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

November 2, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Nov-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 November 2004 Mardi 2 novembre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OTTAWA-CARLETON

DETENTION CENTRE

BILL MCMEEKIN

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

COMMUNITY-BASED

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

WHISTLER CUP

BSE

PATHFINDER PROGRAM

GASOLINE TAX

HURON PERTH

HEALTHCARE ALLIANCE

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (PASSEURS SCOLAIRES)

DEFERRED VOTES

ONTARIO HERITAGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND

BUSINESS SERVICES STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE

DES SERVICES AUX CONSOMMATEURS

ET AUX ENTREPRISES

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WASTE DISPOSAL

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILD CARE

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OMA AGREEMENT

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

HYDRO PROJECT

JOB SECURITY

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT SERVICES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

HYDRO GENERATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

VISITORS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

EYE EXAMINATIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD AND YOUTH SAFETY), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(SÉCURITÉ DES ENFANTS

ET DES JEUNES)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OTTAWA-CARLETON

DETENTION CENTRE

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Prisoners jam-packed in cells, sleeping on floors, no exercise or showers for days, deprived of

proper legal counsel, and housed in filthy, bug-infested cells. No, this is not a third-world prison; it's the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre.

One of the reasons that conditions there are so bad is the Liberal government's decision to close the Pembroke Jail and the minister's failure to consider

locally developed options that would have kept the facility open in Pembroke to serve Renfrew county. As a result of the indifference of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services

to the situation, we now have what the Ottawa Citizen calls a "meat truck" ferrying prisoners from Ottawa to Pembroke and back, this at an enormous cost to taxpayers.

It has also created a logistical mess and deplorable conditions under which inmates are transported. One such instance saw a 17-year-old female, a ward of the

children's aid society due to sexual abuse, transported with adult male prisoners who made sexual comments during the trip and again while in adjacent holding cells.

The minister was warned repeatedly by myself and other stakeholders that these things would happen. Our warnings have in fact come true. There are many horror

stories.

I urge the minister to revisit the issue now and give favourable consideration to a locally driven proposal to construct and operate a remand centre in the city

of Pembroke.

BILL MCMEEKIN

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): Four years ago, almost to the day, my father died. His name was Bill. He was a veteran.

This statement is dedicated to my dad and to the countless other Canadian men and women who were proud to stand in the defence of freedom:

He was getting old and paunchy and his hair was falling fast,

And he sat around the Legion, telling stories of the past.

Of a war that he had fought in and the deeds that he had done,

In his exploits with his buddies; they were heroes, every one.

And tho' sometimes, to his neighbours, his tales became a joke,

All his Legion buddies listened, for they knew whereof he spoke.

But we'll hear his tales no longer for old Bill has passed away,

And the world's a little poorer, for a soldier died today.

He will not be mourned by many, just his children and his wife,

For he lived an ordinary and quite uneventful life.

Held a job and raised a family, quietly going his own way,

And the world won't note his passing, though a soldier died today.

A politician's stipend and the style in which he lives

Are sometimes disproportionate to the service that he gives.

While the ordinary soldier, who offered up his all,

Is paid off with a medal and perhaps, a pension small.

If we cannot do him honour while he's here to hear the praise,

Then at least let's give him homage at the ending of his days.

Perhaps just a simple headline in a paper that would say,

Our country is in mourning, for a soldier died today.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Shalom. I rise to inform all members of the House that this week is Holocaust Education Week, sponsored by the

United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto.

Until November 11, more than 125 events will be held that will deepen our understanding of the Holocaust of 1933 to 1945 and what is to be learned by this

extraordinary human tragedy in which six million Jews and others were murdered by the Nazis and their sympathizers.

Although we in North America experienced the terror of September 11 once, the people of Israel live in fear of similar attacks every day. But today, more than

ever before since the Holocaust, anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli attacks are on the rise at an alarming rate around the world, with Ontario as no exception. A Globe and Mail

article of June 2

affirmed that the international Jewish community and its institutions are the most frequent targets for bigots.

Muslims in my community were shocked and saddened when the national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress recently affirmed his belief that Jews in Israel,

although not in military uniform, are legitimate targets of terrorist attack.

Today, I stand with my leader, John Tory, and the Progressive Conservative caucus in rededicating ourselves to the struggle against anti-Semitism, hatred and

intolerance of all kinds. The lessons of the Holocaust are clearly ones that need to be taught again and again in Canada and, indeed, around the world so that the cry, "Never again," may one day

become a reality.

COMMUNITY-BASED

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The recent dismissal of Dr Koka from the board of the Northeast Mental Health Centre has forced the government

to deal with local governance of community mental health in the Sudbury/Manitoulin/East Algoma district.

It's a shame that it took a terrible decision by the board for the matter to finally get the government attention that it deserves. You see, on June 17, Ursula

Sauve, the chair of Mental Health Advocates, wrote to Minister Smitherman. She advised that mental health service delivery, as per recommendations from the Health Services Restructuring Commission,

were not working in the best interests of local clients. She urged the minister to consider a new governance model to permit local control over district mental health services, and to do so as soon

as possible. Regrettably, that did not occur at that time.

Rumour has it that the minister is now committed to returning district mental health services previously run by Network North to a local board. If that's the

case, then the minister should announce publicly that this is the direction he'll pursue and the community should be told what the time frame is for the change in governance to occur.

Two other issues need to be dealt with on a priority basis. Firstly, the minister should fully review the recommendation of the Health Services Restructuring

Commission regarding the location of 31 complex care beds for mental health patients. This is a very divisive issue between North Bay and Sudbury, and it needs to be resolved positively.

Secondly, the minister must immediately review the level of funding needed to properly run mental health services in the Sudbury/Manitoulin/East Algoma district.

It won't help at all to get local control over services that are falling apart. We need the funding necessary to deal with mental health clients in Sudbury/Manitoulin/East Algoma.

WHISTLER CUP

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize some visitors in the members' gallery who have

contributed, and are contributing, so much to skiing, not just in Ontario but in Canada. They're actually behind me in the east gallery.

Today we are visited by Ken Read, president of Alpine Canada, and who many of you will know as a member of the Crazy Canucks; John Mealey, president of Alpine

Ontario; and Mark Kristofic, director of Alpine Ontario. With them are members of the Ontario team -- and their parents -- who competed last March at last year's junior world championship, known as

the Whistler Cup. I'd like to introduce Ben Williams, Madison Irwin, Trevor Jackson, Laura Rozinowicz, Shannon Campbell, Krystyn Peterson, Marissa Riopelle and Mike Dea.

Each of these athletes has dedicated a huge amount of time and effort to achieve the necessary skills and strength to be the best in Ontario. Their parents are

the key sources of encouragement and funding, while their coaches provide the training, both physical and mental, to go for the gold.

For the above reasons, I am pleased that they are here today -- athletes, parents and coaches -- to be recognized by this House, not only for their individual

efforts and achievements but for the outstanding efforts they made in representing us, the people of Ontario, at the Whistler Cup this year. They deserve our applause.

BSE

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I will use my time to address the Minister of Agriculture's insinuation yesterday that the vice-president of the

Ontario Federation of Agriculture and I are out of touch with Ontario's farmers, only because we criticized the minister's slow distribution of BSE funding. Only a desperate act to deflect blame

would cause the minister to lash out at the vice-president of the largest farm organization in Ontario and suggest that he doesn't know what is happening in his own membership and that he needs to

pick up the phone and call cattlemen.

The minister went on to suggest I needed to pick up the phone and get it straight from the cattlemen's mouth as well. I want to assure the minister that I have

spoken to the cattlemen, individual cattle farmers who first waited for an announcement from the province and then continued to wait for an application process to develop. But I didn't need to pick

up the phone to call them; they called me. They called to ask why it was taking the minister so long to reveal the details of the Ontario program.

The minister tried to tell us yesterday that a three-month wait was acceptable. Well, I'm here to tell you that it wasn't acceptable to the farmers I talked to

and that it obviously wasn't acceptable to the farmers the vice-president of the OFA talked to.

Minister, why don't you pick up the phone and talk to a farmer or two? Perhaps then you will realize that three months is too long for desperate farmers to wait,

or are you frightened you might have to listen to some other things farmers don't like about your administration? I think that when you speak to the individual farmers, you will find out that the

president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the member from Oxford were really right all along.

PATHFINDER PROGRAM

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): Yesterday was a good day for DNA research and a good day for the people of Peterborough and Trent as well.

Through Ontario's rural economic development program, which invests in projects that support sustainable rural economies and community partnerships, the government announced a $1.3-million

investment into a DNA education and research network known as Pathfinder, which has its headquarters in Peterborough and Trent.

This project will develop infrastructure needed to commercialize technologies related to DNA profiling, forensics, robotics, geomatics, bioinformatics, natural

resources management and environmental sciences. The project also expects to create up to 2,500 direct jobs and 3,000 indirect jobs over the next 10 to 25 years.

Bonnie Patterson, president and vice-chancellor of Trent University, said, "Through the Pathfinder program, the provincial government has demonstrated leadership

by supporting Peterborough's cluster initiative, which will add to Ontario's prosperity."

