment in the tourism industry.

To make matters worse, what we have then is the proposal by this government to allow the introduction of a fourth line of taxation on drinks and beer. It is going to hurt these institutions. It's them saying it, not me and not us.

It is high time, if you want to be on the side of the tourism industry and the hospitality industry, that you simply got up and said, "We've made a mistake. We're going to invest more in that industry this year. We're not going to cut back on the Ministry of Tourism and we are going to amend the City of Toronto Act to say that they can't create another tax on alcohol and beer and hurt this industry."

Are you prepared to stand up and say you're going to do either or both of those things? You should be doing them both if you care about the real health of Toronto, the real economic health of Toronto and the real health of the tourism industry in this city and in this province. Why won't you stand up and say you'll do those things?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: It's really hard to understand how the leader of the official opposition, who at one time sought the leadership of Toronto city council -- he sought the post of mayor. Presumably he felt that the people who work there, who are elected officials, duly elected, have some common sense when it comes to dealing with these kinds of issues and will fully consider the implication of any potential taxes. But apparently now he no longer has any respect for them and the work that they might do.

Let me say this, because we see things differently. Here's what Rod Seiling of the Greater Toronto Hotel Association said about my Minister of Tourism and the work he's doing: "The professionalism and the ongoing passion and commitment that Jim Bradley brings to his position as minister ... has resulted in positive changes for the industry and created a real feeling that the government has as its point person someone who wants to work with and for it as it continues on its road to economic renewal."

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Last night, CBC television aired a riveting story about an eight-year-old boy and his 15-month ordeal as a ward of the children's aid society in Durham.

The children's aid society in Durham had placed this eight-year-old boy in a group home, where he was wrongly diagnosed and then overmedicated with a toxic combination of drugs.

In trying to gain custody of him, his grandparents faced challenge after challenge and hurdle after hurdle. Finally they got custody and they got him out of the group home. They got him off the long list of medications and into a much better, healthier environment.

My question to you is this: Why is the McGuinty government so opposed to the Ombudsman of Ontario having an independent review capacity of children's aid societies in Ontario?

1450

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): First, I must say that I have also received a report on last night's coverage of this situation. And whereas this is not something that we can discuss, due to the privacy issues involved for this young fellow, which everyone should respect, let me simply say to start with that this is tragic, absolutely tragic. I sincerely hope that there is no one in this Legislature who would try to make political gain of a tragedy. I will look forward to supplementary questions; I'm sure there will be one or two other questions on this.

Mr. Hampton: I'm not asking the Premier or the minister to discuss this case. My question was, why under the McGuinty government doesn't the Ombudsman of Ontario have independent investigative capacity over children's aid societies? There are hundreds of other cases like the case of that eight-year-old boy in Durham, where children's aid societies haven't done a good enough job. The Ombudsmen in other provinces across this country have asked for and have gotten the capacity to look at what children's aid societies are doing, to investigate them and provide independent oversight. My question to you is this: New Democrats have proposed a private member's bill, Bill 88, to give the Ombudsman this investigative oversight authority over children's aid societies. Why is the McGuinty government so opposed to the Ombudsman having that authority?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: I'm very pleased to be able to share with this Legislature that it is this government that introduced Bill 210 for the better protection of kids in the child well-being and protection system. It is this government that has created kinship regulations. It is this government that has created greater emphasis and requirements as far as background checks are concerned. It is this government that is strengthening the Child and Family Services Review Board -- and giving the Ombudsman jurisdiction over that board. That board is an independent, arm's-length body which will not be subject to interference by my ministry or any other ministry of this government. And appeals can be taken even beyond that body, to the Ombudsman's office.

Mr. Hampton: Well, Minister, if it's the McGuinty government's response that your Bill 210 is the answer, maybe you can tell us why Bill 210 hasn't been proclaimed in force by the McGuinty government even though it was passed on third reading over a month and a half ago. If your answer is the review committees, maybe you can tell people like the grandparents of that eight-year-old boy why the so-called review committee isn't even up and running. The reality under the McGuinty government in Ontario is this: With that eight-year-old boy, if parents want to have the children's aid society decisions reviewed, whom do they have to go to? They go to the same children's aid society. It's like the fox looking after the fox.

I ask the question again: When other provinces have accepted the fact that children's aid societies cannot and should not be a power unto themselves, when other provinces have accepted that the Ombudsmen should have the authority to review children's aid societies, why --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The question's been asked. Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: I've already addressed the matter of the Ombudsman in my previous response. But what the leader of the third party has clearly not grasped is that the Child and Family Services Review Board is in effect. The board that he is referring to, I think, is the provincial advisory board which was mandated during his term in government but was never established. I am actually going to take on the responsibility of looking into why that board was never established by his government or subsequent governments. It is quite possible that that board could be helpful, because that board is intended to have as its duties advice to the minister on prescribing procedures, making and amending, suspending and revoking psychotic drug type prescriptions, just exactly the kind --

The Speaker: Thank you.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: It's interesting that the McGuinty government's response is to blame somebody who might have been Minister of Community and Social Services 15 years ago.

Premier, people are worried about the McGuinty government's private-finance hospital scheme, a scheme that undercuts medicare by diverting health care funding away from patients and into corporate profits. Your Brampton private-finance hospital scheme will divert $175 million away from patient care and into corporate profits. But this weekend the people of Sarnia delivered a clear message to you. They voted 96% in favour of a publicly funded hospital. They want health care funding, and they want the McGuinty government to put health care funding into public hospitals, not into corporate profits.

My question, Premier: Are you going to listen to the people of Sarnia who are clearly opposed to the McGuinty government private-finance hospital scheme?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): Of course we appreciate any advice and observations that might be offered by Ontarians generally, whether they're from the community of Sarnia or the leader of the NDP, but I think it's important to understand that we are building public hospitals. Notwithstanding any contentions to the contrary, we're building public hospitals. I think it's really important that the leader of the NDP convey that to all concerned.

I get the sense that there is more of a political movement attached to those who are opposed to this hospital construction plan than there is genuine concern about the future of medicare. I say that as the Premier of a government that was proud to bring into being here in the province of Ontario the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act.

Mr. Hampton: The only thing public about your hospital scheme is the media spin.

Just three years ago, Premier, you called private-finance hospitals an example of the "creeping privatization of health care." You vowed to "stand against the Americanization of our hospitals." Well, this weekend in Sault Ste. Marie, 96.9% of voters did stand against two-tier, American-style health care and they told you to keep your promise, to build public hospitals, not private-finance hospitals that will divert health care funding away from patient care and into corporate profits.

Premier, you talk a lot about democracy. Are you going to listen to the people in Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie or was your talk just another McGuinty broken promise?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: We're proud to be building public hospitals in a number of Ontario communities that will be publicly owned, publicly controlled and publicly accountable. I was there for the announcement of the new hospital we're going to build in Sault Ste. Marie. I can tell you that people there were absolutely ecstatic at the prospect of getting a new hospital. I can tell you that our MPP David Orazietti has been working on this relentlessly. We're proud to be able to lend support and build that new hospital.

I can say that the same kind of pride is being expressed by communities in Sarnia, Brampton, my hometown of Ottawa, North Bay and Barrie. What we have in place now is a government that is prepared to do what is necessary to get those public hospitals built in a timely way. If the member opposite has an objection to that, if he's saying we should slow down the construction of hospitals in the province of Ontario, then he should just be clean with that and tell us that right now.

Mr. Hampton: You know, Premier, this is exactly the hospital scheme that, when it was advanced by the former Conservative government, you said was going to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. Leader of the third party.

1500

Mr. Hampton: You see, Premier, people used to listen to some of those speeches that you gave. They understand that the private finance hospital scheme that the Conservatives floated is virtually identical to the private finance hospital scheme that you're floating. They understand, as the Ontario Health Coalition understands, that the private financing of the hospital in Brampton is going to cost $175 million more. That's $175 million that isn't going to go to patient care, won't go to more nurses, won't go to more doctors, won't go to more medical procedures. It goes into the corporate profits of your Bay Street friends.

Premier, you talk a lot about whose side you're on. Tell me, why aren't you on the side of the majority of people in Sarnia and the majority of people who voted in Sault Ste. Marie? Why are you now on the side of corporate --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'm very confident in saying that we are on the side of the majority of Ontarians in every community who are eager to see new hospital construction take place in their community. I think this is a very important issue for Ontarians to wrap their minds around. I look forward to continuing to debate it with my friend opposite, now and during the course of the campaign.

I think it's important to understand that what we have in place now is a government that is prepared to do what is necessary to ensure that we have in place, as quickly as possible, public hospital corporations with volunteer governance bodies. We're talking about public hospitals here that are publicly accountable, publicly controlled and publicly owned. That's what we're talking about.

The leader of the NDP, notwithstanding his contention to the contrary that this somehow has to do with the protection of medicare, is heading up a political campaign, trying to head up a political movement. This has more to do with his political fortunes than with ensuring that the people of Ontario have access to a good quality public hospital in their community.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. We've heard a great deal of partisan bluster from this minister this afternoon but very little in the way of constructive solutions. Last Friday, the minister, I'm told, attended a forum organized by the Binational Tourism Alliance in Niagara-on-the-Lake to consult with the tourism industry on the challenge we face because of the pending US passport issue. Our caucus is hopeful that this issue will be resolved, that we will achieve a Canadian exemption or, at the very least, a delay in the implementation of the western hemisphere travel initiative. Surely the minister offered this group last Friday some new ideas on how he plans to solve this important issue. Will the minister inform the House what new steps he is undertaking to seek a resolution to this problem?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I have to tell the member, because he would want to know, that it is the government of Ontario that has been taking the lead on an issue which really should be taken right across the country. But we have taken that lead. The Premier has met with the Great Lakes governors. I met personally with the governor of Ohio when he was here in Toronto. I have met with several officials from both sides -- from the private sector, from the municipal sector. He will remember that the Premier and I were in Washington last year, last March, meeting with senior officials in the US administration, hosting at the embassy of Canada at the time an opportunity for people to be aware of the issue. So on an ongoing basis, the Premier and I have been engaging senior political leaders on the American side, who I want to report to you are on our side. This is not a Canada versus US issue. This is an issue of the people who reside along the border and understand the ramifications of the passport issue, who are fighting together for a better solution. That's what we're advocating.

Mr. Arnott: Blaming the federal government, as this minister has done repeatedly in this House, will not wash. The minister knows as well as I do that the Paul Martin Liberals were entirely ineffective in solving this problem, and they were in power when the American passport law was moving through Congress, when it could have been nipped in the bud. Why has the minister focused his efforts on assigning blame to the federal government when he should be focusing all of his energies on working with the federal government to seek a solution?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is exactly what this government has been doing. I want to tell the member that as recently as February 10 I wrote a letter to Maxime Bernier asking that the council of tourism ministers be brought together for a national meeting on this issue and other issues. And the minister, to this point in time, has refused to have that meeting. But I did approach somebody in the last government, the Martin administration, a man by the name of Mr. Emerson. I spoke on October 20 to Minister Emerson to suggest that we needed to convey a united tourism message to our US neighbours. Apparently he wasn't prepared to do it as part of the previous administration, and then, when he was lured across the floor by Prime Minister Harper with heaven knows what to get him from one side to the other two weeks after the election, he still isn't prepared to do anything about it. What we need is for you people to quit apologizing for the Harper government and come on side, stand up for the province of Ontario and continue to --

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

WASTE DIVERSION

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): A question for the Premier: Yesterday, your environment minister announced that GTA municipalities have to stop exporting their garbage to Michigan by 2010. Instead of announcing a plan to keep your government's promise for a 60% waste diversion program, her declaration only serves to drive municipalities further into the arms of the incineration lobby. Mr. Premier, instead of forcing GTA communities into the arms of the incineration lobby, when are you going to implement the requisite plan and funding required to divert 60% of the waste, as promised?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I'm pleased to have an opportunity to inform the Legislature of what I talked about yesterday. I have certainly said for a long period of time, and many of us on this side of the House believe, that it's not sustainable or acceptable to continue to send waste to Michigan. I'm surprised that the member opposite does think that is a long-term sustainable solution. But I indicated my full support for the city of Toronto and other municipalities that are developing their long-term strategies, looking at what tools they will use in this province to better manage their waste.

The city of Toronto has said for a very long period of time that each and every year it will send less waste to Michigan, and by 2010 it's committed no longer to send waste to Michigan. I wholly support the city of Toronto in those efforts. It's my responsibility as Minister of the Environment to work with municipalities, including York, Durham, Owen Sound and others, that send their waste to Michigan to make sure we give them the tools they need to manage waste here in the province.

Mr. Tabuns: Premier, when you ran in the last election you promised to ban the landfilling of organic waste, you promised to implement a used tire recycling program -- I'll send the page over, if you would like -- and you promised to divert 60% of trash from landfills by 2008. Now GTA communities are being threatened with dirty garbage incinerators because you failed to keep your promise. It's very clear from the Minister of the Environment that she does not intend to follow through on those promises. Mr. Premier, will you keep your promise to divert 60% of waste from landfills, so that dirty, unwanted garbage incinerators are not built in our communities?

Hon. Ms. Broten: Again, I'm pleased to have a chance to talk about what really is happening in this province with respect to waste management. Perhaps the member opposite doesn't recall that this was the first government to ensure funding to the blue box program. The tools that we provide municipalities to manage their waste include a new decision that I have recently made with respect to household hazardous waste and electronics. We will now see those products diverted from landfill. Those are products that we all have in our homes, that we all have in our basements, and now we're going to give Ontarians an opportunity to make sure that those products that shouldn't be in landfills get diverted. This will build on the success of the blue box program, for which, for example, Toronto has received $13.8 million since we came into office, and it's projected to do very well -- $60 million in 2005 to municipalities to run the blue box program, which is a symbol of recycling and diversion around the province and worldwide. It's something we support that I'm very proud of.

1510

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. As you know, farmers' markets are integral to our rural way of life. Food preparation and food services often occur at these venues and are an important part of the local economy. We all know that food safety is of the utmost importance, but my constituents are confused as to what the guidelines will be. They're concerned that the new guidelines will not take into account the unique characteristics of farmers' markets, and consequently may cause some of them to close. Minister, my constituents in Perth-Middlesex deserve to know, does the McGuinty government appreciate the importance of farmers' markets as an integral part of Ontario's livelihood?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm pleased to take the question. In doing research today on this issue, I've been pleased to note that while farmers' markets are well established in rural parts of Ontario, those of us who live and celebrate life in urban areas also celebrate the opportunity to access farmers' markets. In fact, 40% of all the farmers' markets in Ontario occur in urban areas. In my own riding, at Toronto city hall and at the north market of St. Lawrence on Saturdays, we have the benefit of these things.

I do think we've seen some unequal enforcement across public health units on this matter. Accordingly, the chief medical officer of health, Dr. Basrur, has been working on a strategy with public health units to proactively educate and inform so that enforcement is much less of a requirement. We believe this is the appropriate way to move forward to protect the important farmers' markets, which are vital to the culture in local communities, not to mention the economy, and in so doing to offer the appropriate protections related to food safety. This is ongoing on a proactive basis and we're working in consultation with all affected parties.

Mr. Wilkinson: On behalf of my constituents, we do appreciate the McGuinty government's continued commitment to the health and safety of Ontarians.

The holding of special events where food is prepared at churches, service clubs and fraternal organizations is also a key component of my constituents' livelihood in rural Ontario. Without question, the need for safe food preparation is paramount. I have, though, received concerns from my constituents about the application of regulation 562. It has proven unclear, Minister. I believe the regulations need clarification. What is your ministry doing to address these immediate concerns?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: First and foremost, I would commit to renewal of regulation 562 after an appropriate consultation period has occurred. We've been working closely with the organization called Farmers' Markets Ontario, which is the representative voice of farmers' markets. We are committed to bringing in a new reg. That wouldn't occur until the fall at the very earliest, and not until we've had the appropriate opportunity for consultation. The medical officer of health is guiding public health units through the production of a booklet to proactively help to educate and inform, to show people that there are risks. Last summer, we encountered young kids in Ontario, north of Toronto, whose parents secured unpasteurized milk. They ended up with very serious hospitalization at Southlake hospital in Newmarket.

Our obligation is to ensure safe environments, of course. We believe we can do that in a fashion, through proactive education, that does not affect these very important institutions. This is important in rural and urban Ontario alike. Accordingly, we're going to work very hard to ensure that these institutions are --

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

CHILD PROTECTION

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Last night the CBC's The National told us the sad story of a young boy who was being overmedicated by the Durham Children's Aid Society. We all know that overmedication can be a threat to health and a threat to life. Minister, what specific actions have you taken to protect this child?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): First of all, as I said before, this is a very tragic case and I will not discuss the details of the situation. But let me say that our government is committed to ensuring that children who are in the protection of our child well-being and protection system will be better off as a result of our involvement in their lives than they would have been were we not involved in their lives. I am actually doing an internal investigation as to what we can do to ensure that no more such tragedies occur.

Mrs. Munro: During the debate on Bill 210, Ontario's Ombudsman told you he needed the power to intervene in cases before the children's aid societies to protect children and families. Your government rejected his proposal. You refused to listen to the Ombudsman's advice to provide an independent appeal of CAS decisions. Why will you not now listen to what the Ombudsman told you and give him the power to help protect children and families?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: The Ombudsman does have a role, thanks to Bill 210 and our strengthening of the complaints process to protect children in the care of children's aid societies here in Ontario. The Ombudsman will have the final say on appeals that would have previously gone to the Child and Family Services Review Board. His office -- or her office; whoever it may be -- will have jurisdiction over the child and family services board's decisions, and those will be respected without any intervention from any minister of government.

But what I am also committed to pursuing is the professional advisory board, which that party, when they were in government, failed to establish. You see, the professional advisory board, amongst its duties, can investigate and review the use of intrusive procedures and psychotropic drugs and make recommendations to the minister. That board was never established.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, yesterday an important report on poverty was released by a blue-ribbon panel drawn from people from all across Ontario. It reported that 891,000 working adults live below the poverty line, if you set that line at a very modest $15,000. But the statistic that I think is most shocking or should be most shocking to you was that all it would take to bring those people above the poverty line would be an increase in the minimum wage to $9 an hour, to bring all full-time low-income workers above that poverty line. Mr. Premier, the question is simple: Will you immediately raise the minimum wage so that no full-time worker in Ontario earns less than $15,000 a year and lives in poverty?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): This is an excellent question, and I thank the member of the third party for his question.

First of all, let me thank the members of the task force for their commitment to this issue and for all the work they have done in preparing this report. I have met with the members of the task force, and we agree with the principles of this report. While there is always more to do, I'm pleased to say that we are actively working to help low-income Ontarians improve their lives.

I wanted to remind the member that since we came into power, we have increased the minimum wage three times. Again, in 2007, it's going to be up to $8 an hour. I would say that we have more work to do and we'll --

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

Mr. Prue: Madam Minister, the report clearly set out that at $7.75, some 891,000 people who work every day live in poverty, and all it would take is to raise that to $9 an hour. Quite frankly, I think those people deserve a better answer than the one you just gave. But if you can't or won't raise the minimum wage, will you at least help them in some small way by extending a basic health care program for such things as prescription drugs and eyeglasses to all low-income workers, as the report recommends? If you don't raise the minimum wage to a living wage, will you at least help these nearly a million people, hard-working Ontarians, with their basic health needs?

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: I want to remind the member of the opposite party that this government has done more than any government to help to increase the quality of life of the low-income Ontarian.

I can go on explaining what we have done. We have increased the assistance in schools, for instance, colleges and universities. We have provided more than 100,000 grants for low-income Ontarians. We have opened over 150 family health teams, which go a long way to help low-income Ontarians. And I remind the member that we have increased the minimum wage three times --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question?

1520

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. My city of Guelph has a population of 106,000 people. Linamar is the area's largest employer, employing over 7,000 workers. Needless to say, Linamar is integral to the economic vitality of the Guelph area.

As you are aware, Ontario manufacturers have been battling a high Canadian dollar but have remained resilient throughout. Our government has worked closely with the manufacturing sector to assist them through this readjustment. Last Friday, our government partnered with Linamar to ensure that they remain a leading-edge auto parts manufacturer in North America and that they continue to be a key employer in the Guelph area.

Minister, can you please provide the rest of this House with some additional details about this exciting announcement?

Hon. Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Let me thank the member for Guelph-Wellington for her support and her advocacy on behalf of her community and Linamar. I'm happy to repeat the good news in this House, because it's worth repeating.

This was a $1.1-billion investment made by Linamar, which will create 3,000 new jobs -- that's 3,000 new jobs -- and the Ontario government was very pleased to partner with Linamar, investing $44.5 million to establish a new technology centre to support research and development in new products and processes and to invest in skills training for workers. Linamar is also moving forward with respect to developing environmentally friendly processes in their operations and their products.

Dennis DesRosiers, who is a leading analyst, had this to say about this deal: "For about $500 million of government assistance Ontario has levered about $7 billion in new capital expenditures -- "

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

Mrs. Sandals: That's amazing, Minister: $44.5 million and 3,000 jobs. Think about it. Add those 3,000 jobs, and Linamar will employ almost 10% of the population of Guelph -- fantastic news for my city, and very well received locally.

It's also great news for Ontario's auto manufacturing sector. We know that Ontario is now the leading North American jurisdiction for automobile production, with our strategic auto investments playing a key role in that accomplishment. Unfortunately, there are still some who believe that our investments are not needed, that they are not a good investment of government dollars and are the wrong way to assist our auto sector. Minister, could you please comment on that very incorrect view?

Hon. Mr. Cordiano: Indeed it is a mistaken impression that people have. I want to take members back to the Toyota investment that was made, over $1 billion. I have to remind members in this Legislature that we are competing with many other jurisdictions south of the border that are willing to do just about anything to get these auto plants to locate in their jurisdictions. Word comes from a manufacturer like Toyota that in fact there were southern states that were willing to offer 10 times the amount that Ontario invested to bring Toyota to Ontario -- $700 million was offered for that investment to locate in southern US states. When it comes to Linamar, this is what the CEO, Linda Hasenfratz, had to say about their investment: "We were looking aggressively at the Michigan area as another alternative."

I say to members in this House, we are competing with other jurisdictions on a daily basis. There are many --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question?

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, I've listened to you speak about stability in the school system and that every student deserves the same opportunity. Well, at 6:30 a.m. on Thursday, the educational assistants in the Thames Valley District School Board went out on strike. These EAs look after the most vulnerable people in the school system. The main issue seems to be that they need more time to look after those students.

It is the students who are losing. Because of this strike, the Special Olympics that were supposed to be held at the University of Western Ontario from May 23 to 25 have been cancelled. Minister, what are you going to do to make sure that the special-needs students can continue to enjoy events such as the Special Olympics and are not put at greater risk than they presently are?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women's issues): I appreciate this question. It gives us an opportunity to talk about this region in particular. But like all places in Ontario, we have worked very hard to create peace and stability in all of our schools across Ontario. I think the member opposite is very well aware of the track record we've developed in these last two and a half years. We expect that that will continue. We do have an anomaly right now in the Thamesville area, one that not one of us in this House could be happy about. What we want is our kids in our schools, and what we are hoping is that both sides will be working towards that end.

Mr. Hardeman: Minister, I come to this question period every day and listen to the questions and answers. Generally, the first part of the answer is, "It's someone else's fault," and the second part is what the government is doing that has nothing to do with the question.

This question, Madam Minister, is very simple. I simply ask you again: What is your government going to do to create the stability you speak of? What are you going to do for these students so they can continue to participate in something as dear to their hearts as the track and field Special Olympics? Minister, what are you going to do specifically for these students so they can continue to have their Special Olympics?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I don't believe that anyone who lives in this particular member's riding would think for a moment that this government is not here to support our students in our schools. We have done that by adding $2 billion in resources. There will never be one reason that has anything to do with resourcing as it affects our kids in our classrooms.

This member opposite was part of a government that, during his tenure, lost 24 million days of education because of strikes, because of teachers walking or boards locking. That has not been the case in this government. We are making certain that our students are in the classroom, are learning and are achieving beyond anything we have ever seen in our history. That is our record as a Liberal government, and we're proud of that record.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Last week, the government of the province of Quebec approved $1.2 billion of funding for new subway cars for the city of Montreal métro. Part of the agreement is an understanding that the subway cars will be built by Bombardier at its factory in Quebec so that it will generate economic benefits for Quebec and sustain jobs in Quebec.

Now, the McGuinty government is contributing $200 million of Ontario taxpayers' money for the city of Ottawa to purchase transit cars built in California. Meanwhile, hundreds of workers who could build these transit cars at the factory in Thunder Bay in Ontario are laid off. Premier, why does the McGuinty government not see the economic benefits and the job-sustaining benefits of building these rail transit cars in Thunder Bay in Ontario?

1530

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): The member has asked this question two times before and I'm sure he has an interest in that. Let me just give you some numbers on what we have done for Thunder Bay and what is going on.

First of all, we believe in a fair and transparent process. We also believe that municipalities can make good decisions. Maybe you don't, but we do. Let me just tell you, the city of Ottawa has undertaken a very fair and transparent process. The contract has been awarded to a consortium of three companies, and these three companies are Siemens, PCL and Dufferin Construction. All of these are Ontario-based companies, by the way. I don't know what he has against those companies.

At the same time, Toronto has taken a very different process. They asked for a bid directly from Bombardier -- only Bombardier -- and that bid is about $755 million. In addition to that, Bombardier has got $134 million worth of contracts from GO Transit. If you add these together, it's about $900 million.

Mr. Hampton: I'm sure that will make the hundreds of laid-off workers at the Bombardier factory in Thunder Bay feel really good.

Building the Ottawa transit rail cars in Thunder Bay would not only create and sustain jobs in Thunder Bay and benefit the economy of Thunder Bay, it would benefit Ontario's economy, because the parts and component suppliers for the Thunder Bay factory are overwhelmingly in Ontario. Workers in Thunder Bay just don't understand. They see the Quebec government supporting Quebec jobs, supporting the Quebec economy. They know that they could build these transit rail cars, but the McGuinty government says, "No. Use Ontario taxpayer money and build them in California."

My question for the Premier is this: I think Quebec has a good idea. Will the McGuinty government follow the Quebec government's lead and insist that Ontario taxpayer money support Ontario workers and build --

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

Hon. Mr. Takhar: I'm not sure if the member is hearing this or not, but let me tell you, I said that Bombardier will get $900 million worth of contracts. Municipalities are in a better position to make their own decisions, and we strongly support an open and fair bidding process.

The one thing we're not going to do is build walls around Ontario. Bombardier is in a position to compete internationally and they got $7.9 billion worth of orders because of their competitiveness. At the same time, even the Ottawa order has gone to three Ontario-based companies, which are Siemens, PCL and Dufferin Construction. Those people also create jobs, by the way.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Constituents in my riding of Willowdale are concerned about the high costs associated with operating a motor vehicle. In fact, upon being elected in 2003, the cost of owning a motor vehicle was one of the most pressing concerns experienced by my constituents. Under the NDP government, auto insurance rates went up, and they continued to rise under the Conservative government.