Today's investment means that researchers will be able to work in modern, fully equipped laboratories. It means they will have the space needed to conduct their

research the way they want, as opposed to having to alter their research because of lack of space.

Yesterday's announcement not only means better jobs for Ontarians; yesterday's announcement is ensuring we have a better understanding of how systems work.

GASOLINE TAX

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I have a message for the member from Simcoe North. Despite what he said in the House yesterday, I'd like

him to know that rural communities like Blind River, Chapleau, Collingwood, Huntsville, Ingersoll, Kawartha Lakes, Leamington, Meaford, Midland, Owen Sound, Uxbridge -- the list goes on -- also

benefit from our government's delivery of the gas tax. And, as I'm sure the member knows, even his hometown of Orillia received a portion of the gas tax. I hope the member hasn't forgotten that;

the mayor of Orillia hasn't forgotten. The mayor says the gas tax "means an awful lot."

We have lots of other accomplishments for rural Ontario. We've established the rural economic development program. We've delivered approximately $153 million to

farmers for BSE recovery. We've put a moratorium on closing rural schools. We're working on expanding biodiesel projects.

I certainly don't think I should have to remind the member of his record while he sat in government. You had four different agriculture ministers between 1999

and 2003. You closed at least 85 rural schools. You lost more than a thousand farmers per year.

I would like the member to know that, unlike his government, we're not turning our backs on rural communities.

HURON PERTH

HEALTHCARE ALLIANCE

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): For the opposition it must be true that ignorance is bliss. Yesterday the member for Erie-Lincoln, perhaps

distracted by his 37th birthday, stated to this Legislature: "The Huron Perth Healthcare Alliance is closing 47 hospital beds."

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's the tradition in this House that members' statements are not used to criticize

other honourable members.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I didn't hear the criticism, but I listen very carefully.

The member for Perth-Middlesex.

Mr Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I trust you will give me some diversion on time.

I can only assume that the member in question must be suffering from the same incompetent briefings that plague his neophyte leader, John Tory. Rather than

scaremongering, the member should have contacted the CEO of this multi-site hospital and checked the facts.

This is what CEO Andrew Williams wrote to me yesterday:

"John,

"As discussed Friday last, we will not be implementing any layoffs, divestments or bed closures without government approval....

"Over the next number of weeks and months I anticipate a lot of rumour and innuendo. My only request is that if these rumours differ from what I have told you,

please assume that they are wrong.

"If you want me to speak with the MPP who thinks he knows what is going on with the alliance when, in fact, he doesn't, just let me know."

After reading about the incompetent research that sticks to John Tory and his caucus like negative-option billing, I can only assume that the peekaboo Leader of

the Opposition from Bay Street will pull a Donald Trump and say to his research staff, "You're fired."

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to mention to the member from Guelph-Wellington that I have 11

municipalities in my riding and they all have written --

The Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Interjections

The Speaker: Order. We started off fairly well, but I caution all members not to use members' statements to criticize each other. This has been

done on all sides, and I caution members not to use that strategy in the future.

VISITORS

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the west public gallery we have a delegation from the People's Republic

of China, representing 15 provinces from that great country. We have special representative Gary Yuan, the general director of policy in the Ministry of Finance in China, and Mr Wang, the deputy

director of non-tax revenue from the People's Republic of China.

Welcome to Canada.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HOME FIRE SPRINKLER ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES EXTINCTEURS

AUTOMATIQUES DOMICILIAIRES

Mrs Jeffrey moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Building Code Act, 1992 respecting home fire sprinklers / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur le code du

bâtiment en ce qui a trait aux extincteurs automatiques domiciliaires.

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

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): The Home Fire Sprinklers Act, 2004, is aimed at preventing loss of life due to fire by ensuring that new

homes are constructed with fire sprinklers.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DE LA ROUTE (PASSEURS SCOLAIRES)

Mr Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 142,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to school crossing guards / Projet de loi 142, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui

a trait aux passeurs scolaires.

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

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): This bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to expand the function of school crossing guards to cover

directing the movement of all persons across a highway, not just the movement of children, as at the present time.

I would like to thank the council of the township of Shedden and, in particular, councillor Debbie Solomon for bringing this matter to the attention of the

House.

DEFERRED VOTES

ONTARIO HERITAGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act / Projet de loi 60, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le patrimoine

de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1353 to 1358.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Murdoch, Bill

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sterling, Norman W.

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 72; the nays are 12.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur (ministre de la Culture, ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones): Je voudrais que ce projet de

loi soit référé au comité permanent de la justice. I would like to ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy.

The Speaker: So ordered.

Deferred votes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, I'd like some order. Member from Niagara Centre, I'd like some order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Merci. Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you, too.

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND

BUSINESS SERVICES STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE

DES SERVICES AUX CONSOMMATEURS

ET AUX ENTREPRISES

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 70,

An Act to amend various Acts administered by or affecting the Ministry of Consumer and Business

Services / Projet de loi 70, Loi modifiant diverses lois appliquées par ou touchant le ministère des Services aux consommateurs et aux entreprises.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1403 to 1408.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Greg

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 86; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I ask that this bill be referred to the standing committee on justice policy.

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les permis d'alcool.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1412 to 1417.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Greg

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 21.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on general

government.

The Speaker: So ordered.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Acting Premier. Today, we see more evidence of your Liberal pay-more,

get-less health care plan. In today's London Free Press, there's a scathing indictment of your government's botched plans for Ontario's hospitals. We now know that the London Health Sciences Centre

has submitted a plan to your government calling for the elimination of 130 acute care beds and will be forced to cut 380 jobs. St Joseph's hospital has submitted a plan calling for 218 beds to be

cut, along with 420 staff. All told, the London hospital said today that your Liberal pay-more, get-less health care strategy will result in 4,000 fewer day surgeries.

Can you guarantee to this House today that not one hospital bed will be closed in London and that patients currently on the waiting lists for surgery will not

see their surgeries cancelled as a result of your underfunding?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): What I can guarantee this House and, more importantly, the patients in London and elsewhere in

this province is that health care is going to continue doing what it's been doing since we took over this government, which is to get better and better. It's going to be improving because it is

being handled by a government that believes in public health care and that doesn't do what the Tory government did and play around with private ownership, and because we have funded hospitals in

this province 4.3% more than last year, including the services in London.

Now, I know that a government that only ever saw a blunt instrument when it came to government, that cut out 5,000 hospital beds, doesn't recognize when a

management plan is being brought to bear. We expect to hear from and talk to hospitals around the province.

I can tell you that our health minister has in place a plan to ensure the highest and increasing quality of patient care. That's exactly the outcome we expect

to see in London and in every other community in this province.

Mr Runciman: We know this government's approach to hospitals. We saw it by Minister Smitherman's response today: Attack the hospital and

accuse them of crying wolf. That's your approach to the hospital sector.

This government spends a lot of time talking about the supposed investments they've made in hospitals this year. We now know this is bafflegab. It means

nothing in reality. We see the world-renowned London hospitals being forced to make severe cuts to front-line patient care.

You claim you've increased hospital operating budgets by 4.3% this year. In reality, they only received 1.8%, according to the Ontario Hospital Association. In

fact, London received 0.2% of their funding request, while St Joseph's received a 1.4% increase.

Minister, you can't hide from the realities facing our hospitals. You have a responsibility to show leadership and act. Can you do that? Can you do that today,

guarantee there will be no hospital bed closures and no cuts to patient services in London and across Ontario?

Hon Mr Kennedy: Let's see what we're offering the patients of Ontario. He speaks about bafflegab. We're spending $700 million more than was in

your Magna budget last year. When it comes to offering services, this is the same government that cut $557 million over two years. They closed 28 hospitals.

So in terms of what patients can look to and depend on, they can depend on an approach to hospitals that makes sure we get sustainable health care and

increasing quality. What we hear from the members opposite is in complete and utter contradiction to what they did when they were in power. The patients of this province know where the guarantor of

high-quality care is; it rests with this Premier, with this health minister and with everyone in this government.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Final supplementary.

Mr Runciman: I didn't see the London-area MPPs applauding that response.

Three years ago, when the Liberals were in opposition, the MPP for Elgin-Middlesex-London, Mr Peters, spoke in the House and called on the three London-area

MPPs to speak up on behalf of London's hospitals. He accused the then Conservative government MPPs of abandoning their constituents and putting lives at risk.

That effort to scare Londoners is coming back to bite Mr Peters and your promise-breaking government. Your London-area MPPs are clearly puppets on a string,

intimidated by a bully Minister of Health. If that is not the case, let's hear from them.

Minister, will your government do the right thing, show leadership and guarantee that not a single hospital bed will close in London?

Hon Mr Kennedy: To hear that coming from a former minister of a government that cut 5,000 hospital beds out from under, that parked elderly

people in the hallways of emergency rooms all across this province --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could I have some order, please. I'm getting a lot of noise from the opposition, and I can't hear the responses.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): They're cowering in a cave like Osama bin Laden.

The Speaker: Member from Nepean-Carleton, that means you too.