Minister, our government promised results for the people of Ontario when it came to auto insurance rates. What my constituents want to know is, what has this government done about auto insurance rates and what results can they expect to see?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for his question and remind the House that this government campaigned to reduce automobile insurance premiums by 10%. Not only have we delivered on that commitment, we've exceeded it. Auto insurance premiums have come down 13.32% since we took office. That compares quite nicely to the 43% increase under the previous Conservative government and the 27% increase under the NDP government.

Auto insurance premiums have been reduced in each of the last nine quarters under the McGuinty government. Mike Colle and Greg Sorbara deserve enormous credit for all the work they did on this file.

Mr. Zimmer: Minister, as you know, auto insurance rates are not the only concern motorists have. Motorists are worried that, as consumers, they face other disadvantages when looking for auto insurance. Drivers in Willowdale want two things from auto insurance: a price they can afford, and the best possible policy protection.

Having heard the good news that auto rates are coming down, what is being done to protect the interests of consumers in the auto insurance market?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: There have been a number of other measures designed for consumer protection. We've created a new website to provide more consumer-friendly information about insurance, including an online educational rate tutorial that helps consumers better understand how auto rates are set.

We've fostered a more competitive marketplace that gives drivers more choice. As a result, the number of drivers in the Facility Association, an industry pool for high-risk drivers, has fallen from 209,000 when we first took office to only 30,000 now.

We've banned credit scoring and the use of other economic and lifestyle factors for the purposes of setting auto insurance rates or coverage. Insurers and brokers are now disclosing commission rates, and after a request from the province, brokers are also disclosing contingency commission arrangements and the number of insurers they represent.

This government stood up for automobile insurance purchasers. This government has more than exceeded its goal. It has undone the 43% increase brought on by the previous Conservative government and --

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

Petitions.

PETITIONS

AUTISM TREATMENT

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas children with autism who have reached the age of six years are no longer being discharged from their preschool autism program; and

"Whereas there are approximately 700 preschool children with autism across Ontario who are required to wait indefinitely for placement in the program, and there are also countless school-age children on the same wait-list that are not receiving the support they require in the school system; and

"Whereas these children should be getting the best special education possible in the form of applied behavioural analysis (ABA) within the school system; and

"Whereas this situation has an impact on the families, extended families and friends of all of these children; and

"Whereas, as stated on the website for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, `IBI can make a significant difference in the life of a child with autism. Its objective is to decrease the frequency of challenging behaviours, build social skills and promote language development';

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fund the treatment of IBI for all preschool children awaiting services and fund a school-based special education program in the form of ABA."

This has been signed by several of my constituents, and has my signature of support.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"Whereas, without appropriate support, people who have an intellectual disability are often unable to participate effectively in community life and are deprived of the benefits of society enjoyed by other citizens; and

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to address, as a priority, funding to community agencies in the developmental services sector to address critical underfunding of staff salaries and ensure that people who have an intellectual disability continue to receive quality supports and services that they require in order to live meaningful lives within their community."

I have affixed my signature as well.

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): This is a petition from my constituents in Lambton county.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over one million Ontarians of all ages suffer from communication disorders relating to speech, language and/or hearing; and

"Whereas there is a growing need for awareness of the profound developmental, economic and social consequences that communication disorders have on people and their families; and

"Whereas persons with communication problems require access to the professional services of audiologists and speech language pathologists who provide treatments to improve and enhance quality of life; and

1540

"Whereas effective treatment of communication disorders benefits all of society by allowing otherwise disadvantaged persons to achieve their academic and vocational potentials; and

"Whereas investments in treatments for communication disorders pay economic dividends in reduced reliance on other social services;

"We, the undersigned, in conjunction with the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, call on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proclaim the month of May as Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month."

I'm glad to affix my signature to this petition as well.

LANDFILL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I'm glad to have my page, Elliott Leeflang, here to take it for me. This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the municipal councillors representing this area -- Eli El-Chantiry, Janet Stavinga and Peggy Feltmate -- and the MPP, Norm Sterling," and the MPP, Lisa MacLeod, "all oppose this expansion;

"We, the undersigned, support our local representatives and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the Minister of the Environment does not approve the expansion of the Carp landfill and instead to find other waste management alternatives."

I have signed that.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas many types of civil disputes may be resolved through community mediation delivered by trained mediators, who are volunteers working with the parties in the dispute; and

"Whereas Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services established the Peel Community Mediation Service in 1999 with support from the government of Ontario through the Trillium Foundation, the Rotary Club of Mississauga West and the United Way of Peel, and has proven the viability and success of community mediation; and

"Whereas the city of Mississauga and the town of Caledon have endorsed the Peel Community Mediation Service, and law enforcement bodies refer many cases to the Peel Community Mediation Service as an alternative to a court dispute; and

"Whereas court facilities and court time are both scarce and expensive, the cost of community mediation is very small and the extra expense incurred for lack of community mediation in Peel region would be much greater than the small annual cost of funding community mediation;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, support and fund the ongoing service delivery of the Peel Community Mediation Service through Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services."

I agree with the petitioners and affix my signature on the petition and ask Zachery to take it.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have here a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

I got it from a long-term-care facility in the great village of Tavistock, and I will affix my signature as I agree with it.

HOME CARE

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas access to home care for seniors and persons with disabilities allows them greater independence within their own homes and the ability to limit the amount of time that they are forced to stay in hospitals and/or long-term-care facilities; and

"Whereas doctors, nurses and health care workers need to be recognized and supported for the outstanding work they do within their communities, which must translate into increased funding and resources for their efforts; and

"Whereas implementing the Caplan review will contribute to a more stringent set of guidelines for ensuring that home care and community support services are more effective and far-reaching;

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

"That the Liberal government's commitment to contribute $117.8 million to improve home care and implement the Caplan review be supported by all members of the House."

I'm giving this to Monika, and I will attach my signature to it.

ORGAN DONATION

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas 1,920 Ontarians are currently on a waiting list for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas the number of Ontarians waiting for an organ transplant has virtually doubled since 1994; and

"Whereas hundreds die every year waiting for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas greater public education and awareness will increase the number of people who sign their organ donor cards and increase the availability of organ transplants for Ontarians; and

"Whereas the private member's bill proposed by Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees will require every resident 16 years of age and older to complete an organ donation question when applying for or renewing a driver's licence or provincial health card, thereby increasing public awareness of the importance of organ donation while respecting the right of every person to make a personal decision regarding the important issue of organ donation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 67, the Organ and Tissue Donation Mandatory Declaration Act, 2006."

I'm pleased, on behalf of the constituents who have signed, to sign this petition in support of it

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): The pages and I on this side of the House are delighted to have the opportunity to file this petition with the House.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas improving job retention rates has a positive effect on developing valuable work skills, confidence in one's abilities and creating a greater economic foundation for the province; and

"Whereas JobsNow allows workers access to valuable resources such as job-matching services, pre-employment supports and up to 18 months of job retention and follow-up services;

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

"That the JobsNow program continues to be supported by all members of the House; and that we work together to ensure that workers on social assistance find a meaningful and long-term solution to meeting their employment goals."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have another petition. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

I received this from a great many of my constituents in the great town of Ingersoll. I will sign this petition, as I agree with it.

HOME CARE

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas implementing the Caplan review will contribute to a more stringent set of guidelines for ensuring that home care and community support services are more effective and far-reaching;

We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Liberal government's commitment to contribute $117.8 million to improve home care and implement the Caplan review be supported by all members of the House."

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

1550

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition from the good folks at Hilltop Manor in Merrickville.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

I affix my signature in support.

HOME CARE

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas implementing the Caplan review will contribute to a more stringent set of guidelines for ensuring that home care and community support services are more effective and far-reaching;

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

"That the Liberal government's commitment to contribute $117.8 million to improve home care and for the implementation of the Caplan review be supported by all members of the House."

I support this, and I will affix my signature to it.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly, and it reads:

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

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

"That the government of Ontario address, as a priority, funding to community agencies in the developmental services sector to address critical underfunding of staff salaries and ensure that people who have an intellectual disability continue to receive quality supports and services that they require in order to live meaningful lives within their community."

I have also signed this.

OPPOSITION DAY

TOURISM

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I move that the Legislative Assembly calls upon the government,

To recognize that the McGuinty Liberals have cut the Ministry of Tourism budget in both of their last two budgets by a total of $46 million and cut this year's budget by $25 million alone; and

To recognize that a strong Canadian dollar, increased border security, high gas prices and numerous anti-American statements made by prominent Liberals are just some of the many things that are currently hindering the tourism and hospitality industries in Ontario and despite all of these challenges, the McGuinty government has continually undertaken initiatives that further damage these sectors, such as the City of Toronto Act and greater regulation of Ontario's farmer markets; and

To recognize that besides criticizing the federal government, the McGuinty government has not taken any sort of meaningful action or demonstrated any kind of leadership in helping to solve current border issues with the United States or challenges facing the hospitality sector; and

To recognize that in 2005, US border crossings to Ontario reached their lowest level since 1972 and that this decline in US visitation is significant because, in 2004, Americans accounted for 18% of Ontario's total visitors and 26% of the province's visitors' spending; and

To recognize that the total number of person visits to Ontario has steadily declined under the McGuinty government and that, under their watch, these numbers have declined to levels not seen since the early and mid-1990s; and

To recognize that in January 2006, US entries to Ontario fell to their lowest level for the month in 12 years and that in January 2006, Ontario received 40% fewer entries from the US compared to January 2001, the historical peak for the month, and 27% fewer compared to January 2003, yet the McGuinty government has continued to cut the Ministry of Tourism budget and proceed with legislative and policy initiatives that further jeopardize the economic well-being of the hospitality sector. Addressed to the Premier of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Runciman has moved opposition day number 2. The member for Leeds-Grenville? Further debate? The member for Niagara Centre.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Thank you very much for the accommodation by the official opposition, letting me take the floor in advance of their lead speaker. I'm pleased to co-operate here to ensure that in this very limited, very restricted period of time, all parties have an opportunity to address this.

I'm going to be quite blunt and upfront. New Democrats are going to be supporting this resolution. As we'll be supporting it and the members of the Conservative Party will be arguing for others to support it as well, I suspect that Liberal members of this chamber will be standing up in full defence mode. I would say to you that it is as much denial on their part as anything else.

Look, I come from down in Niagara. I'm blessed to have been able to represent the folks in Welland, Thorold, Pelham and south St. Catharines for a few years now. Those are healthy, strong communities. They're down there along the Niagara River in the Niagara region, and tourism is incredibly important to those communities.

I just canvassed an illustration of the sort of things that go on down there. As a matter of fact, Jim Bradley, the Minister of Tourism, and I have been this past weekend attending the kickoff events for the 38th annual Niagara Folk Arts Festival, primarily in St. Catharines but in municipalities beyond, Niagara-on-the-Lake included. This is a huge event for the folks in the region, for the ethnic communities and for the folk arts communities that organize it and open their doors to the public. It is a huge event for Mr. Bradley and myself in so many ways, because of course we don't decline the food or the occasional beverage that's offered to us. Mr. Bradley distinguished himself on Sunday past, dancing with young Ukrainian folk dancers. I'm sorry to tell you that Mr. Bradley is not Ukrainian, although he wishes he was, nor is he young, and I'm sure that after that effort on the stage on Sunday, he wishes he was young as well. He can sure keep a rhythm. That's an illustration of the sort of things that go on in small-town Ontario. Right here and now, it's going on all through to May 28, wrapping up at Montebello Park, the 38th annual Niagara Folk Arts Festival.

I want to mention a couple of others because I want to be fair to other parts of the region. Of course, there's the Welland Rose Festival. That's a premier event. It's rated as one of the top 50 festivals in Ontario. I've been so proud to have known those folks for an incredibly long time. It's the 45th annual Welland Rose Festival. Of course, at my age, I can remember the very first one. It's true. It's almost half a century now.

It's an event that not only does a great job of bringing the community together, people celebrating their community and its history, but also of attracting visitors. There are people who, as a tourism exercise -- I'm one of them -- increasingly enjoy visiting smaller-town North America, or Europe for that matter. Forget the big cities. Forget New York City or Chicago -- not that there's anything wrong with them. Montreal is a great place. I think Montreal is a wonderful city and Ottawa is a wonderful city. But at the end of the day, it's visiting small-town, historic Ontario. I've travelled that route of Highway 6, one of Ontario's great roadways -- it is, isn't it, Speaker? -- all the way from Port Dover and the Erie Beach Hotel and perch, and all the way up through Manitoulin to Elliot Lake. It's a great highway. It's a historic highway.

1600

But when I've had occasion to be in your riding from time to time in the summertime or fall -- and if you see the banner, the sign, up for the fall fair, for instance, don't speed up. Pull over and drop in. Seriously. Some of the most delightful experiences for people on modest road trips are to be found right here in our own backyard. But they're also a delightful attraction, and have been, for visitors from stateside and other provinces. I'm going to get to that in a few minutes.

I want to highlight again the Welland Rose Festival. That's June 1 to June 20. Just as an illustration, the 30th anniversary of the international luncheons is June 14 to 23 in Welland. Again, it's more eating. Whether it's the Slovak community, the Ukrainian community, the Chinese community or the African Canadian community, it's a chance to share in some of the home life, if you will, of those communities, and that takes place at the Market Square, a great market square.

In Thorold, the 28th annual arts and crafts show, July 15 to 16: I make my best effort not to miss that. It draws vendors. People drive for miles. You've got to get there early. There's no such thing as getting there late. It's like church bazaars. The church sales events are starting now. But these have great potential for attracting tourists who bring new money into the community. You're not recycling existing money.

Canal Days down in Port Colborne: Quite frankly, entrepreneurs, small business people, have done a tremendous job of investing along West Street, and Port Colborne has an incredibly successful event with Canal Days right along the canal. Private sailing ships and from time to time historical sailing ships will be brought down, the tall ships, a whole lot of volunteers, and it goes from morning through till late at night. It caters with a broad range of activities to a broad range of ages. I'm told there's a beer tent out there on at least one of the hot summer nights that Canal Days is operating. But I've got to tell you, this is small-town Ontario. In my view, small towns do it better. There is, as I recall, a beer tent on at least one of the hot summer nights that Canal Days is held. The environment is still maintained at a very family-appropriate sort of venue.

I know there could well be folks addressing the issue of tourism here in Toronto. I read in Toronto publications about the theatre strip, the restaurateurs suffering some significant revenue losses, and it's not just a matter of a restaurant being put at risk in terms of its future. It's a very precarious business. I also read about there being a high incidence of failure rate in that business. From the point of inception it's a high-risk business. But the jobs that it provides are important certainly to the people who work in them and to the economies of the local communities.

All I'm saying to you is that we are in serious trouble here in Ontario. I don't think it serves any of us well to underestimate the seriousness of the crisis we're in in terms of tourism. A few things obviously contribute to that crisis -- the cost of gasoline. Ontarians even now, folks who live right here in Ontario, are increasingly less inclined to take what was considered the low-cost weekend day family outing of loading the kids into the station wagon, again driving out: "Let's go out and eat perch in Port Dover"; "Let's drive up to Sudbury and visit the Big Nickel mine site."

Those are the sorts of weekend trips that were commonplace at least down where I come from. We're not fancy people. We don't go out in those luxury ocean liners and stuff. This is what real folks, people who work hard for their money, at jobs where they're increasingly working harder for less and where their jobs are at risk, do on a weekend. This is what people do for summer vacation. Nobody is jetting off with kids to Paris or places like that. They simply can't afford to. The Ontarians I know are far too frugal, struggling too much in light of increased electricity prices, increased natural gas prices and increased property taxes.

But the concern is that even these modest weekend trips, with the cost of gasoline, are going to be less frequent than they were in times gone by. What that means is that small mom-and-pop entrepreneurs, small restaurants and small amusement facilities are going to find it increasingly difficult to keep staff, and then they're going to lay those staff off. Those workers are going to be unemployed. They're not going to be buying things in their communities, because they're not going to be able to afford to, and then those businesses are being put at risk too.

I don't have to tell you about the inertia that can develop in a small town. You shut down one or two businesses in a small town, and it's like shutting down all of Yonge Street, because the impact on a small town is phenomenal. It's just like the communities where I come from, down in Niagara: You lose 100 jobs and the impact is immediate. The ripple effect is incredible -- it's not ripples; it's like one of those huge tsunami waves.

So when small-town Ontario begins to get hit by the tourism drought, I see the impact as a significant multiple -- in terms of that town, in terms of that community -- of what it is in big-city Ontario where there's more of a cushion, where the balance of the community doesn't feel the shutdown of one, two, three, four or five restaurants quite as readily.

Gasoline price is a serious problem, and I encourage this government, whose members supported the NDP motion to have a standing committee look at means of investigating gasoline prices -- I encourage this government, whose own members supported that resolution -- to let that committee do that job. Because we can begin to address gasoline prices, we can begin to address at least one of the factors that's putting some serious restraints on motoring tourism -- gasoline prices and the high Canadian dollar. While I don't begrudge any senior who's a snowbird their winters in Florida rather than tromping through the slush and the mush and sliding on the ice of February Ontario, and I acknowledge that the high Canadian dollar makes it easier for those folks to spend that extra month in Florida, at the same time, every penny increase in our dollar means yet more jobs lost. When you combine that -- because it's manufacturing jobs; it's exporting -- with the sky-high, ever-rising electricity prices, that's where you end up with figures like 110,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the last 13 months or so, places like down where I come from -- Atlas Steel, still not back on its feet, or Ferranti-Packard.

Howard Hampton asked a question earlier today about why the province isn't requiring its municipal partners in public transit to purchase their rail cars for public transit from Bombardier, built in Thunder Bay, like the Liberal Jean Charest government of Quebec does in the context of the city of Montreal. It just boggles the mind. It's public money. Keep those dollars here; keep those jobs here. Again, the high electricity prices combined with the high Canadian dollar have meant a significant loss in manufacturing jobs. What that does, again, is put all that much more pressure on other job sectors. That means if there's increased pressure down in Niagara for people to work in the casino, or in the hotel-motel industry -- and God bless the security staff at Casino Niagara for having organized themselves into an effective collective bargaining unit. They're OPSEU members. I look forward to the day when the rest of casino staff can enjoy the same collective bargaining clout so that they can start to enjoy a little fairer share of the huge amount of wealth that's being taken from people's pockets in those casinos.

1610

Do you know what it means to work as cleaning staff at a hotel like one of the high-rise hotels in Toronto or down in Niagara? A whole lot of that work is done by women. A whole lot of them are new-Canadian immigrant women for whom the first language isn't English. They're put on quotas of cleaning, oh, a dozen rooms in a shift for minimum wage. The pressure is on to do the work faster and faster so they can get more rooms cleaned.

You talk to them, to these women and men, and you learn about the back injuries, because of course in a high-priced hotel you don't have the regular mattress, you've got the big double mattress -- the big one. Those women have to flip those mattresses. They're scrubbing other people's crap from the toilets and from bathtubs, and they're doing work that a whole lot of folks would simply never take on. Inevitably, they're also raising kids and taking care of husbands too. So they've become increasingly dependent upon those jobs.

Mind you, if the NDP had its druthers, they'd be jobs with not just minimum wages but living wages. That's why you heard our member Michael Prue call upon this government today, in response to the most recent report on poverty, and talk about raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour so at least it would be a wage that would enable full-time workers on minimum wage to live at the poverty level -- not above it but at it.

We in Niagara, just like folks up in Sarnia or people in Windsor, I'm sure, are acutely aware of the border crossing. While I do not want to participate in any fearmongering around the so-called terrorist threat, the reality of 9/11 remains with us. It's undoubtedly burned in the memories of so many people, but especially those who had family members and friends die in those attacks, or those who participated in the rescue after those attacks, many of whom gave their lives as well. The American imposition of a passport requirement, effectively for people entering the United States -- that means not just Canadians going to the States, because our concern should not necessarily be as much about Canadians going to the States. You see, that's part of the problem too. With the high Canadian dollar, more Canadians are going to be enticed to travel southbound -- or in the case of Windsor, westbound -- into the United States and enjoy tourist destinations there.

The concern we have in Niagara is that we need new dollars. We need the revenues that come from tourists. As you heard earlier today from John Tory's questioning, the United States has historically been the single source of tourism for Ontario. While Ontario may well be expanding other sources of tourism -- and, please, that's only logical; there's nothing special about that. Just as Canadians, Ontarians included, are travelling to Europe and Asia and South America and Africa and all parts of the world more than they've ever done before in their lives, people from those places are travelling further and to a greater variety of places. The growing middle classes in India and China are creating whole new markets for Canadian tourism. And while the casinos of Ontario may well be a draw, an attraction -- and the jobs are important -- we know there has been a reduction in the amount of money being gamed, played in those casinos, and a reduction in the amount of new money being gamed in those casinos; in other words, local money that's being recycled.

Mr. Bradley and I had many an hour on our feet in this chamber expressing concern about casino gaming. Quite frankly, every concern that we expressed has ended up coming true, to no great pleasure on my part. The capacity of casinos like Niagara to suck the life out of locals who are attracted to the casino, and who develop serious gambling problems, is exactly what people predicted it would be.

Small service clubs like the Lions Club, those sorts of clubs -- the Kinsmen Club, Kiwanis -- can no longer have a raffle for a colour television. When you're living next door to Casino Niagara, people aren't going to buy raffle tickets for a colour television. People aren't going to buy raffle tickets for prizes of $500 or $200 or $100.

The Trillium funds: Most of us participate with pleasure in the announcement of grants to any number of non-profits in our communities. The Trillium monies simply aren't adequate to make up for the monies lost by those service clubs -- men's and women's and mixed, youth organizations -- that historically contributed so much to the community and that the health care sector, amongst others, depended upon so much for their role.

New Democrats agree with the proposition that there have to be aggressive efforts to persuade our American neighbours to have a greater sense of openness, while maintaining a sufficient level of security, when it comes to the Canada/US border. I've got to tell you, it's incredible that the American government is sending National Guard to the American-Mexican border. There are skeptics, critics, who suggest that even that won't stop the flow of Mexicans who are prepared to risk their lives -- and do -- to enter the United States.

The prospect of needing passports for entry into the United States is one that is going to have a serious impact on Americans travelling to Ontario. If they're the type of traveller who is prepared to invest their tourism dollar domestically within North America -- again, Europe isn't an option. It's the motor trip that's going to be the trip of choice. As you know, there's been a whole lot of traffic across those bridges, hasn't there, Mr. Speaker?

It's going to aggravate an already serious problem. SARS was a serious blow, notwithstanding the silly efforts of Dennis Mills and the Rolling Stones. Come on, Dennis Mills's self-promotion didn't get him re-elected. I make note that, as I told folks at the time, Walter Ostanek from down in St. Catharines has won more Emmys than the Rolling Stones, he has -- are Emmys the music award?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Grammys.

Mr. Kormos: Grammys. My apologies. But Walter Ostanek has won more Grammys than the Rolling Stones ever have. He's the polka king of North America, and he would have put on a concert here in Toronto for free, but nobody asked Walter Ostanek.

Interjection.

Mr. Kormos: Well, they didn't. Dennis Mills, he's got to self-promote -- and for the life of me I'd far sooner have a picture of Walter Ostanek and me on a campaign brochure than Keith Richards. Think about it. He's not exactly a confidence-inspiring vote-getter. He hasn't aged either gracefully or well. But no, Dennis Mills opted for Keith Richards instead of Walter Ostanek. He found himself unemployed, and Toronto still hasn't recovered from the SARS crisis.

That is why those of us on the justice committee are somewhat concerned about Bill 56, the emergency management bill, which observer after observer -- whether it's members of ONA, the Ontario Nurses' Association, health workers, front-line health professionals who are members of OPSEU, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, whether it's people in the emergency management leadership role at the municipal level, we are hard-pressed, as Garfield Dunlop noted at the last committee meeting where we heard from the public, to find supporters for Bill 56. The government is marketing it as the creation of this emergency management czar, Czar Fantino, who is not an inconsiderable person by any means, collecting a couple of very rich pensions and receiving a substantial salary for his role as emergency management czar.

1620

But the thrust of the bill is what will be the new section 7.0.2, this list of extraordinary powers that can be delegated, in terms of them being declared, to a civilian employee of the government -- not to an officer of the assembly, not to somebody answerable to the Legislative Assembly, but to an employee of the government. Especially when you contrast it to the Roy McMurtry observations in his white paper following the Mississauga train derailment, and while I do not want to speak for Justice McMurtry, the message I read in his white paper with respect to codifying extraordinary powers in an emergency response context is to be very careful about what you wish for.

Judge McMurtry, then justice minister in the provincial government, took care to note that the common law had provided, and in his view would continue to provide, for all the powers that are necessary in the course of responding to an emergency. The concern not only of him but of some others was that when you codify it, you may well end up finding yourself restricting the powers to those who have been codified, rather than maintaining the common law powers. That will be something for further discussion and debate in the course of Bill 56.

I should tell you that my colleague the member for Timmins-James Bay may well have left to go home, which is why I'm not going to save any of the time for him. I know it's only Tuesday, but I have a note that he may not find himself back here before 6 o'clock.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): It's a big riding.

Mr. Kormos: It's a big riding. He could be fogged in at the Timmins airport. It's happened before, usually on a Monday morning. Sometimes that fog doesn't lift for days. But were he here, my colleague from Timmins-James Bay would express concern in his own right about the tourism industry, as it exists in what he would call the "real north," where you can put a blackfly on a spit and barbecue it.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): They're bigger than crows.

Mr. Kormos: Bigger than crows? You can make a meal for a family of eight out of one. They're big blackflies, but that doesn't stop the tourists who enjoy that sort of thing. You simply have to avoid blackfly season, right? It's as simple as that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: They're gone by June, anyway.

Mr. Kormos: Exactly. You simply have to avoid blackfly season.

Border crossing is a significant problem. New Democrats, of course, have enjoyed the little spat between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Get ready to hold our coats.

Mr. Kormos: Well, Mr. Bradley, yes. It's like the schoolyard many years ago, when a circle of kids would gather, chanting, "Beef! Beef! Beef!" because two young fellows were going to go at it. Mind you, in the context of today's Ontario, that's unspeakable, and I neither condone it nor do I encourage it.

Mr. Yakabuski: You're old enough to remember it.

Mr. Kormos: But I remember it. So yes, as Mr. Bradley says, New Democrats are ready to stand and hold your respective coats so that the two of you can go at it.

We are comforted not at all by the fact that the Liberals at Queen's Park -- that Mr. McGuinty appears to be incapable of getting along with anybody. Think about it: Mr. Charest and him don't get along; Mr. Klein and him don't get along; it appears Mr. Campbell and him -- even though Jean Charest is a Liberal, and Jean Charest is a true Liberal. You know why? Because he used to be a Tory. He was prepared to abandon his political values at the drop of a hat. That's a true Liberal. That's the real test, Mr. Tory: somebody who has no principles and will call themselves whatever they think it takes to win an election.

Mr. Yakabuski: That's a Liberal.

Mr. Kormos: That's a Liberal. That's why Bob Rae, for instance, is an ideal candidate for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party, a true Liberal, a person who is prepared to change his values at the drop of a hat, which implies that you may not have any, and who will say whatever he has to in order to get elected.