Hon Mr Kennedy: The member is sitting next to a former health minister who stood in this House and said they would not cut children's heart

surgeries in London and then cut those services.

There needs to be a government that is prepared to help make hospital services and health care services work in this province, for now and in the future. We

provided the funding --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would like some order, please. Could you put that away, please. Thank you very much.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Acting Premier: Democratic hopeful John Kerry plans to review the Toronto-Michigan trash

agreement within the first 120 days of his presidency. And with the election polls showing a dead heat, that means theoretically that we have a 50% chance of a garbage pileup at the Michigan border

in three months. Regardless of who wins, the countdown has begun: Republican senators and state representatives in Michigan don't want Toronto trash either.

Acting Premier, your government has had a year to take action on this front. The clock is ticking. What is the government's plan?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): Well, it's interesting to hear the member opposite predicting a Democratic win down south and

wanting to speculate on this eventuality. But I say to the member opposite that rather than panic, he should understand that each municipality and every waste hauler has their own responsibility

for their waste management. They have contracts. They've issued approvals in Toronto, Owen Sound, Peel, York and Durham. And now, Toronto and Durham have enacted bans on the recyclables that would

have potentially kept it from going across the border, and I understand that York region is planning to do the same.

I would say to you that the municipalities are doing, as they should, everything they can to make sure there isn't going to be any imminent problem in terms of

getting the waste across the border as their contracts require to be done.

Mr Barrett: Acting Premier, as I indicated, state senators and state representatives on the Republican side don't want the garbage either.

Your government has boasted of a commitment to waste diversion. It is easy to divert waste when you just send all your problems south of the border.

Today I did not hear of a real government plan for a Toronto trash tie-up. Acting Premier, following a border closure, just where will this garbage be

heading?

Hon Mr Kennedy: I'm not going to speculate on the outcome of the election. We wish both parties well. And in terms of where the waste is

going, I think it deserves about as much attention. We are not looking at something of that order happening. We understand that the city of Toronto has contingency plans in place, and they have

set, as they should, a 60% waste diversion target. We have, from our standpoint, made more progress in management planning around waste disposal in six months than you guys did in 10 years. So I'd

say that the residents of the affected areas of transport or garbage disposal are in better shape than they have been for some time, and there are the proper efforts underway to divert the waste,

which is a more sustainable answer in the first place than carting it anywhere.

Mr Barrett: In today's Toronto Star, Minister Dombrowsky is quoted as saying that, in an emergency situation, the province has some

responsibility and ability to manage it, and that there would be short-term temporary landfill at undetermined sites in Ontario.

Acting Premier, are you going to wait until it's too late and give some undetermined municipality no choice but to be dumped on? Is it going to be London? Will

it be Halton, Cayuga? When is your government going to let people know just what your government has determined? What is your government thinking?

Hon Mr Kennedy: We're not just thinking, we're developing a comprehensive waste disposal strategy. We've got an expert panel that's looking at

how we can site waste disposal sites responsibly and meet environmental requirements. We are developing that and working on the EA process that affects it. We are taking this step by step. We are

prepared to deal with every exigency. And we would say to the members opposite that they failed in their nine years of government to come up with any reasonable answers to waste disposal in the

province. They did nothing as a government, and they're simply prepared to carp on anything that comes up that questions what they've done. But we're doing what needs to be done. We're taking

responsible action to make sure this can be dealt with.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question period has started off pretty noisily. If I'm not able to get some order, I'm going to start naming

people so I can hear the questions and responses. New question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. You are forcing hospitals across Ontario to develop brutal

cutback plans. The latest victim of your misguided attack on community hospitals are the London Health Sciences Centre and St Joseph's Health Care centre, which together will have to close 348 beds

and eliminate 1,000 hospital jobs.

A year ago, on September 3, during the election campaign, Dalton McGuinty said, "We will bring stability to our hospitals by providing adequate multi-year

funding." Is this what Premier McGuinty meant by his promise: close 348 hospital beds and lay off a thousand hospital workers?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): Perhaps the member opposite doesn't want the health care system to work. Perhaps he isn't prepared

to look at exactly what it takes to make hospitals and the other components of the health care system work better. Some $43.3 million has been invested in a variety of health care services in the

London area -- hospitals, long-term-care homes, home care -- to make sure that patients get the kinds of responses they need, where they need them.

For the member opposite to suggest that simply because a management plan has been worked on with the local hospital authority to make sure that we can have

sustainable health care is going to lead to the consequences he's talking about simply suggests that the member opposite is less interested in making the health care system work and more interested

in supporting some of those who aren't working quite as pointedly and as diligently at seeing that patients are protected all of the time. We'd put to you that the Minister of Health and the local

members have met with the hospital authorities in question and they believe very well that patients will be protected now and into the future.

Mr Hampton: We're used to having the Minister of Health with his frontal attack on hospitals. Now we get the Acting Premier with a backdoor

attack on hospitals.

These two hospitals in London are already the product of hospital amalgamations. In fact, they are regarded as being on the vanguard of restructuring. They've

passed 11 efficiency reviews as regional health centres. They're way out in front, but you want to cut another 348 beds and another 1,000 hospital staff. You want to put at risk a number of

surgeries. You want to create longer waiting lists. That's all predicted in terms of what is going to happen. I ask you again, is this what Premier McGuinty meant when he said he was going to

provide hospitals with stable, multi-year funding -- cut jobs, lay off nurses and close hospital beds?

Hon Mr Kennedy: I am sure the member opposite really means instead to characterize this as the first step in a seven-step process, but he's

not saying that the kinds of things he's reiterating today are not happening today or tomorrow, that in fact there are 18 months within which to work with hospitals in a collaborative, co-operative

way that his previous government, now a somewhat distant memory for the people of this province, thankfully, was unable to do. This is the same member who stood in his place as a member of a

cabinet that cut $277 million from hospitals.

We're talking about how to properly manage a 4.3% increase, increases in every other essential area of health care, right in the London area, enhancing care

for patients, taking some of the pressures off hospitals and making possible exactly the kind of budgets we're talking about. The member opposite would prefer instead to excite and alarm, and not

provide the kind of support there needs to be to make sure that health care is done sustainably. We're not afraid of working with hospitals to arrive at that result, and we're going to continue to

do that. We make that undertaking to the member opposite and to the people of London.

Mr Hampton: What the people of London see is a government that breaks its promises and is now going to give London hospitals a working over.

You mention 18 months. This is what the head of the Ontario Nurses Association, Local 100, in London says: "Trying to recoup $90 million between now and March 2006 is next to impossible." This is

what the volunteer hospital chair says: "The cuts will create havoc in the system in Ontario that I'm not sure we would ever recover from."

On your side of the ledger, Minister, you have $825 million of new, additional federal health care money. If you look at your budget, you've got $2 billion

sitting in contingency funds. Why don't you use some of that money to work with hospitals, to help them make these adjustments rather than forcing them to lay off nurses, cut hospital beds, delay

surgeries and create longer waiting lists? Why don't you live up to your Premier's promise and provide hospitals with the stable, multi-year funding they need rather than attacking them as you are

now?

Hon Mr Kennedy: Again, there is an obligation and responsibility of every member of this House, in terms of when they predict things like

that, to have it based in some kind of reality. The reality for patients in this province today is that there are a billion dollars more in hospitals than when we came into office. There are

investments in our budget of $2.16 billion, paying for essential services and providing the exact services that patients in London and elsewhere require: $50 million alone for new full-time

nursing, $470 million in hospital operating funds, $230 million expanding drug coverage, and investments in home care and long-term-care facilities of $406 million.

The point here is that there is a plan, not the kind of stumbling around that happened for four and five years when the NDP government was there and the eight

lost years when the previous government hacked and slashed at the health care system. We will have a premium health care system in this province. We will work with all the partners involved. There

will be some differences of opinion, but those difficulties need not be exploited to have patients have concerns that actually are never going to come to pass.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Acting Premier. Your Best Start program for children has gotten off to a very bad

start and Ontario children are paying the price. During the election, you promised to spend the majority of funds you're receiving from the federal government through the early childhood

development initiative on high-quality, regulated child care. On April 1, Ontario received $194 million through this agreement, but not one penny of that federal money is going to be spent on child

care this year. You promised to spend a majority of this federal money on child care. Why are you breaking that promise?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): In fact, we're very proud of the Best Start initiative. It is very important that in this

province, even before they start school, every child has a chance to reach his or her potential. We have put forward a plan that is, we think, vital in terms of the chances that those individual

children will have, and we have put forward this year $58 million. As I'm sure everyone in this House is glad to know, every dime that we've received from the federal government is going into child

care. It is going to create up to 4,000 new subsidized spaces focused on increased learning for those preschool children, because we know the value it's going to contribute. We are going to become

the first government in many years to actually expand child care services in this province, and we're glad to do so.

Ms Martel: You see, Minister, you made my point. The fact of the matter is, not all of the money you are getting from the federal government

is going into child care this year. You are receiving $194 million from the federal government this year through the early childhood development agreement. Not a penny of that money is going into

child care this year. That was confirmed in the estimates as well.