So here's Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, who can't get along -- I understand why he can't get along with Ralph Klein. Ralph Klein is a Tory. Ralph Klein is a western Tory; he's a Tory's Tory. But Dalton McGuinty can't get along with Liberal Jean Charest. He can't get along with Liberal Gord Campbell, whom Dalton McGuinty has emulated in so many policy areas -- he has. Dalton McGuinty doesn't get along with Gord Campbell, even though he's adopting Gord Campbell's policy on abolishing, dismantling the Ontario Human Rights Commission. That's a British Columbia model that proved an absolute failure there. Dalton McGuinty is so enamoured with Campbell's policy that he adopts it here, notwithstanding its failure, but he still can't get along with him.

I don't know. I haven't seen any of the old report cards. Maybe there's a museum in Ottawa that has some of those old elementary school report cards. You know: "Does not play well with others"; "Does not co-operate"; "Doesn't socialize well." He certainly has demonstrated an inability to get along with Stephen Harper. Now, maybe Stephen Harper is just a prickly kind of guy.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You're close.

Mr. Kormos: Mr. Bradley says -- the comment was, "Maybe Mr. Harper is just a prickly kind of guy." Bradley responds, "You're close." Everybody gets the joke. John Tory is laughing. I, of course, respond to Bradley so that Hansard accurately describes and records the interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He's a very nice man.

Mr. Kormos: Mr. Bradley says.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Mr. Harper is a very nice man.

Mr. Kormos: Mr. Bradley says. I am sure Mr. Bradley will be speaking to this motion in his own right, so he can clarify any ambiguity that he has generated so far about his perspective.

See, I don't know Mr. Harper. Maybe he is a prickly kind of guy, but surely Dalton McGuinty can rise above that. Surely there can be a level of professionalism.

It wasn't that long ago in the total scheme of things, in the scheme of our lives, that I remember a succession of governments constantly blaming the federal government for their failures. I remember it, oh so well. I remember the story about Mike Harris and his election in 1995, and how his predecessor had left three envelopes on the Premier's desk and numbered them 1, 2 and 3. When Mike Harris was brought into the office and his predecessor moved aside to let him take his chair, Mr. Harris said, "What are these three envelopes?" His predecessor, the now-defeated Premier, said, "You open envelope number 1 in the event of your first crisis, envelope number 2 in the event of your second crisis, and envelope number 3 in the event of your third serious crisis." Mike Harris, of course, was newly elected, somewhat brash and cocky. "Crisis," he said, "there will never be a crisis." Lo and behold, there were crises amany.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He created one in education.

Mr. Kormos: John Snobelen, yes, exercised the skill of creating crises.

The first crisis happened, and Mike Harris rushed to open envelope number 1. It said, "In response to a first crisis, blame the previous government," so he did. When the second crisis happened, Mr. Harris rushed and opened the second envelope. It said, "Blame the federal government," and he did. At the third crisis, Mike Harris realizes this is the last envelope, and he hurriedly and heatedly tears it open and unfolds the piece of paper, and this one said, "Prepare for defeat in the next election."

Interjection: No, it said, "Prepare three envelopes."

Interjections.

1630

Mr. Kormos: If you guys want to tell a joke, tell your joke on your time; don't cut into my time. Come on.

Mr. Milloy, the parliamentary voyeur, wants to stand on the sidelines and watch all the time, but he doesn't want to get into the fray. Roll your sleeves up, Mr. Milloy, mix it up a little bit in here with the rest of us, but don't try to get in Hansard on my time, even though I'm inclined to accommodate you once in a while. If you want Hansard coverage, if you want something to put in your householder, Mr. Milloy, you get up and debate the issues. You debate the bills that are produced in this House. You defend why you're going to be supporting Bill 56, which is going to open collective bargaining agreements for public sector workers. You explain, Mr. Milloy, why you're going to support that. You explain, Mr. Milloy, why you're going to support Bill 107, which is going to dismantle the Ontario Human Rights Commission and privatize the human rights process, human rights litigation, here in Ontario. If you want to get in Hansard, Mr. Milloy --

The Acting Speaker: I would like you to refer to the member by his riding name, please.

Mr. Kormos: Thank you kindly. I appreciate your intervention and your direction and guidance, and I value it.

If the member for Kitchener Centre, whose wife calls John and whose neighbours call Mr. Milloy, wants to get into Hansard, let him take his time during debate on Bill 107 and explain why he is going to vote to demolish and abolish the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Let him take his time during the debate on Bill 14 and explain to mediators why they're going to have to be regulated by the Law Society of Upper Canada, because his government introduced that oh, so broad definition of practising legal services. I give this kind advice to my Liberal colleague from Kitchener Centre, whose wife calls John and whose neighbours call Mr. Milloy: that you don't sneak your way into Hansard; you mix it up in here; you get on your feet and you debate.

New Democrats will be voting for this motion. We think it's an important observation, and we hope that with sufficient courage on the part of government backbenchers, the motion passes and the net result will be a positive one, spurring this government to some real action when it comes to giving Mr. Bradley the tools he needs to promote tourism effectively here in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): It's indeed my pleasure to speak on this motion this afternoon. Certainly since my appointment as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Tourism, my friend the Honourable Jim Bradley, who is here in the House this afternoon, I have had many opportunities to see first-hand the commitment of our government to tourism in the province. The McGuinty government's plan for the tourism sector is one that takes into account modern global realities, and we have to understand those global realities, while still preserving the integrity of our various cultural, historical and natural attractions in this province.

As I stand here and participate in this debate this afternoon, I would also like to echo similar comments made by the member for Niagara Centre when he was up on his feet talking about small-town Ontario, his interest in small-town Ontario and the tourism opportunities in small-town Ontario.

This weekend, as many in this province know, is the opening of Upper Canada Village for the 2006 tourist season, a great historic site in Ontario, a great tourism site. I will be back there to participate at the opening and throughout the season, bringing friends and relatives to the site.

As well, if you really want to talk about small-town Ontario, this Saturday in Dunvegan, Ontario, at the Glengarry Pioneer Museum, we'll have the official opening of the first permanent welcoming and support centre at that museum site. The museum closes down in the fall and over the winter season sits there relatively dormant, but starting this year, they will have a permanent site. I'm very excited about going out to officially open the building, which is a heritage building, and to honour and laud those people who have worked so hard in restoring this building to the museum site. As well this Saturday -- I don't know, I'll have to clone myself -- I've also been invited to the launch of the 2006 Stormont Yacht Club opening, a yacht club that welcomes everybody from my community in to enjoy experiences out on Lake St. Lawrence, a lake that was basically man-made -- a great facility. We have those great attractions all across Ontario. This is what I've been seeing.

In my opening remarks I talked about modern global realities. Chief among these external factors and global realities is the skyrocketing price of gas. This is a phenomenon affected by global supply and various international political concerns, not provincial policy. I'm not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting on this file. To keep the price of gas artificially low in Ontario through subsidies would quickly drain provincial coffers while doing nothing to promote conservation. We know in this province we have the Minister of Energy, the Honourable Donna Cansfield, working so hard in this sector of energy, the conservation file. Even when she was a parliamentary assistant, she worked so hard. If that's the policy of the Leader of the Opposition and his thoughts, perhaps the current opposition leader has more in common with Mike Harris than we had previously thought, certainly in his thoughts on that file.

The other external issue is the high Canadian dollar. Again, in this issue the Tory stance isn't quite clear and indeed seems to change with whatever wind their party thinks is prevailing. While the Leader of the Opposition is criticizing the Premier for the rise in the dollar, he has previously said, and I quote: "The value of the dollar is set by the marketplace -- so you don't hear me blaming Mr. McGuinty for that." End of quote. To the Leader of the Opposition I would say that what we hear you say depends entirely on what day of the week we hear you say it.

Another criticism from the esteemed member from Toronto Centre, but representing Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, is that this government is not working with our counterparts in the United States. Again, the rationale behind this argument is suspect. While the federal government has made no effort to work with the American government, accepting whatever they are told is inevitable, the McGuinty government has been working actively with our counterparts, both governors and senators, to find a real, plausible solution that will address security concerns without damaging the economies of either country. Our approach has received a great deal of support, south of the border, from both sides of the political spectrum. Ohio Governor Bob Taft, New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens, Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman and others have expressed their disapproval of the western hemisphere travel initiative. Democratic New York Senator Hillary Clinton was recently in Massena, New York, right across the border from my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, to let the people on both sides of the great river that divides us know that she will continue to work against this ill-conceived plan.

While we do oppose the western hemisphere travel initiative, this government has an alternative. Ontario is advocating for a binational group that will identify and develop proposals for alternative forms of secure documentation, such as a new, more secure driver's licence. We will continue to work with our friends south of the border to find an alternative to the passport regulations which will still meet the identity documentation requirements of the initiative.

At the same time that we continue to work with our partners in the United States to address the western hemisphere travel initiative, this government also realizes that the face of tourist visitation to Canada is changing. I had an opportunity, when I retired in the year 2000 from teaching and became a member in this Legislature, to serve on the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, and I saw the tourist trends to Upper Canada Village. Certainly I saw that international visits have risen dramatically, with overseas entries to Ontario increasing by 7.2% in 2005 over 2004, and by 11.3% in the first two months of this year, 2006. Countries like Mexico, China, South Korea and Australia are emerging as growth markets. While we continue our efforts in the United Kingdom, German and Japanese markets, we are aggressively pursuing these new opportunities as well.

1640

I am particularly pleased with the work being done to promote our connection with China. Currently, we are planning to bring the world's largest lantern festival outside of Asia to Toronto. We are partnering with the People's Republic of China right here in this province of Ontario. For 65 nights this summer, a sight not seen before on this side of the Greenwich line will draw tourists and visitors to this city and this province.

This is a government that looks to the future while dealing with the issues of the present. The targeting of emerging markets is proof of this. Further proof of this was present in the creation of the Ministry of Health Promotion, which is addressing the growing health concerns that are taxing our population. By transferring the sports and recreation capital program in 2006-07 to the Ministry of Health Promotion, this government has simultaneously removed added responsibilities from the Ministry of Tourism to allow for greater focus on the issues that matter in tourism, while placing the responsibility in a ministry that ties sports and recreation to health promotion, and that's the way it should be.

With one-time expenditures in 2005-06 for the cultural tourism marketing fund and support for Toronto's bid for the 2015 world Expo, and a one-time $30-million capital expenditure commitment in 2005-06 to the Ottawa Congress Centre, we are strengthening Ontario's tourism infrastructure and getting the message out loud and clear that some of the world's most exciting destinations are right here in the province, right across this province, and certainly in my riding.

How the Leader of the Opposition can justify calling our government's initiatives of streamlining and strategic support a budget cut is beyond my comprehension and is anyone's guess. The evidence clearly demonstrates that this government has a plan and that it's working.

I am delighted to have had this opportunity this afternoon to make these remarks on this opposition day motion. I trust we will have further remarks from the members of my party.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? I'm pleased to recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I'm delighted to be able to speak to this motion, delighted that we're having a chance to talk about this very important subject here today and delighted to have a chance to contribute a few words myself. Ordinarily I wouldn't have made any comments at all in the course of talking about this important tourism matter, except that the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh made various comments that seemed to be unlike him in some respects. If he wants to give me some advice, I'll be happy to give him some, which is that he should stop reading that piffle prepared for him by the Premier's office, which takes gratuitous shots at people, and start to focus instead on addressing the question of jobs that are lost at Domtar in Cornwall, producing a hospital for the people in Cornwall, starting to get a new deal on the hydro dam for Cornwall, so that we can get the economy back on its feet down there, as opposed to addressing and reading this piffle from the Premier's office that he brought in here today. Never mind.

By the way, what started all this was his suggestion that I had blamed the Premier for the level of the Canadian dollar. I never have. What I do blame the Premier's office for is writing that piffle that the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh read, but also for the fact that precisely at the time when this province requires an investment and a reinvestment in its tourism industry, this government, led by the Premier and his co-conspirators, the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Finance, has chosen to cut back. Times are different now. Times are difficult now. There's no question. That's true, and that's facing all industries -- tourism and everything else.

Why are things different? Why is it we can't just count on the automatic number of visitors coming across the border as they did before, just pouring into Ontario? There is no question that there are some external circumstances -- by that I mean external to the government of Ontario -- that are contributing to this. There is no question that the high dollar has some impact on people's decision-making on these kinds of things -- no question at all. There's no question that perceptions about the border and lineups and so forth and so on cause some people to think, "Well, maybe I just won't bother to do something that involves going across the border." So there's a limited amount we can do about those things here, as members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario or as people involved with the government of Ontario. But there are other things that are contributing to this that we can do something about, in my view, and that really was part of the purpose of the questions we asked in question period today and this resolution put before the House.

There are perceptions that exist. I know this because I have had reviewed with me, as I'm sure the minister has, the research that has been done about Americans' attitudes towards Canada and visiting Canada. There are perceptions, largely fuelled by the activities, actions and statements of the previous Liberal government of Canada, that we don't want them here, that the Americans aren't our friends. You can't, on the one hand, stomp on somebody's feet and kick sand in their face and so on, and then say, "Come on up here and visit us and spend money here. We love you. We want your money. We want your visiting." Thank goodness that kind of thing has come to an end and we're going to work with the Americans. Sure, we'll have disagreements with them from time to time, but we're going to work with them and treat them in the manner they should be treated, as people who are not perfect any more than we are, who we do have disagreements with from time to time, but who we also can work with as our best friends and our largest trading partners.

The second perception that exists -- and again I've heard this from the research that's been done -- is a "Been there, done that" sort of thing. "We've been to Canada before. We've been to Toronto before. We've been to Ontario before. We've seen what there is to see, so we're really not going to come back." That, again, is not true. There are lots of things to see and do here, lots of new things happening. I support completely the investments that have been made by the province and by the government of Canada; incidentally, investments that started under the government of Premier Mike Harris with respect to the art gallery and the museum and so forth. The vast bulk of that money came as a result of an initiative of a Progressive Conservative government. I support that, and that will help to get people here. But in and of itself it's not going to be enough; that is not going to be the answer that is going to get people here.

One of the things I learned when I was in business is that the last thing you should be doing at the time when business seems to be turning down a little bit is cutting the marketing budget, to say, "My goodness, things are spiralling down a bit. We'd better cut the marketing budget." That is exactly what has gone on here. I don't know specifically whether there's more or less being spent on marketing, but the overall budget that has been allocated by the people of Ontario in respect of tourism is down. The minister shakes his head. He got up and gave one of his "Here today, gone tomorrow" lessons in accounting, about how "This fund has been transferred over there, that fund has been cancelled, and we no longer do this but we've started to do that."

Look, the bottom line is -- and I don't have the budget papers with me; I took them out to my office earlier on. Last year, going from memory, the number was $261 million. This year, in your own papers, it's $161 million, a difference of $100 million. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of the jiggery-pokery accounting you were doing in question period today. Fine, maybe a third of that actually has been allocated somewhere else or was one-time spending; it still means you've taken the budget down by $70 million. Even if you'd taken it down by $10 million, it's the wrong thing to do right now, because these people are struggling. The Americans are thinking of reasons they won't come here and they need us to be out there investing in better and more attractions, explaining to the Americans why they should come here, why this is a great place to visit, why there are 101 reasons they should be here in Canada, even if it's nothing more than that we do want them to come and we love them and we love their visits and we want them to be here as often as they possibly can.

The fact of the matter is as well that the trends all indicate they're just not coming. I was astounded at the fact that both the Premier and the minister basically dismissed me and gave me, as the Leader of the Opposition -- I don't mean this in a personal sense or a partisan sense, but they said, "This question that points to a sharp decline in the number of Americans crossing the border to visit Canada, our biggest category of visitors who spend by far the most amount of money at our tourist attractions and businesses" -- they basically dismissed my question and started reading back old accounts of jiggery-pokery accounting and getting into all kinds of other issues.

At the end of the day, when you see trend lines happening like that in your business -- and this is our business, attracting and succeeding in attracting people to come here and spend their money and time here -- that is precisely the time when we should be investing in the tourist business, in new marketing programs, in new kinds of things, new attractions. It is something that is exactly the opposite of what we are doing. When you choose to do that, to make the cutback at the wrong time, precisely when you should be making the additional investment, it oftentimes sets off a spiral that's even worse than the one you started out with. Visits drop further, business gets even worse, people go out of business.

1650

Of course, it's not even as if the government itself somehow benefits by this so-called saving they're achieving by cutting back on investment in tourism. The fact of the matter is that one of the biggest losers out of all this is the government of Ontario. By the tourism federation's own numbers, it's an estimated billion dollars in business for the tourism operators; that's $112 million in lost revenue for the government of Ontario. So how are we any further ahead? We are worse off.

The minister made a big point of saying, or the Premier or somebody, today in all that Premier's office piffle that was going on in question period, that I was big on --

Interjection.

Mr. Tory: It was you; it was the minister saying that I was one day in favour of spending and one day not.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It's true.

Mr. Tory: No, that's not true. I'll tell you what I am not in favour of. I am not in favour of you people cutting back on the budget of the Ministry of Tourism at the same time as you are wasting the taxpayers' money somewhere else. I gave an example today; I gave two, in fact. One was the $160 million in scandalous misspending of the taxpayers' money that you've spent on hiring expensive new bureaucrats in fancy new offices for these LHINs that you're doing. The second example was the tens of millions of dollars -- I think we have it up to $40 million now -- in ad contracts you've handed out to your Liberal friends.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No, no.

Mr. Tory: Absolutely you have. It is just bogus to even argue otherwise.

I'll give you a third one. If you had taken 2% of the $3-billion windfall produced by the hard work of Ontario residents, who worked hard to produce $3 billion in extra revenue, if you'd taken 2% of that and allocated it to maintaining the level of investment, it would have still resulted in a cutback, but it would have been $60 million that could have been out there saying to people, "Please come here. Please come to Ontario and see the attractions we have. We want your business. We want you to come." But no, no. You didn't even get 2% of that. You obviously went to the cabinet table and either didn't fight or you fought and lost. If you fought and lost, I respect you for trying, but for goodness' sake, it's your job to go and get that kind of investment in tourism in this province when you people had $3 billion in extra revenue that you didn't expect last year.

My final comment is this: I think as well that if you would put aside for a moment the short term and how much we're spending this year and how much you've cut back by tens and tens of millions of dollars, whatever the correct number is, on promoting Ontario and encouraging people to come here, there's also a long-term problem here. I am told this by talking to the operators. It's one of the great advantages to being out of this place and talking and listening to people out there. They say that a lot of the small operations -- you know, it was fine for you and the Premier today. All you really could talk about, when it was the good news, was the investments you've made to big cultural institutions here in Toronto. We support that. In fact, we started it. We made the initial investments. But there was no talk today, not a mention by you guys, of the small operators out there who, for years and years, have relied on American families coming up for their week booking, their two-week booking, coming up to the small lodges located somewhere in northern or central Ontario.

Those people are hurting. They're hurting because the Americans are deciding not to come here, the Americans are coming for less time, or in some cases the kids aren't as interested in coming as perhaps when their parents were bringing them earlier on. When you're cutting back on the investment, it means inevitably that, whatever your explaining is of your accounting and all the funds you've got here and there that have been located somewhere else for reasons best known and only known to you, you are not investing in the long-term plans. You're not investing in the answer to this question: What are we going to do to make sure those businesses remain viable down the road? What are we going to do with those small lodges that are seeing slowly declining business from the American market when they need to have that business to remain viable? The answer is: nothing. That's what you're doing: absolutely nothing. In fact, it's worse than nothing, because you're cutting back hugely on tens of millions of dollars in the spending of the ministry.

So what we've got in the short term is nothing: cutbacks from you, less money, less investment at precisely the time we need more. What we have in the long term: no long-term planning, just some talk about some of the institutions in Toronto, which will help a little bit, those things initiated by the Progressive Conservative government, with an add-on top-up from you in the last little while. As far as the small operators in the province are concerned: out of sight, out of mind. They're not here; you don't look out the window and see them. They're people who are just out there trying to make a living, trying to keep up with your regulatory burden, your tax burden, your McGuinty health tax, all kinds of things that you're doing, your property tax fiasco and so forth.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Our property tax fiasco?

Mr. Tory: Yeah, it's yours. You're the government of Ontario. You have the freedom to change it any day you want. You bring legislation in here on any other subject at the drop of a hat. Come in and make a statement tomorrow afternoon and tell us what you're going to do about it. You are the government of Ontario and you have been for two and a half years. You have the obligation and responsibility to change something if you think it's wrong. It's your mess because you're the government.

I'm glad we put this on the table today, because this is a huge industry full of hard-working entrepreneurs, people who work hard, families who work hard, people who want the Americans to come here, who love the Americans, who think the Americans are our best customers and our best friends, who want to get people from other countries to come as well, but who understand full well that the way to do it is not the way this government is doing it, by having no long-term plan and massive cutbacks in the investment and spending on tourism in this province. It is a complete repudiation of the proud record of accomplishment achieved by successive Progressive Conservative governments in the area of tourism and tourism attractions.

I think the government should be ashamed of itself on this account. The minister should be prepared to stand in his place tomorrow -- we'll give him till tomorrow to pull a statement together -- and say, "I repent. We're going to restore that spending. We're going to make the investment we need. We're going to build this industry back up. We're going to welcome the Americans to come to Ontario. Enough of this kind of scandalous ignorance of the tourism industry that I've been guilty of. I apologize, and we're going to do what we should do, do what we said we were going to do and get back to the good old days when we had a strong tourism industry in Ontario."

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Chudleigh): Further debate?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I am pleased to be able to get up and debate this particular motion.

In my own riding I have a great deal of lakefront along Lake Huron. I have communities like Grand Bend and Port Franks; we have Forest and Kettle Point. In those communities we've had a lot of Americans who have come and have bought their summer homes there. They continue to come across the border, come and visit and spend their dollars in my riding. There's never been any concern. We certainly are happy to have them there. We welcome them in every way we can.

One of the things I noticed, though, that kind of caught my attention, and I guess that's because of my own background in farming and having a rural constituency, is the mention in the motion about farmers' markets. In my riding we have a number of them. They certainly do attract our American visitors, but even more so they attract Ontarians. They attract the local people. I think a lot of our tourism should be made at home. There's no reason why we can't encourage tourism from within and have Ontarians travel within our province to see other parts of the province.

We talk about farmers' markets, and as I said, I have a lot of farmers' markets in my riding. They are particularly attractive to anyone who has gone through. You get to listen to the noises and see the products that are presented there, and these are all done by local farmers. They're very social events. A farmers' market is not just an economic event, it's a very social event, and many people take the opportunity to just enjoy their community. The tourism: The opportunity comes to visit and meet with others who have come from outside the area to enjoy our communities.

There is also mention of regulation. I noticed that during the question period we had mention of regulation of farmers' markets. I think what we're referring to is the report that was presented to the Minister of Health from the Ontario Farmers' Markets Food Safety Working Group. That working group has brought forward a report. The working group is made up of representatives from the Ministry of Health, Farmers' Markets Ontario, the Association of Supervisors of Public Health Inspectors, the Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors and of course the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs representatives.

They have brought forward a report with recommendations on how to make food safety within farmers' markets more secure. Certainly food safety is a priority for the province of Ontario, but in terms of our rural communities, the viability of farmers' markets is very important to us too. As a farmer I can state very clearly that whenever we have situations where products are taken from farms, we want to make sure those products are safe for consumption. If there is ever an event that happens that were to threaten the safety of the public, it has an impact on all farmers. We do not want to see anything happen that would cause the consuming public ever to stay away from our markets.

1700

We have had situations where there have been concerns about certain products and we want to make sure they're there. But for the most part, I would say for the majority, farmers who work from these farm markets are very careful about their products and they set standards. They don't want to sell anything that they wouldn't serve to their own children, to their own families. They want to make sure the products are safe. That's why they have no problem in supporting some of these types of recommendations. They're waiting to see what will happen when the Minister of Health decides what he's going to do with this particular report.

I want to quote from the Brantford Expositor. In the Expositor the president of the Brantford Farmers' Market Vendors' Association pointed out some things he had seen that were within the report: "`What they (the authors) have done is try to relax the guidelines to help out farmers' markets and church groups.'" I don't see here that they're particularly concerned about what the report is saying. I think they understand what the intent of that report is, and very clearly the report says that the goal is "to preserve the sense of community in the neighbourhoods where markets are held by providing the opportunity for producers to sell safe, high-quality products directly to consumers."

I know that vendors want to do exactly that. They want to make sure that their reputation as farm market vendors is upheld and that they provide a high-quality product that will not just draw the local people and their local supporters but will also draw in all tourists who are interested in seeing what we provide in our communities, and we provide a variety of things. We have a number of things that I see in my own local markets: breads, jams and fresh vegetable products. We have an abattoir that sells inspected meats at the farmers' market. Everybody enjoys going there, looking at the products and discussing them with their neighbours and all the people who are standing about just looking at the vegetables, comparing what the weather is like and enjoying the day. It's a very common Saturday morning activity, and I know that tourists will continue to do that.

In my own riding, as I said, I have a number of American tourists who are invested in my community, who own summer homes in my community, who are going to continue to come back and invest in my community, spend their dollars there and take every opportunity they can to enjoy the water, the lakes, the farmers' markets, the playhouse at Grand Bend and the playhouse at Petrolia. There are a number of opportunities that we provide for tourists in our communities. I haven't seen anything that indicates to me we're seeing a reduction in the number of tourists in our area.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Yesterday, as I was driving from my riding to Queen's Park, I stopped for a coffee just off the 401 in Mississauga. At the service centre where I often stop, there is a tourism information rack filled with brochures that promote Ontario's tourism destinations. I picked up the brochure that was recently published by Northumberland Tourism. I hope the minister has seen it.

My wife and I had spent a very enjoyable getaway on Rice Lake in Northumberland county a few years ago, and I thought it would be interesting to find out what was new in Northumberland's scenic communities such as Cobourg, Port Hope, Colborne and Brighton. What I found was one of the most attractive tourist brochures I've ever seen: inviting, filled with colour, making you want to pick up the phone or get on the Net and book your holiday right away. I'm pleased that the member from Northumberland is in the House to confirm that. Whether it is to experience the wilderness and outdoors, arts and entertainment, heritage and culture, shopping and cuisine, relaxing accommodations, a spa and wellness experience or a festival, Northumberland county has it all.

I begin my speech on this afternoon's motion on Ontario's tourism industry in this way, as a reminder to all of us that our province is blessed with an extraordinary array of tourist attractions, and we've only just begun to scratch the surface of our tourism potential. Northumberland county is but one example.

After John Tory was elected leader of our party in September 2004, I was pleased to be asked which critic portfolio I'd be interested in being assigned. My answer was immediate and certain. I asked to be appointed critic for tourism and recreation. It was my hope to play a constructive role, enhancing the profile of the concerns and issues facing Ontario's tourism industry.

Even though we disagree on many issues and our political philosophies differ greatly, I have a high personal regard for the member for St. Catharines, who serves as this government's tourism minister. I would never question his commitment to his constituents, and his 29 years of service in this Legislature clearly attest to the support he has received in his riding through the years. So while I know the minister is committed to his responsibilities, as his critic I am obligated to bring forward my concerns about the government's tourism policy, where they're not doing enough and where they must improve.

This motion stands in the name of our House leader, the member for Leeds-Grenville, and I want to thank him for suggesting that we devote one of our opposition days to the challenges that are being faced by our tourism and hospitality businesses today. I know how important tourism is to his riding, and I appreciate his support of perhaps thousands of his constituents whose livelihoods depend on a successful summer tourist season.