Over and above that, in the last election you said, "A child's development is enhanced through good parenting and quality child care. If we want our kids to

aim higher, we have to give them strong support sooner." You also promised in the election that you would invest $300 million of new provincial money in high-quality child care. We see in the

budget this year that not one penny of new provincial money is going to be spent on high-quality child care.

Minister, why are you breaking that promise that you made to Ontario families?

Hon Mr Kennedy: Perhaps there's something in the member opposite that has her refusing to accept the fact that there is $58 million more going

toward child care than there was last year. It's going into new child care services. It is helping to produce the base for a program that will continue to grow as the capacity of the government

does to provide it.

As we speak today, the House will be interested to know that Minister Bountrogianni, Minister of Children and Youth Services, is in Ottawa discussing the

set-up of a truly national child care program, in which Ontario will be an enthusiastic, willing participant. We believe that advantage is necessary for our young children, and it will be

provided.

Ms Martel: It must be hard for your minister to go to Ottawa and urge the federal government to live up to its election promise on child care

when you haven't done that here in Ontario. The fact of the matter is, before the election you promised that a majority of the money that you are getting through the early childhood development

agreement, a five-year program, would be invested in early childhood development. None of that money is going into child care this year. You also promised that you would invest $300 million of new

provincial money in child care. Not a penny of new provincial money is going into child care this year. Across the province, we have thousands of families who are on a waiting list for high-quality

child care, and they can't get a space.

When are you going to show some leadership, live up to the election promises you made and deliver on providing high-quality child care for Ontario families who

need it?

Hon Mr Kennedy: Again, for some reason the member opposite would choose to look at a glass and see it half empty. There are 4,000 spaces.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Kennedy: Look, I agree that those are not all the spaces that we want to have, but those are more spaces than were produced in this

province for many, many years. Every single dime that we have received from the federal government since we've been in office is supporting those spaces.

Now, the member opposite may wish to talk about what the previous government did with certain dollars and so on, but I can tell you that we've created a

Ministry of Children and Youth Services exactly for the purpose of consolidating and putting together services that neither of the other two governments represented in this House were prepared to

do to make sure there was actual delivery for children. There are programs that didn't exist in this province before, and Minister Bountrogianni and this government are very committed to making

sure that what we have in our platform is going to come to pass.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to allow the Acting Premier to be changed to

somebody who is actually going to answer a question.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I don't think it's a point of order. New question.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Acting Premier as well. On September 9, Minister Pupatello announced that your

government will close your only regional centre in Orillia by March 31, 2009. It will affect 680 employees and 350 clients.

I support the concept of moving people with developmental disabilities from institutions into the community, providing they do not have severe, complex needs.

The reality, however, is that many of HRC's residents are folks with very complex needs that cannot be met in a regular group home setting in any community that I know of in the province. For

example, many are both severely developmentally disabled and mentally ill.

Minister, where do you intend to place these people so they can live their lives with the dignity and respect they deserve?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I thank the member for his question. Obviously, it is a concern for every member of this House and

every party in this House that has participated in a long-term plan to see inclusion be the operative word and the operative experience for those who, now adults, started off as children with

developmental disabilities. And there have been successful plans to integrate people who have been living in institutional care into communities.

We will be following those kinds of paths. We will be working with the communities affected; we will be working with the families affected. In many cases,

sadly and unfortunately, there aren't remaining family members. And the government, in this case our government, dealing with this portion of those people still living in facilities, will treat

them and their future with the dignity and care they deserve. So this is a longer-term plan. It's over a period of time.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Kennedy: The members opposite ask about how. The how comes with the successful support of people living in the community, just as has

been done in institution after institution that we've phased out in this province under the party opposite, under the third party. It's been successfully done. And respect means not prejudging

these people, but all of us offering the kind of support that's required to have them truly participate in the community. That's the path we're headed on. It's truly the one that is --

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

Mr Dunlop: I say to the Acting Premier that this government has not consulted with the families of the clients. Your minister said in this

House on October 18, "It is important that on the day we made that announcement we took great care to have an opportunity to speak with families in advance."

I don't think that the 200 people I met with on Saturday would agree that a heads-up on the day of the announcement shows you even care about their opinion.

These people, family members of the HRC residents, are scared and horrified by your cruel decision: closure with no plan. They are afraid that even if you find places for their loved ones, they

still won't get the level of care they are receiving currently.

Acting Premier, on behalf of the families of the 350 clients, is your government prepared to revisit your cruel decision to close this HRC without any real

plan?

Hon Mr Kennedy: I ask the member opposite to have a care, to take care, in terms of the kind of thing he is inciting with the characterization

he's made of the government's plans. He stands in his place, knowing full well --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member from Whitby-Ajax, come to order.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Who do you think you are?

The Speaker: Member for Oak Ridges, order.

Acting Premier?

Hon Mr Kennedy: For the member opposite to characterize it the way he has is to ignore the fact that there is a plan that would take this to

2009 for an adjustment period, that the government has already agreed to meet with parents to be involved in that plan and that there is a commitment of $110 million: $70 million to create new

places and $40 million in community services. If the member rose in his place unaware of that, he is now aware. And he shares the responsibility of every person in this House to help these

families, to advocate on behalf of those children, but to make sure it's done in a way that does not create undue alarm on the part of either those families or the persons affected.

We have inclusive policies that have shown this can and --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. Your secret deal with the doctors appears to be falling apart.

First, it was the Coalition of Family Physicians telling its 4,000 members to vote no. Now, it is the physician Specialist Coalition urging Ontario's 8,500 specialists to vote no. Together, these

two organizations represent more than a majority of Ontario's doctors.

Acting Premier, if your backroom deal with doctors is defeated next week, where is plan B? What is it, and will you start telling people about it now?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The leader of the third party may wish to use his considerable influence with the doctors who are

voting on the agreement.

We're very proud of this agreement. It's worth supporting and deserves the support of the members opposite and of all members of this House.

It is trying to put in place the elements that will transform health care in this province, that will actually provide the right kinds of incentives for the

kind of health care the constituents in the member's riding and every riding in this province have been looking forward to. Yes, it has taken a little bit of time for some people to understand.

Many would like to look at it through the old lens of health care agreements, but we see in this a forward-looking way of aligning doctors with a satisfying practice, with the kinds of practices

that will help preventive care, that will help geriatric care, that will help provide the essential services that people need. We have a plan that we believe is going to provide the best for the

future, and we look forward to its being implemented.

Mr Hampton: What we know is that so far, organizations representing a majority of doctors are telling their physician members to vote no. I

think the people of Ontario deserve to know if there is a plan B and what it is.

What we've seen from your government so far is nasty surprises. You cut chiropractors, you cut optometrists, you cut physiotherapists, you adopt the

Conservative government's terrible strategy of cutthroat bidding for homecare, and then you impose a new health tax that is very regressive and unfair for lower-, modest- and middle-income

families. I ask the minister: It looks like your health care deal with doctors is in trouble. What is plan B? Is it going to include as many nasty surprises as the people of Ontario have already

seen?

Hon Mr Kennedy: I shouldn't stand in disappointment, I guess. I invited the member opposite to support a plan that is good for the north, that

is good for underserviced areas in this province, and instead he wants to speculate about its demise. I think the Toronto Star said it quite appropriately: "George Smitherman deserves praise for

this gutsy deal that will be a good investment for the vast sums of money spent. The agreement buys the sort of genuine, transformative change that Roy Romanow called for in his 2002 report."

We have a health minister who is doing the kinds of things that are needed for sustainable, high-quality health care in this province. He deserves the support

of the third party and every member in this House.

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): My question today is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We've all seen the sorry Tory tour of

Ontario. It has hit London, Ottawa, and last Friday, October 29, it stopped in Peterborough. I was flabbergasted to read the Progressive Conservative leader-elect Johnny-come-lately Tory's comments

regarding the provincial response to the Peterborough flood disaster. According to the Peterborough Examiner on October 30, 2004, Mr Tory "blamed the delay in the delivery of funds on the Liberals,

saying it `speaks to a government that doesn't have control of the management of its own affairs.'"

No doubt, Minister, you're as confused by the statement as I am, not to mention how shocking and surprising Mr Tory's comments must have been to Mayor Sylvia

Sutherland, who "flatly refuted provincial Conservative leader John Tory's suggestion that the Liberals have been slow to deliver flood funding" to the city of Peterborough.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member from Simcoe North, will you come to order, please; the member from Erie-Lincoln also.

Just wrap up in 10 seconds.

Mr Leal: Minister, can you please inform my constituents -- and set the record straight for Johnny-come-lately -- of our government's quick

response to Peterborough's flood disaster on 7/15.

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Let me say that I too was shocked and amazed

when I read John Tory's comments in the Peterborough Examiner. I'm sure he has confused our record with the record of his own sorry-Tory government some two years ago. You may recall that there was

a flood in the summer of 2002. It took five months for that Tory government to come up with any relief at all.

What did we do? I'll tell what you we did. On the same day that disaster relief was requested by the city of Peterborough, I personally met with the council of

Peterborough and the county of Peterborough and handed them a cheque for $5 million as a down payment toward Peterborough's recovery. I'm very pleased that the money was delivered to the victims of

that flood almost immediately thereafter.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Your own members are heckling and cutting into your time. Go ahead.