Waterloo-Wellington, the riding in which I live and am privileged to represent in this Legislature, is no different. I think of Elora in Centre Wellington township, St. Jacobs in Woolwich township and Drayton in Mapleton township, all of which have packaged their local attributes into strong tourism-based economies.

I think of our festivals, like the Fergus Scottish Festival and Highland Games; the Fergus Truck Show, North America's largest truck show; the Reminiscence Festival in Fergus, celebrating the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s; the Elora Festival, the finest summer music festival in Ontario; Drayton Entertainment, with their theatre stages in Drayton and St. Jacobs in Waterloo-Wellington, as well as the Huron Country Playhouse in Grand Bend and the King's Wharf Theatre in Penetanguishene; the St. Jacobs country farmers' markets, the Waterloo County and Area Quilt Festival; the Elmira Maple Syrup Festival, the Wellesley Apple Butter and Cheese Festival; the scenic areas around the Grand River; our many public and private campgrounds; our fine golf courses; snowmobiling in the wintertime; the Wellington County Museum, Doon Heritage Crossroads; our fall fairs; and of course Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest.

These are among the major attractions in the Waterloo-Wellington area that allow us to host hundreds of thousands of visitors every year. I want to express my appreciation to the hundreds of volunteers in Waterloo-Wellington who work so hard to promote our communities through these festivals and attractions. There is no way that any of these events could be successful without the involvement of so many community-minded residents who volunteer their time to put their communities on the map.

I'm certain that all MPPs in this House feel the same way about their ridings and the need to strengthen tourism. We should all recognize and understand the challenges facing Ontario's tourism industry and how these challenges affect business people, employees and communities across the province.

This resolution identifies the challenges. I would add that we need to acknowledge that Ontario tourism has unlimited potential for growth but is facing enormous immediate challenges, including the possible passport requirement at the Canada-US border; a stronger Canadian dollar that was alluded to earlier -- almost 90 cents now; higher provincial taxes, including the government's new health tax; higher gasoline prices; higher hydro rates; and higher natural gas prices, among others.

On top of all these challenges, unfortunately, we can add indifference: indifference by the McGuinty Liberal government for all but ignoring tourism in the budget presented to this House in the spring of this year.

A few days after the budget, I raised the concerns of Ontario's tourism partners with the Premier himself during question period. They were expecting $30 million in new money to be put forward to the Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership Corp. and they were disappointed afterwards and wanted to know why the budget was not more supportive. The Premier ignored the substance of my question and rhymed off a number of capital investments the government expects to make in our cultural attractions -- all of them in Toronto -- many of which were announced by our government. These are all well and good, but they hardly attract tourists to eastern, northeastern and northwestern Ontario and other regions of the province that depend on tourism for their economic success.

There are quite a number of speakers in our caucus who wish to speak to this resolution, and I'm cognizant of the limited time, so I'm going to conclude my comments at this point.

I would ask all members of the government to show their support for Ontario's tourism and hospitality industries today by supporting this important motion that's being put forward by the official opposition.

1710

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): It is a great privilege for me to join in this afternoon's debate. I am going to say right off the top that, having reviewed the opposition day motion, I plan to vote against it. I plan to vote against it for a number of reasons, a number of parts of this motion that I disagree with. I want to focus on two today.

The first is that I think this Legislature, the members, should be standing in their place today and praising the exemplary --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Will the member take his seat. I would ask the members opposite to refrain from heckling the member for Kitchener Centre so as to allow him to make his points.

Mr. Milloy: I think members should be standing in the House today and talking about the exemplary and strong leadership role shown by the Minister of Tourism in this Legislature, one of the best, I think, in Ontario's history.

I come from an area where my colleague from Waterloo-Wellington -- you may have heard his speech -- just spoke about all the attractions. I can say to members of this House that the support and co-operation from the Minister of Tourism -- he was down at Oktoberfest last year and I think wowed them all in terms of the presentation there.

The second area I want to discuss today in terms of the motion is some of the outrageous and inaccurate statements that are raised about our government's leadership when it comes to certain border issues with the United States, particularly the western hemisphere travel initiative.

I am very proud to say that our Premier and our Minister of Tourism have shown unfailing leadership in lobbying against changes the United States is proposing that would affect border travel. They've been working closely with their counterparts in the United States, particularly those governors and senators from the northern United States, and have been showing the type of leadership that Ontarians expect.

Just to explain a little bit about this issue, I think there's some confusion out there that somehow the door has closed on this and that the United States has said that any American visiting our country must possess a passport in order to get back into their country. Actually what has happened is that The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act has passed, and if I may quote, it says, "The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall develop and implement a plan as expeditiously as possible to require a passport or other document, or combination of documents, deemed by the Secretary of Homeland Security to be sufficient to denote identity and citizenship, for all travel into the United States."

As you read that, you see "other document, or combination of documents," and you start to realize that there is some flexibility there. There are points to be raised. There are challenges to be put forward to the Americans to find a way so that they don't require simply a passport, that they will find other means to go forward.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Tourism and the Premier for the work they've being doing in trying to promote this.

I guess what I take issue with about the Tory motion today is it goes on and on to say we've done nothing on it except to criticize the federal government.

I don't think we've criticized the federal government. What we've done is we've recognized that in this federation, leadership in terms of foreign affairs comes from the federal government. We have asked the federal government to take some leadership in this area. The Minister of Tourism has repeatedly called for a federal, provincial and territorial meeting of ministers of tourism to see how we can co-operate together.

This is not an issue that is over. When you read that statement I just read into the record, you start to realize there is flexibility. When you read the list of prominent US politicians who are saying there is something unfair with what is being proposed about the allowance for mandatory passports, you start to realize that there's a window opening, that there's flexibility. What we have done is we've called on our partners in Ottawa to take leadership on this. It is their job to be in charge of foreign affairs. We as a province can make these representations, but at the end of the day we want to work with Ottawa, and we want to work with our partners in the northern States and see that this is defeated and that we come forward with an alternative.

With that, as I say, I plan to vote against this motion for a variety of reasons. But I think those are two clear ones, where it fails to take into account the reality of the leadership that has been shown by this government in the area of tourism.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in this opposition day motion today on tourism. I only have a brief couple of minutes to speak, because we have a lot of members who are interested in speaking to this motion, so I won't be able to make all the points I want, but I would like to start by saying that I've been involved in the tourism business for the past 30 years. I have had real first-hand experience and I can tell you that in the last number of years, the tourism sector has faced some real challenges. When you look at the number of visitors from the United States, in 1998 we had 30,168 visitors in Ontario; in 2004, 21,391. That's a huge decline in the number of visitors to this province. I can also tell you from first-hand experience that operators are facing increased regulation and increased costs, and it's making it much more challenging to survive and to make money in this business.

This is not the time, as John Tory stated, when the government should be cutting back on marketing. In fact, it's a time when the government should be investing in more marketing. Marketing in the tourism sector should be viewed not as an expense but as an investment, something that's necessary to stimulate more business, to bring prosperity to all of Ontario. It is unfortunate that the government is cutting back at this time, when the tourism sector is facing some real challenges.

I would like to hit on one other point in the brief time I have available to speak, and that is a quality assurance system. The McGuinty government promised that they would conduct a feasibility study on implementing a standardized grading system for Ontario, so that consumers and businesses who want to do business in Ontario will be assured about the quality of the product and the experience they will have here in the province. That's something that hasn't been implemented. This summer, my wife and I are planning our first-ever summer holiday in Newfoundland, and there they have a grading system that makes it easy to pick out quality accommodations, together with their map and guidebook system, which I'd say Ontario could learn from. I know that the tourism sector needs a quality assurance system for the province. It would be a real benefit to Ontario's tourism business. I hope the Minister of Tourism, who is sitting opposite, is listening and is going to implement a quality assurance system in Ontario.

Mr. Yakabuski: It certainly is my pleasure as well to join this debate today, not just to debate but to support this opposition motion this afternoon.

It has become abundantly clear -- the evidence is obvious -- that our tourism industry is under great duress as a result of smaller numbers of Americans visiting. I guess the question is why. While we can't lay all of the blame on the provincial government, we certainly have to recognize that they must accept some of the blame. They are in charge. In fact, when you are the government, that's your job: to promote the tourism industry in this province. There is some serious question as to whether they have been adequate at doing that. This motion is designed to address exactly that, because this government has failed to address the tourism issue in this province and has failed to properly support it.

It seems like Ontario is embarking on an isolationist policy, not only within the country but internationally as well. It wants to pick a fight with everybody out there. Believe me, those kinds of attitudes come back and haunt you when it comes to the citizens of those jurisdictions making their rightful choice about where they are going to spend their tourism dollars. We've got some of the most beautiful tourism attractions in the entire world right here in Ontario, some of them right in my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, but we've got to be able to get the people there. It is the job of this government to support us in doing just that, and that is what it is not doing.

1720

I'm hoping that a light goes on over there, that there is some kind of epiphany and they recognize they must take seriously their responsibility to promote tourism in this province so we can all prosper. And they have to address the other issues surrounding tourism. Getting up to areas like my riding -- they've got to address the infrastructure situation with regard to highways and all those kinds of things so people can get around. They've got to recognize the challenges that people are now facing with regard to gas prices and all those kinds of things. You have to have a tourism strategy that, in spite of all the difficulties, will attract people to this jurisdiction. We're looking forward to something better than we've seen from this government so far.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): It's a pleasure to rise today to speak to our opposition day motion to try to get the McGuinty Liberal government to listen to the fact that we need assistance in Ontario to promote our tourist destinations. The minister is here today, and I'm happy to see that. We need to listen to what has gone on. A $100-million cut in the budget for tourism: Is that putting the shingle out to say to the US, "Come to Ontario"?

Mr. Yakabuski: It's not much of a welcome mat, eh?

Ms. Scott: No. It's not promoting our areas.

I'm very fortunate to represent the riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, where we have an abundant supply of lakes and tourist destinations; farmers' markets have been mentioned a lot today; museums and art galleries; or you can snowmobile, you can hike, you can bike, you can ATV; there are provincial parks; all our agricultural fairs. The list goes on and on. We have a lot to be proud of and a lot to market, and we need to send that message. The Ontario government has this role, but they're failing to live up to the commitment of promoting the province of Ontario and the destinations we have to our American friends to get more visitors.

In the city of Kawartha Lakes, which has done some studies, their amount of visitors and tourism has dropped by 12% from 2001 to 2004. That's an indication from a smaller area of Ontario, and we've seen it in the numbers that have been cited today: a decrease in the number of Americans coming over to visit to do the things they used to. I remember seeing a lot of American licence plates up in my area for fishing, hunting etc., to name just a few. You don't see that any more at all. The government has a role in the promotion of Ontario and our tourist destinations.

I know it's a global world, an Internet world, and I want to bring up geocaching. Up in the Wilberforce and Harcourt area is the geocaching capital of Canada. That's where they can go online and find out about destinations, and hopefully they can come from other parts of the world. But this has been initiated on their own.

I know lots of members want to speak, and I'm told by my whip that I have to sit down now. The Ontario government has a role in promoting tourism. I hope the minister takes this motion seriously and that he proceeds with an influx of help for the tourism industry.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): The McGuinty government's failures on tourism can be placed in two categories. First, we have failed policies that impact the entire province of Ontario: the health tax, the newly jacked up alcohol tax, the lack of leadership on border issues and the general lack of spending for the hospitality industry when money is allocated elsewhere; higher electricity bills and the price of gasoline come to mind. These are general policies that impact the province overall.

There is a second category, and this consists of the McGuinty government's failure to effectively react to immediate challenges that occur, developing events in specific areas; to wit, the McGuinty government's absolute failure to deal with the routing of tourist traffic around the Caledonia area. I'm referring to provincial Highway 6, the Highway 6 bypass, as well as Argyle Street. This is Caledonia's main street, and it has been blocked to tourists and other travellers for a number of weeks now. In fact, this whole incident will soon be approaching three months. We have heard rumours of progress on this file, but as of yet, tourists have been taking a lengthy, convoluted and quite confusing detour, quite confusing even for local residents, to get around the area of Caledonia, to attempt to continue on down provincial Highway 6 to Lake Erie. I've certainly received the calls of distress -- the e-mails, faxes, phone calls and messages of concern -- as I visit businesses in the area, not only in Caledonia but farther down Highway 6 in Jarvis and Hagersville, and concern that I hear from the tourist hotspots along Lake Erie -- Port Dover, of course. Port Dover's famous Lake Erie perch was mentioned earlier in the debate this afternoon.

Mr. Kormos: The Erie Beach Hotel.

Mr. Barrett: The Erie Beach Hotel. Communities like Turkey Point, a destination for not only day trippers but also cottagers and boaters.

The May 24 weekend is coming, and all of these communities need a big tourist weekend, especially given the dramatic loss of business sustained to date. For example, Mother's Day for many was a disaster from a business point of view. One letter my office received cites an 80% drop in business since the beginning of the dispute. I was in Caledonia last night. The pizza parlour is normally open quite late; it was closed. Other shops had closed early -- the video stores and some of the convenience stores. Local merchants need this tourist business. The business is required throughout Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. It's required at New Credit and Six Nations, communities that have a lot to offer.

I appeal to the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Tourism to come down to the area and step up to the plate. People cannot just put up cardboard signs to direct tourists. There is one sign; I guess I will thank the Ministry of Transportation for a very large, lit-up sign. However, they have spelled the word "Caledonia" wrong on that sign. So I invite Premier McGuinty, Minister Ramsay, Minister Kwinter, Takhar if he's allowed, to make the trip. Come down to Caledonia this Friday. Observe tourists trying to navigate the blockades while they attempt to reach Ontario's famous south coast of tourism.