Mr Leal: Minister, thank you so much for setting the record straight. It certainly supports Mayor Sutherland's comments that she thought Mr

Tory's comments were extremely unfair. Mayor Sutherland certainly understands the facts: that the province responded quickly to the Peterborough area's needs. Please inform my constituents how the

Peterborough disaster relief committee and the McGuinty government have worked together to assist those members of my community to recover from this disaster.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: I first of all want to commend the Peterborough area flood relief committee for its very quick action in delivering

emergency relief to the flood victims. To date, the province has provided $8.5 million to the city, the county and the three surrounding municipalities. These advance payments are for municipal

emergency cleanup and infrastructure repairs and for early financial assistance to the victims of the flood. To date, over $2 million has been given to over 3,100 households, farms and small

businesses. In addition, over 300 interim payments have been made in cases of extreme hardship and urgent situations.

Again, our government and the Peterborough area flood relief committee are pleased to be working together so that the people of Peterborough who were severely

hurt by this flood can be helped in a speedy and timely fashion.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Last Thursday I asked a very specific question of the Minister of

Education relating to a hydro corridor in York region. He refused to answer the question, deflected it to you, and you made it clear that you yourself were very unfamiliar with that file. Today I

would like to read to you from a letter that was sent to Mr Tom Parkinson, president and chief executive officer of Hydro One. You were copied on it. It relates to the draft environmental study

report that Hydro One released.

The mayor says, "Your staff has admitted publicly that Hydro One did not follow the process required by the class environmental assessment for minor

transmission facilities in a number of ways." He talks about the fact that they "failed to notify and deal properly with the town of Markham and the other municipalities." He goes on to say, "Your

draft ESR" -- speaking to Hydro One -- "released last week demonstrates Hydro One only gave lip service to any routes other than the two you initially considered." He goes on to say that the

meeting that was held was completely ineffective.

I am asking you today, in light of the fact that the municipality has asked that you deal with this, will you direct Hydro One to withdraw this study so that

it can be --

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

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The Hydro One board, as I informed the House yesterday, in fact extended the

period of review: instead of 30 days, 60 days. This is a decision of the Hydro One board. Hydro One, as I understand it, had a number of public consultations, and there are others scheduled. The

options are being studied under the environmental studies report. They were posted on October 21 for a 60-day public review period, following which Hydro One will decide whether to file the ESR

with the Minister of the Environment or not. Accordingly, I think the process should be allowed to unfold. This is a decision of the Hydro One board, and we'll wait to see the results of the

posting of the environmental studies report.

Mr Klees: This letter that was written by Mayor Don Cousens from the municipality of Markham makes it very clear this process was flawed. Your

parliamentary assistant in debate here on Thursday night said, "It's important that they listen to the local government and those local constituents, and there is a process in place to do that."

She goes on to say, "We have talked how many times about allowing the municipalities themselves to have more autonomy in what occurs in their area."

She specifically referred to the importance of allowing democracy to take place at the local level, and that you have committed as a government to listen to

local municipalities.

The town of Markham and every other municipality in the region of York is saying that this process was flawed. Will you agree today to direct Hydro One to

withdraw this study and ensure that they follow the process as prescribed in the Environmental Assessment Act? Will do you that today?

Hon Mr Duncan: On October 21, Hydro One's draft environmental studies report was posted on Hydro One's Web site and will be available for a

60-day review. There is a public process available. If public concerns cannot be addressed by Hydro One during the 60-day review, concerned stakeholders -- that could be the municipality, that

could be residents -- can apply to the Ministry of the Environment for a bump-up to an individual EA. Completion of the EA, by the way, I should say, does not commit Hydro One to construction.

Hydro One has notified stakeholders that it will not seek Ontario Energy Board approvals until asked to do so by York region and other local distribution companies.

Accordingly, there is a fair process in place. The mayor of Markham has stated his point of view on this. The process has the ability, within defined

legislative and regulatory parameters, to resolve disputes of this nature. I would encourage those participants to continue to work through the process to help assure that the decisions that are

taken are in the best interests not only of Markham but also the entire York region. I'm confident that the processes as defined by --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Acting Premier. Down in Cambridge, folks have been working at Tiger Brand sportswear since

1881. In August, they went into CCAA protection, putting 320 decent jobs at risk. Tomorrow morning at 10 am, a court hearing is going to be held to select the successful bidder who will be the new

owner, the purchaser of Tiger Brand.

The workers understand that the higher bidder is one who plans to shut the operation down and ship the production overseas, sending these jobs not just out of

Ontario but out of Canada and out of North America.

Acting Premier, what steps is your government going to take to protect these jobs at one of Cambridge's heritage companies?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The Minister of Finance.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I wouldn't want to comment on the specifics of the CCAA application, but I just want to say to my

friend and to the House that, obviously, we'll be monitoring it.

The good news, sir, is that this economy is producing jobs now at a very, very encouraging rate. In fact, in a couple of days I'll be reporting to the House on

the strength of the Ontario economy. While we're concerned at any point where a company sees the possibility of the doors closing, I am very encouraged with the economic growth, particularly down

in the Cambridge area and throughout the automotive sector.

Mr Kormos: Sir, your government goes AWOL when companies go into a CCAA. Tiger Brand workers need action. They need positive, immediate action

from this government to save those important value-added manufacturing jobs here in Ontario.

In the past, governments in Ontario have taken real action. Look at Provincial Papers in Thunder Bay. Take a look at Spruce Falls in Kapuskasing. Look at de

Havilland Aircraft in Toronto. Look at St Mary's Paper up in Sault Ste Marie. Those were jobs saved by government activism.

The future of one of Cambridge's heritage companies is at stake; 320 jobs are at stake. These workers have been faithful members of that industrial community,

creating wealth in this province. Your service sector jobs don't substitute for the industrial value-added manufacturing jobs. These workers want to know they've got a government they can count on

to help save those jobs.

Tell us now, is this government going to intervene to ensure that Tiger Brand will maintain its jobs in Cambridge, new purchaser included?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I know the Minister of Economic Development and Trade will want to comment on that.

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): As always, when there are layoffs, job losses, this government is very

concerned for the workers and the families. I can assure the member that we will, through my ministry, work with the displaced workers, as a first instance, if that should happen --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cordiano: Just a minute. I'm just saying that if there is a problem --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cordiano: Can you listen to my answer? If there are job losses -- we are always concerned -- we work with them.

However, having said that, there is a CCAA process underway. We don't know where this will end up. As a result --

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): You just don't know.

Hon Mr Cordiano: We do know. There is a CCAA process underway. What I'm saying is that in the case of job losses, we're always concerned. We

always act through our ministry. We work with people throughout the province with respect to worker adjustment, and we do that on a regular, ongoing basis. You know that is the case. You know as

well that we are --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: It seems to me there's quite a habit of people running on after I stand up.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. When I call order, I'd like members to sit down so we can proceed.

New question.

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. I understand today our

government launched ServiceOntario.ca, a multi-year plan to improve access to government services.

In today's information age, many citizens of Ontario want instant access to government services. The number of Ontarians connected on-line is growing at an

unprecedented rate. We've seen that, and it's especially apparent in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. Previous governments did not efficiently tap into the world of information

technology; as a result, trying to access government services can be daunting. Ontarians need to be able to access information they need in a more efficient manner.

Minister, can you explain to this House how your announcement today will deliver timely, cost-effective and accountable public services for the people of

Ontario?

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I want to thank the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. When the Premier

formed the government, he asked all of us to work with other ministries to improve the delivery of service and the efficiency of government for the people of Ontario. We currently have over 200 Web

sites. There are 70 call centres in the province of Ontario and 1,500 counter services. We wanted to eliminate some of the guessing games consumers have to go through when it comes to finding out

basic information about their government.

I was very pleased to be joined by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Culture this morning at the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library where we

launched ServiceOntario.ca, a new province-wide Web site which, in essence, creates one-stop shopping for those people seeking out information. It also attempts to eliminate the silo mentality that

has been around government for far too many years. It's an opportunity for us to provide information by allowing the public, business community and labour groups to go on to ServiceOntario.ca.

Mr Brownell: I understand the Ontario government collaborated with other levels of government to design this new information portal. With

collaboration and sharing best practices, this new Web portal includes information that crosses ministries and, indeed, governments and provides the user with a one-stop shop for government

services. Busy Ontarians will appreciate this new efficiency. Now Ontarians can change their address on their driver's licence, register a business name and plan an Ontario holiday all in one

place. Better access to information and government aids both the individual and small business.

Minister, will you go into, in more detail, the benefits ServiceOntario.ca will provide for consumers and business alike?

Hon Mr Watson: Again, I thank the member for his interest in this. Let me just give you three specific examples where ministries are working

together. First, the children's ministry has a portal on ServiceOntario.ca. People logging on can receive information about adopting a child, children's health, financial benefits available to

students and services for children with special needs.