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Tourism is very near and dear to my heart, as the current minister knows. In fact, when Premier Mike Harris phoned me and said, "I need you to be the tourism minister," I said, "Tourism?" and he said, "Cam, we've had 16 negative years in a row of growth for tourism. I need you to analyze this and do what you can to turn it around." My first question was, "Will I have a financial commitment from this government? Because this is a marketing portfolio." To which he replied that, yes, he wanted to look at service delivery -- we went through about eight or nine items.

The two elements that I think are currently missing in the province are a real strategic plan from the new government and a financial commitment. I am sure the minister will say he has a plan, but if you aren't going to fund it, it's pretty hard to have a plan. So I want to put on the record the importance of making the commitment, especially now with the decline. Incidentally, not to toot my own horn, but I did achieve a 6.5% growth, which is the highest growth this province has received in 40 years. Since we haven't had an Olympics and we haven't had a World's Fair or one of those magnificent events -- we have had a visit from the Vatican. But the three years that I had the privilege of being the minister were the three highest-growth years for tourism. As I say, it had nothing to do with Cam Jackson; it had to do with the financial commitment made by the government. And that extended to the cultural icons we have. The government has literally withdrawn its support from places like the Royal Botanical Gardens.

They are spending more money in Toronto, but Toronto is not necessarily the centre of the tourism universe of this province. We have the magnificent north, we have the eastern townships, we have Niagara, we have southwestern Ontario all contributing to making Ontario the most attractive place to visit in Canada.

1730

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I'm delighted to be able to speak this afternoon on the issue of tourism. I'm glad that a former minister is here who understands the file extremely well. I appreciate your remarks and your sincerity as the critic. It's a responsibility of the critic to draw to the attention of the government ideas that he believes would be beneficial to the field of tourism, and I want to say you're doing a good job as the critic in the field of tourism.

I suspect that what really happened this afternoon, or has happened in the last couple of weeks, that would prompt this particular initiative on the part of the official opposition is an annoyance with the fact the government has been dealing with the passport issue and an extreme defence of the federal government in this regard. Indeed, that, in my view right now, is the most serious issue confronting the whole field of tourism; that is, the passport issue. That's not a view simply of the Ontario government; that's a view of people who reside all along the border. I suspect those in the southern United States will understand the impact that it could have there.

I recall reacting to some newspaper articles. I had just returned from China, where I was promoting in Beijing and Shanghai opportunities for people in China to begin visiting Ontario in great numbers. Indeed, we're starting to see that kind of improvement and increase in people visiting from the far east, in particular, China. I read, under CanWest Global, the following. It said, "The United States is determined to implement a border security plan that Canadians fear will damage tourism and trade, so Ottawa should appease the Americans by eliminating those outstanding security concerns, Prime Minister Harper says." The headline of it said, "No Point in Fighting US Border ID Plan, Harper Says." Then I picked up the Globe and Mail and it said something very similar: "Canadians must bow to the inevitability of a new national identity card for cross-border travel and they risk paying an economic price if the deadlines for its implementation are missed, Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned yesterday." He went on to say, "`What we've got to start to put emphasis on is how we're actually going to resolve this problem, because we're running out of time. It is an American law. I don't think there's any prospect of Congress changing the law.'"

All of that is, in fact, inaccurate. I know that within the Progressive Conservative caucus -- and this can happen in any caucus -- there's a division. There are those who actually believe that you should have to have a passport, I'm sure, on the other side, who are obsessed with security, and I understand that. But they actually believe we should have to have a passport to go into the United States and for Americans to come here and go back into the United States. I'm not one of those. Keep in mind that every one of the people who perpetrated that awful crime on the US had a passport. All those individuals on the airplane had a passport. A person who was going to be maliciously attacking the United States as we turned the century had a passport. He was caught by a border guard who was doing that person's job very well.

What it's really about, I think, is the thin skin, if I may put it that way -- that's probably being a little inflammatory to say it, but my friend the Leader of the Opposition was inflammatory so I feel I can be equally inflammatory this afternoon -- the thin skin of the government when there's a criticism of the Harper administration. In fact, I think there was genuine outrage -- perhaps "astonishment" is even better -- amongst people, Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats and people with no affiliation, when they read the comments I just talked about from the Globe and Mail and from CanWest, that the Prime Minister was, in essence, saying at that time after the Cancun conference that we'd better get used to it, we'd better simply implement the law and we'd better do so quickly.

I thought that was a misread. I thought that because of all the work Ontario had done in this regard, we had and still have a very good chance of delaying and finding an alternative to the provisions that the present administration in the US has decided to place in regard to that law. In fact, there are people in Congress, Republicans and Democrats both, there are people at the municipal, the state and the national level, there are business people, and tourist organizations and trade organizations who are united with us. This is not a war between Canada and the United States. This is, if you will, a dispute between those who reside along the border or in the southern US and in other parts of Canada, who understand that people coming across that border should be able to do so as easily as possible while still maintaining the appropriate security that everybody seeks.

Ontario has been in the forefront of this battle. I was glad you asked me -- I believe it was you, and if not, your leader, who asked me the question this afternoon about the previous government in Ottawa. Indeed, in November last year, I did approach Mr. Emerson, who of course is now a member of the Conservative government, and asked that he convene a meeting of tourism ministers, because it really affects the entire country, so we could have a national strategy to deal with this. Well, nothing came of that. Obviously nothing is coming of it once again today. My fear has been that the federal government has simply thrown in the towel. They're engaging -- and they're not the only ones; there are a few others -- in what I call crackpot realism; that is, "This is inevitable, so we shouldn't fight it."

Tell that to Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska; tell that to Senator Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota; tell that to Senator Collins, a Republican from Maine; or the two democratic Senators from New York; or Governor Taft of Ohio, a long-standing Republican name. Tell any of these individuals. Tell members of the US Congress who have constituencies that are along the border, tell tourist organizations, tell the chambers of commerce that that is the case, and they will simply not accept it. As late as last Friday, the Ministry of Tourism co-sponsored a conference of business people and tourist organizations in Niagara-on-the-Lake, imploring them once again to take action to convince members of Congress that there should be changes. First of all, there should be a delay in the legislation, and then a reasonable alternative.

These ideas are not simply emanating from Ontario; they're emanating from our American friends. When I talked to Governor Taft at some length, when he was here in Toronto, he was certainly in agreement with that. So I see this as being the major issue confronting tourism in Ontario.

I want to deal with a couple of issues that were mentioned in terms of taxation; the Leader of the Opposition talked about taxation. I remember questions being orchestrated by the opposition about how good the federal budget was. The leader of the official opposition, Mr. Tory, got up and asked questions about the potential application of a tax within the city of Toronto. What he forgot to mention was that the federal government said in its budget, on page 214, "As with tobacco products, the federal government taxes alcohol products both through a targeted excise" tax "and the broad-based GST."

"Budget 2006 proposes to increase alcohol excise duties...."

I didn't hear any mention of that. That's an actual tax that has been implemented that may well have a negative impact on the tourism business.

Here is what the Ontario government did through the Ministry of Finance:

"In recognition of the difficulties faced by the hospitality sector in responding to recent challenges, the government directed that charges applied to alcohol sold to licensees be changed effective January 16, 2006. We estimate these changes will provide about $25 million in relief to Ontario's hospitality sector, which employs more than 360,000 people and last year generated roughly $8.3 billion in real output across the province. Our new policy is based on consultation with the industry, which has made a clear and compelling case for support for this important sector of our economy."

In response to that, we received a letter from the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association. Here is what it said -- I hope the Leader of the Opposition is aware of this:

"Dear Dwight:

"On behalf of the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association of Ontario and the hospitality industry, I would like to express our appreciation to you, ministry staff and the provincial government in eliminating the gallonage fee on liquor licensees' purchases of beer, wine and spirits.

"The savings that operators will realize from the gallonage fee's elimination when purchasing their beer, wine and spirits will undoubtedly assist in sustaining the industry through these challenging economic times."

That is signed by Terry Mundell.

These are people who are saying, "Look, some of the actions you are taking outside, necessarily, the Ministry of Tourism are designed to advance the case of tourism in the province of Ontario."

The Leader of the Opposition perpetrates a myth that somehow there are vast cuts to the ministry. I've got to admit this to him: that were I sitting on that side, I'd be saying exactly the same thing, because I used to do that. I understand that. That's part of the opposition role. You never explain why these things are happening; you simply state it as a fact and everybody is convinced that somehow there's a major cut.

1740

What happened is, the ministry is divided up now. Remember, it used to be the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Now recreation has been halved and it's where it should be, with the Ministry of Health Promotion. Remember that some of that is trails policy and expenditures on trails policy. There are many expenditures within that ministry which enhance tourism. There was a funding program that went from -- when was it? Some of the members on the other side may know -- 2003 to 2006 which was for tourism, recreation and culture. There were a number of capital projects. Well, the expenditures for them end in 2006 because they're wrapped up, and now we will be looking at new programs in co-operation with the federal government. So they're not going to show up in the books.

The Ottawa Congress Centre: We wanted to show faith in the Ottawa Congress Centre project by saying, "Here, we'll put our money on the line" because there was a lot of worry that the federal government might withdraw theirs, that the city might have second thoughts. So we said last year, "Let's put our $30 million on the line." That's not going to show up in this year's budget either. So you can see that there are things that have happened.

There's a special program that was established by the previous government that I thought was good. It was called the tourism recovery program and it was in response to SARS, in fact. It was to be a one-year program and there was extensive funding for it. I insisted we do it for a second year because there seemed to be a residual effect, and we did have it for a second year.

What we're seeing is that marketing is approximately the same as it's been historically for tourism. That's the most important part of it. But as was mentioned, other ministries also have a role. One of the undertakings I gave to people in the tourism industry was to make sure that all parts of government were aware of tourism, would make expenditures or develop policies which would enhance tourism. Of course, the Ministry of Transportation does that through its transportation projects that are under way at the present time. They mention the culture expenditures on a number of cultural projects in Ontario that will bring people in.

We have partnered, under some criticism, with the Mirvish group in bringing Lord of the Rings to Ontario. Some people said, "Well, that's a difficult part, where you're providing a loan for them. Should you really be in that business?" We thought it important enough to bring people in Ontario that we should do that.

As I mentioned, I have been to China. There is now a direct flight from Beijing to Toronto and there's going to be one from Shanghai direct.

I want to go back to the issue of the passport. I've written two op-ed pieces, one some weeks ago and another very recently. They've appeared not only in Canadian papers but I think even more importantly in US papers. They really pointed out to our American friends what the consequences are. My fear is that people in the interior of the United States particularly who are not impacted immediately by this will not recognize, as the Americans along the border do, what the consequences could be for our American friends. One of the efforts we've made as a government is to reach out to our American friends in terms of marketing and joint ventures. We really have some good things happening along the border.

Today, the member for the Ottawa Valley made a statement that his leader wasn't happy with. I could see by the look on his face. Sometimes some people in other places, like the federal Parliament, make statements we don't like. We don't associate ourselves with those and it's a good thing that Bob Runciman and I, who put this together, are happy to accommodate our American friends, because we both represent border areas. I'm sure he knows in his area that the folks in the tourism business where he is want to partner with Americans just as we do in the Niagara Peninsula. Peter Kormos, the member for Niagara Centre, who spoke earlier, knows of the many organizations that partner along the border.

So the great thing we've got going on the passport issue is that we have allies on both sides. It is not a Canadian-American fight. Initially, as I say, I was very concerned with the stance the federal government had taken. I think we're seeing some progress in that regard. I think Ambassador Wilson -- by the way, a very good appointment, I thought, of Michael Wilson as ambassador in Washington -- has spoken to Premier McGuinty on it and we're all working on this. I see the New England governors and eastern Premiers had a resolution this particular weekend. That's the kind of action we need, because, make no mistake about it, I know you have a lot of other issues on here and if I were the opposition, I'd be raising them too, but the number one issue we're confronting right now is a potentially disastrous impact if that legislation is allowed to be implemented as it is foreseen by the administration. I think we can overcome that. With the help of everybody in this House, I'm sure we can prevail.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville has the opportunity to reply.

Mr. Runciman: Representing the Thousand Islands and the Rideau Lakes, I could speak at length but I have very little time, less than two minutes. I want to focus on one issue which is part of the motion today, and that is farmers' markets.

A lot of us don't understand the impact that farmers' markets have on tourism. There was a column in the Osprey newspapers this past weekend: close to $700 million in direct benefit to the province, close to $2 billion in spinoff economic benefits from farmers' markets. And a big part of that is the attraction of tourists. Certainly, living in Brockville, I see people coming from New York state every Saturday to shop at the Brockville tourist market. The same happens in Kingston and, I suspect, Cornwall and other communities along the St. Lawrence. But what this Liberal government is doing is attacking farmers' markets. They're bringing in regulations which make no sense whatsoever. We had the Minister of Health, a representative of downtown Toronto, out in the hallway talking about how farmers should conduct farmers' markets. That is laughable. Sheela Basrur, the chief medical officer of health, was asked about this, and she could not cite one problem for 20 years with farmers' markets or church suppers or bake sales in the province of Ontario. But this government feels they have to solve a problem that isn't there.

Where we have a problem is in the regulated areas. We saw it in Toronto this past year in a very significant way. This is another indication -- and we see it in SES polling, where this government is treating rural Ontario, small-town Ontario, badly. Even urban Ontarians recognize that. We have the minister from downtown Toronto telling us how we should operate farmers' markets in the rest of Ontario. We don't accept that from George Smitherman.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Minister of Health, come to order.

Time for the opposition motion has elapsed. Mr. Runciman has moved opposition day number 2. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1748 to 1758.

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

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

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

Nays

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Cordiano, Joseph

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Orazietti, David

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 21; the nays are 46.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

It being 6 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until later on this evening at 6:45.

The House adjourned at 1801.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.