There's the workplace gateway that Minister Bentley has championed: rights and responsibilities under employment standards, information about wages and hours

of work, working outside Ontario, hiring construction workers and subcontractors. How to start and run a tourism business -- my friend the Minister of Tourism from St Catharines. On the

ServiceOntario.ca portal, we provide information on start-up, funding and finance, human resources and training, industry associations and research. It is truly a one-stop shopping opportunity for

consumers, labour and business. It cuts through some of the red tape. We heard a lot about cutting through red tape over here. We're actually doing something about it on this side of the House.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Acting Premier: I want to tell you about the Lincoln Nine. The Lincoln Nine are so-called

double-hatter firefighters who work full-time in one community and volunteer their services as firefighters in their hometown of Lincoln. Because of pressure from firefighter union leaders, the

Lincoln Nine are effectively being forced to make an awful choice: between their full-time jobs and continuing to volunteer to protect the community in which they live.

This is fundamentally unfair, unjust and just plain wrong. Years of mediation and conciliation have proven to be not successful. It is time to act. Will you

support the rights of the Lincoln Nine to volunteer in their hometown of Lincoln?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The Minister of Community Safety will be happy to respond to that.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I find it really interesting that that party, when they were in

power, had a private member's bill that --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Kwinter: I didn't do anything? You didn't do anything. Your members didn't even show up for the vote. It was defeated. If you were so

supportive, why didn't you enact that legislation?

I should tell you, I am very concerned about the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member for Erie-Lincoln, I don't want a shouting match about a question and answer. I want to give the

minister an opportunity to -- and Minister, I ask you to direct your answer through the Speaker.

Hon Monte Kwinter: I've said virtually from day one that we are very concerned. We want to make sure that the safety of the people of Ontario

is paramount. We want to make sure that volunteerism is encouraged. Having said that, we think that the process of collective bargaining should work. The fire marshal is monitoring the situation,

and he has the authority, when he feels that a community is at risk, to act. That is where we're going with it.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): The member for Erie-Lincoln has again underscored why legislation is needed to protect double-hatter

firefighters, to protect their right to volunteer in their home communities and to ensure a high level of emergency response preparedness in rural and small-town Ontario.

The minister, just now, made reference to the fire marshal. He said he's listening to the fire marshal. Yet at the standing committee public hearings two years

ago, the fire marshal said, "There is a provincial and public interest in protecting two-hatters who wish to serve as volunteer firefighters. We do not believe that a non-legislated solution is

achievable or enforceable." The fire marshal has said legislation is needed to protect double-hatter firefighters. And this spring, he reconfirmed that position in writing to me.

My question is this: When will the government listen to the fire marshal, grow a backbone and take a stand in favour of community safety in rural and

small-town Ontario?

Hon Mr Kwinter: The member, whom I commend for bringing forward his legislation when he was a private member on the government side,

unfortunately couldn't get his colleagues to support his bill. Having said that, I want you to know that the quote you made is two years ago, when you were part of that government. I suggest to you

that the fire marshal takes his responsibilities very seriously. When there is in fact a cause for him to intervene, he will inform me of that. That point has not been reached to this date, and we

are monitoring the situation very closely.

HYDRO GENERATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I have a letter from Mayor David Miller, requesting a

full EA for the Portlands Energy Centre that is to be built in the city of Toronto, in my riding. I, along with hundreds of residents, also called for a full EA, but you turned us down.

There are a number of serious issues that need to be examined before giving approval for this huge gas plant in the portlands. One is air quality. We asked

that one condition be the closure of the Lakeview coal plant, but you even refused that condition. Instead, the Liberals are holding an energy policy conference, where you will be discussing ways

to put off your pledge to close the coal plants by 2007. Minister, is that why you wouldn't allow this simple, clear condition to be imposed, in order to build this gas plant?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Our government is committed to ensuring that Ontario has an adequate supply

of electricity now and in the future. Portlands -- the Ministry of the Environment made the decision not to proceed to full environmental assessment. The environmental consequences of gas-fired

generation are well known and well understood. There is a scoped environmental assessment, as I understand it. My colleague the Minister of the Environment has been working with the partners in

Portlands in terms of getting this process underway.

We remain committed to replacing coal-fired generation, and we'll identify the cleanest and most affordable potential power sources in Ontario as replacements

for coal. After years of mismanagement by the previous government, we remain committed to closing the coal plants here in Ontario and moving forward with cleaner sources of electricity.

Ms Churley: Minister, if that were the case, why wouldn't you impose that as one of the conditions for this gas plant to be built? That's

pretty clear.

I also want to ask you about another issue. As it stands right now, this plant won't even be efficient. It promoted itself to be a cogeneration plant. It

claimed to the community that it was going to produce electricity plus steam heat that would lessen the energy taken from the grid by buildings dependent on electrical heat, but negotiations with

steam distributors have failed and this plant's commitment to cogeneration is in serious question at best.

Minister, you've been talking about efficiency and conservation, yet this plant is not even going to be cogen. Ontario is sending an anti-efficiency message.

All your commitments are just reduced to platitudes. It's time to walk the talk on conservation and efficiency. I'm asking you for a full EA. And will you revisit this project's approval so

cogeneration is absolutely part of the equation?

Hon Mr Duncan: I'm astounded that member would use environmental protection legislation to slow down the closure of coal plants. That's what

you're advocating. She wants us to keep Lakeview open. That's what the member wants. Well, we're going to close Lakeview and replace it with cleaner gas-fired power. I say to the member opposite: I

would have thought she'd want there to be enough electricity to serve downtown Toronto in the years ahead. I take it that the member would like job losses in downtown Toronto because the banks

can't keep the lights on. Is that what she wants?

Get with the game plan. Natural gas is cleaner. It's more efficient. It will allow the closure of Lakeview in April of next year, on target, on time. It will

make the greater Toronto area better to live in. It will help reduce smog. You ought not to try to use environmental legislation to slow down the closure of coal plants. Get with the game and take

a solid --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. This past July the

government announced $500,000 in funding supports to the Toronto mayor's panel on community safety. This provincial funding was intended to help more than 300 young people in disadvantaged areas of

Toronto improve their job and life skills by providing summer employment.

Numerous studies have shown that early intervention in the lives of at-risk youth can make a positive contribution that will help them keep on the right track

so that they can have a successful future. Can the minister tell this Legislature whether this funding was a success and whether it has led to opportunities for at-risk youth in communities such as

Malvern, Jane and Finch, and St James Town?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member from Scarborough Centre for his question.

There's no question that it was a resounding success. The mayor's panel on community safety was chaired by Chief Justice Roy McMurtry. It had representatives from various community groups and also

had representation from the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Their initiative was to bring at-risk youth the opportunity to have a job. That meant that for the first time ever, these young people would have the

satisfaction of getting a paycheque; for the first time ever, they would have the satisfaction of having a real job; for the first time ever, they would have the ability to use this particular job

as a reference. That was a wonderful opportunity, and at the end of the program, there was no question that it was worthwhile and it was something that benefited Toronto and Ontario as a whole.

Mr Duguid: Our government is continuing to demonstrate that not only are we getting tough on crime, we're also getting tough on the causes of

crime. Our communities recognize that if we're to be successful in addressing youth crime and violence, community participation and buy-in in those programs is absolutely essential. How has the

business community responded to this program, and what are the longer-term benefits of this approach?

Hon Mr Kwinter: Indeed, there were long-term benefits, and I just want to read a letter that I received from two people who were involved in

the program. They said:

"In our role as counsellors for the Jobs for Youth program in the Malvern community, we have gained a wealth of experience through orientation sessions, youth

and employer interaction and a number of other administrative tasks related to our position.

"As a result of the implementation of this program, we have exceeded our quota and are very impressed with our total number of placements from the Malvern

community. Jobs for Youth allowed our clients to gain valuable work experience, which resulted in employment for a large number of the youth at the conclusion of the program."

These words from these community leaders are clear evidence of the tremendous success of this program.

Finally, I think what's really important is that many private sector companies participated and they have agreed to continue to participate. It's a wonderful

program with wonderful results.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have with us in the Speaker's gallery the German-Canadian Friendship Group from the Federal Republic of

Germany. Please join me in welcoming them here.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

physiotherapy services,

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

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

I have also signed this.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support for chiropractic services in the

Ontario health insurance plan signed by a number of petitioners who say:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 8, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition to reopen the Leslie M. Frost Centre, signed by many residents of my riding. It

says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Leslie M. Frost Centre has been Ontario's leading natural resources education, training and conference centre aimed at fostering an understanding

of natural resource management, with a focus on ecosystems and their sustainability for future generations; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government refused to consult with municipalities and other user groups before taking this drastic action and continues to operate in a

clandestine manner; and

"Whereas this move will hurt the people and economies of Muskoka and Haliburton, especially those in the local tourism industry; and

"Whereas the Frost centre is a valuable resource for elementary, secondary, post-secondary institutions, as well as a variety of other groups;

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

"That the McGuinty government reverse the decision to close the Leslie M. Frost Centre, allowing valuable summer programs to continue while a long-term

solution is developed."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government is cutting provincial funding for essential health care services like optometry, physiotherapy and chiropractic

care;

"Whereas this privatization of health care services will force Ontarians to pay out-of-pocket for essential health care;

"Whereas Ontarians already pay for health care through their taxes and will be forced to pay even more through the government's new regressive health tax;

"Whereas the Liberals promised during the election that they would not cut or privatize health care services in Ontario;

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

"We demand the McGuinty Liberal government keep its promises and guarantee adequate provincial funding for critical health services like eye, physiotherapy and

chiropractic care."

I agree with the petitioners. I have signed this as well.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding support for chiropractic services in the

Ontario health insurance plan.

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they

need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are approximately 23,000 children and youth in Simcoe county and York region who have special needs; and

"Whereas approximately 6,000 of these children have multiple special needs that require a range of core rehabilitation services; and

"Whereas children with multiple special needs (and their families) throughout the province access ongoing rehabilitation services that are critical for their

development at children's treatment centres in their area; and

"Whereas there is no children's treatment centre in Simcoe county or York region. For families that can travel, the closest services are in Toronto; and

"Whereas Simcoe county and York region is the only area left in the entire province that does not have access to children's treatment centre services in their

own area; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care provided funding to the Simcoe York District Health Council for implementation planning for an integrated

children's rehabilitation services system in December 2001; and

"Whereas the implementation plan was submitted to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care in December 2002; and

"Whereas the proposal was reviewed and approved by the appropriate ministries in 2003, and in August the Ministry of Health advised the Simcoe county and York

region district health council that the funding had been committed and would be available shortly;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to release the funding for the children's treatment centre in Simcoe county and York region so that

core rehabilitation services can be delivered to the children and youth in Simcoe county and York region."

I agree with the petitioners and have signed it.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition signed by over 300 residents in the riding of Nickel Belt. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently approved a request by the Sudbury Regional Hospital to expand the geographic area where hospital patients who need

long-term care can now be placed;

"Whereas this situation has occurred because there are no long-term-care beds available in the Sudbury region for these patients;

"Whereas patients now face discharge and placement in long-term facilities far from home, in Chapleau, Espanola and Manitoulin Island;

"Whereas the redevelopment project at Pioneer Manor has freed up space which could be converted into 30 temporary long-term-care beds;

"Whereas this provides a positive solution to our bed crisis;

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

"We demand the McGuinty Liberal government fund these 30 temporary long-term-care beds so that no patient is sent far from home for long-term care."

I agree with the petitioners, and I have signed this as well.

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from a group of people in the Lisgar and Churchill

Meadows region, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the city of Mississauga has, within a generation, grown from a linked collection of suburban and farming communities into Canada's sixth-largest city,

and tens of thousands of people daily need to commute into and out of Mississauga in order to do business, educate themselves and their families and enjoy culture and recreation; and

"Whereas gridlock on all roads leading into and out of Mississauga makes peak period road commuting impractical, and commuter rail service on the Milton GO

line is restricted to morning and afternoon service into and out of Toronto; and

"Whereas residents of western Mississauga need to commute to commute, driving along traffic-clogged roads to get to overflowing parking lots at the Meadowvale,

Streetsville and Erindale GO train stations;

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

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Transportation and highways, instruct GO Transit to allocate sufficient resources from its 2004-05

capital budget to proceed immediately with the acquisition of land and construction of a new GO train station, called Lisgar, at Tenth Line and the rail tracks, to alleviate the parking congestion,

and provide better access to GO train service on the Milton line for residents of western Mississauga."

As one of those residents, I wholeheartedly endorse this petition and Alexander will carry it for me.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I now have close to 1,000 names and 333 letters from people concerned about the delisting of

chiropractic services. I quote in part:

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they

need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

These were presented to me by Dr Brunarsky, and I sign these petitions.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly:

"Access to Trades and Professions in Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada,

raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and

managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas Ontario, its businesses, its people and its institutions badly need the professional, managerial and technical skills that many newcomers to Canada

have and want to use;

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

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the other institutions and agencies of and within the

government of Ontario, undertake specific and proactive measures to work with the bodies regulating access to Ontario's professions, trades and other occupations in order that newcomers to Canada

gain fair, timely and cost-effective access to certification and other measures that facilitate the entry, or re-entry, of skilled workers and professionals trained outside Canada into the Canadian

workforce."

I add my name to this petition.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of those who want to see double-hatter firefighters protected, like

Russ Yule of Jordan and Dan and Sharon Mitchell of Beamsville. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas many volunteer fire departments in Ontario are strengthened by the service of double-hatter firefighters who work as professional, full-time

firefighters and also serve as volunteer firefighters on their free time and in their home communities; and

"Whereas the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association has declared their intent to `phase out' these double-hatter firefighters; and

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters are being threatened by the union leadership and forced to resign as volunteer firefighters or face losing their full-time

jobs and this is weakening volunteer fire departments in Ontario; and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott has introduced Bill 52, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, that would uphold the right to

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

"That the provincial government express public support for MPP Ted Arnott's Bill 52 and willingness to pass it into law or introduce similar legislation that

protects the right of firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free time."

In support, I add my signature.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Sir Frederick Banting was the man who discovered insulin and was Canada's first Nobel Prize recipient; and

"Whereas this great Canadian's original homestead located in the town of New Tecumseth is deteriorating and in danger of destruction because of the inaction of

the Ontario Historical Society; and

"Whereas the town of New Tecumseth, under the leadership of Mayor Mike MacEachern and former Mayor Larry Keogh, has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement

with the Ontario Historical Society to use part of the land to educate the public about the historical significance of the work of Sir Frederick Banting;

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

"That the Minister of Culture and the Liberal government step in to ensure that the Banting homestead is kept in good repair and preserved for generations to

come."

Of course, I agree with the petition and I've signed it.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding support for chiropractic

services in the Ontario health insurance plan.

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they

need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I send this to you by way of page Emilie.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Tom Lewis of Ridgeway, Ontario, and Shirley Athoe of Fort Erie.

It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Dalton McGuinty Liberals promised a health care system that gives us all the care we need when we need it; and

"Whereas chiropractors, optometrists and physiotherapists provide the necessary health care to the people of Ontario to maintain healthy and active

lifestyles;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their promise to invest in health care and restore funding to cover optometry, physiotherapy and chiropractic care

under OHIP."

I have signed my signature in support.

EYE EXAMINATIONS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the 2004 provincial budget was not clear on whether adult optometry patients who have or who are at risk for medical conditions, such as diabetes,

glaucoma, macular degeneration and clinically significant cataracts would continue to be covered through the Ontario health insurance plan; and

"Whereas Ontario's optometrists strongly feel that Ontario seniors, those under 20 and those with chronic sight-threatening diseases must continue to receive

primary eye care services directly from Ontario's optometrists; and

"Whereas forcing patients to be referred to optometrists through their family physicians ignores the years of specialized training optometrists undertake to

detect, diagnose and treat eye conditions; and

"Whereas almost 140 communities across the province have already been designated as underserviced for family practitioners and the government's approach will

only exacerbate the problem unnecessarily;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care immediately clarify that the eye examination services they provide to patients at risk for medical conditions

will continue to be covered by OHIP and the coverage for these services is not dependent on a patient being referred to an optometrist by a family physician."

I have signed that petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD AND YOUTH SAFETY), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(SÉCURITÉ DES ENFANTS

ET DES JEUNES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 1, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 73,

An Act to enhance the safety of children and youth on Ontario's

roads / Projet de loi 73, Loi visant à accroître la sécurité des enfants et des jeunes sur les routes de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member for Ottawa-Orléans has completed his debate. I think it's questions and comments, and we

start with the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): The member for Ottawa-Orléans was the last speaker on the government side of the House with

respect to Bill 73.

As we pick up this debate again this afternoon, I will remind the House, I will remind the government members, that much of the legislation contained therein

is very similar to legislation that was introduced two years ago with respect to the booster seat components of the bill that we're deliberating this afternoon, booster seat legislation that was

introduced by the Minister of Transportation at the time, Norm Sterling.

At that time, in December 2002, the injury prevention program of Sick Children's Hospital commented on the direction that was being taken by the government of

the day. This organization is known as Safe Kids Canada, a national injury prevention program. It had some good things to say about this initiative. At that time, we were taking a look at requiring

the use of booster seats for children over 40 pounds. It was considered a progressive step toward reducing what I think we all recognize as one of the leading causes of not only severe injury, but

also death among young, school-aged children.

Again, as we know, these kinds of booster seats position the seatbelt safely over the child's body to maximize protection in the event of a collision. It also

reduces the likelihood of the child being ejected from the vehicle, if that vehicle were to roll over.

The only comment I have is that a lot of parents obviously don't know the value of this, and I'm suggesting we put a little bit more emphasis on education

rather than legislation.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm pleased to spend a couple of minutes responding now, but we'll be speaking in more detail about

this bill in a few minutes. The NDP supports this bill in principle, and I think some of my colleagues who have spoken have made that very clear. I don't think there's anything we can do that's

more important than bringing in laws that will help protect our children, and this is one of those.

We have some issues with the bill as proposed, and that's why we're calling for the bill to be sent to committee. Some of those who have some concerns can come

and speak to the committee and, if necessary and possible, we can make some amendments to actually improve the bill.

I understand that there are some concerns about the fact that -- and I don't know how I feel about this myself at the moment. I have mixed feelings, because I

know when the NDP brought in red light cameras, and the Liberals then were opposed to it --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Yes, yes. Well, some of them weren't here. But one of the major complaints we heard about at that time was that it didn't matter

who was driving the car; if the car got a ticket, the owner of that car was responsible. The Liberals then made quite a big fuss over that and said it wasn't fair. I thought at the time, and still

do, that the overall good it would do for our community and for our safety was worth it.

We have the very same situation in this bill, where if you loan your car to somebody to pick up your kids or whatever and they get stopped for breaking this

particular law, then they're not responsible, you are. The owner of the car is responsible. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. I just think that we need to examine it more and look at

the ramifications of this and other issues in the bill that there are some concerns about.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to take this opportunity to comment on the speech made by my colleague, the effective and

hard-working member from Ottawa-Orléans.

One of the things that I find particularly interesting and particularly important in this bill is the school bus safety portion. If you represent

Algoma-Manitoulin, you represent roughly 700 kilometres of the TransCanada Highway, Highway 17. On any given school day, I don't know how many buses would be out on the TransCanada Highway moving

young people from their homes to various schools. In the district of Manitoulin, we will be moving hundreds of children every day on our school buses, so school bus safety is tremendously

important.

In this bill, we are doing something for which I want to compliment my friend the member for Chatham-Kent-Essex. He has, I think, three times -- is it?

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Six.

Mr Brown: Six times he has presented a bill to this Legislature, asking that we make vehicle owners responsible for passing school buses when

their lights are flashing. This is a very preventable cause of great injury and death to young people in Ontario, as they leave the school bus and some unthinking or negligent driver passes when

the lights are flashing. We all know they should stop. This bill adopts Mr Hoy's fine suggestion that we allow those people to be prosecuted on the basis of identifying the vehicle. It provides

certain safety that we do not do the wrong thing, but it allows vehicle owners to be prosecuted. This is a great step forward.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I spoke at length about Bill 73 the other day. I just want to say something that I didn't bring up at that time

in response to comments that have been made here. I agree with some of the comments in terms of the school safety sections of this bill. For the viewers at home, the owner of the car will be

charged regardless of who is driving, so I think it should go to committee, and I agree with members who may want to sort that out.

But the bill mentions photo radar, which is something I didn't mention in my debate the other day. If the government is planning on bringing back photo radar,

I don't think it should be doing it through bills like this; it should have a photo radar bill. There is mention of photo radar in the bill. There is speculation out there in the transportation

community and the policing community that the government is paving the way for photo radar. I'm not a big fan of photo radar, nor do I like red-light cameras, although I understand some

municipalities find they are necessary in order to keep traffic moving. I think it's too Big Brother-ish, and certainly I would want to see this House have a complete debate on photo radar.

Plus, when you don't get any demerit points -- and this is the problem with the school bus

section of this too. If someone is driving your car and they pass a

school bus with the red lights flashing, there are no demerit points toward the driver. Again, it's the owner of the vehicle who will be charged.

Photo radar, to me, just meant rich people could speed and poor people couldn't, because there were no demerit points. I also felt, when it was in for a short

time when the NDP were in, that it was like driving by a slot machine. It was a cash grab for the government. It's a huge revenue generator for any government that brings it in. I'm not totally

convinced, as I say, that it's a good idea for the province.

I would like to see this bill go to committee also in terms of child seats. I think we need more public education. I would hope the minister would come forward

with a comprehensive plan to make sure people understand this legislation, and understand current safety legislation, so that our roads are safer in Ontario.

The Speaker: The member from Ottawa-Orléans has two minutes in which to summarize.

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I wish to thank the member from Halton, who is supportive of this bill, and the member for

Toronto-Danforth, who spoke in support of the bill. It has the same issue as the red-light cameras have. I wish to thank the member from Algoma-Manitoulin. The school bus safety issue, which he

talked about, the safer school buses, is so important to us. We just wonder why this has taken so long to get here. I'd like to thank the member from Chatham-Kent-Essex, who worked over the years

to get this bill there.

Everything seemed to be going very well until we got into something I don't think this bill deals with: photo radar. I stand to be corrected on that, but to

put a smokescreen up on such a great bill, such good legislation that is being proposed by our Minister of Transportation, does not seem fair.

I spoke on the current legislation, about how many passengers a young driver with a G2 permit can have in his car. I felt that was a very important part of

this legislation. For the first six months driving independently under the G2 licence, young drivers could take one passenger aged 19, if this legislation comes in. That will be great. There is a

reason for that: 16- to 19-year-olds make up a little over 5% of Ontario's population, but they account for 11% of all traffic fatalities. So we're on the right track here. Drivers aged 19 and

under are three times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident or collision if they are carrying passengers 19 and under in their car.

For those reasons, this is a good bill for the G2 drivers. All the issues of safety that the Minister of Transportation has brought forward in this bill are so

important, so it's great to see most people in this House supporting this legislation.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 73. I'd say at the outset, just listening to the

member from Ottawa-Orléans about photo radar not having much to do with the bill, that he might want to have a look at the bill, in particular the limitation

section on page 4, which I was

going to talk about later on, which I will. It talks about "An owner of a motor vehicle convicted of an offence under

section 128 on the basis of evidence acquired through the use of a photo radar

system," and then it goes on with respect to other matters.

It is quite perplexing, actually, when one reads through it, to suddenly see this reference to photo radar in the bill. When I look at it and try to understand

why the minister instructed legislative counsel to draft the bill in this way, I can only relate it to the attempt in the bill to impose liability on owners and not only drivers. The way they would

do that, I suspect, is with cameras taking photos of licence plates, which of course would tell you, with a search of the Ministry of Transportation records, who the owner of the vehicle was, but

would not tell you who the driver of the vehicle was. I may be incorrect about that.

I look forward to the Ministry of Transportation -- the minister or the parliamentary assistant; those responsible for Bill 73 -- perhaps providing an

alternative explanation. Otherwise it does appear that this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing in the sense that there's an attempt to deprive Canadians living in Ontario of traditional rights they

have when they're charged with an offence and that those rights would be taken away by this bill.

It also, of course, opens the door. Once you do it once, you can do it more than once. It's perhaps easier for governments, once they've already breached the

wall and said, "All right, we're going to use photo radar," with respect to a good purpose, by the way -- you know, protection of our children and making sure children getting on and off school

buses are safe and the use of booster seats for children of a certain size and weight are all good things, but often good things are accomplished in ways that trample the liberties of people which

have been respected and established over many years. We have a duty here in this place, I think, to safeguard the traditional rights of the people of Ontario and make sure, even with

well-intentioned legislation, that those rights are safeguarded.

Having read the bill, I see no impediment to the government accomplishing the goals sought to be accomplished here by requiring them to get into photo radar.

It is a significant offence. We all know it. I believe the penalty is six points for passing a school bus with the lights flashing, and so on. I think most people -- certainly in my community,

Whitby and Ajax -- are very conscious of that law. There are big signs on Highway 2 in Whitby, I know, about that. People want to obey that law because they realize that their children and their

neighbours' children are using those school buses. I say to the government that I think the goal can be accomplished without trampling liberties and rights that people have in the province.

Clause (5) allows the owner of the vehicle which fails to stop at a school bus to be charged. I challenge the minister to justify that to the people of Ontario

how an advance is made, in this case, by prosecuting the owner of the vehicle as opposed to apprehending the wrongdoer, which indeed is our tradition in this country and in this province. After

all, this is a significant offence and an offence that I think is viewed as significant by most people in the province. So that's clause (5), the ownership aspect.

I hope the government is not going down the road -- whether one agrees with photo radar or not is not the point I'm raising today. The point I'm raising is

that the government should be open and direct. If the plan is to introduce photo radar in the province of Ontario for speeding offences and so on, then let the government say so and let the

government not try to bring, through the back door in a school bus bill and a bill about booster seats, the reintroduction of photo radar in the province.

So the issues about ownership and photo radar are cause for significant concern in the bill.

The lack of respect for the rights of people in Ontario is always a concern -- respect for the rule of law. It could happen in this bill, as I read it, that

the owner of a motor vehicle could be charged with one of these offences and could be convicted without knowing about it. I say that because I've tried to read through the service provisions of the

bill -- and I welcome comment from the minister or his parliamentary assistant on this point. I read through the service provisions, particularly those on page 3 of the bill, and it appears that

the drafters and legislative counsel have been told to go through permutations and combinations here that would permit service, by subservice, in effect, on owners, so that it's possible that an

owner of a vehicle would be convicted of an offence under the Highway Traffic Act without actually receiving physical notice of the fact that they were being charged or had been charged with the

offence.

I think that is offensive to people in Ontario. I think they expect to have the opportunity to make a full answer when they're charged with something. This is

an imperfect administration of the justice system. Everyone working in the system, I know, tries to do the best they can, but there are mistakes made. That's why we have the court system that we

have. That's why we have justices of the peace and judges to hear these cases where people have legitimate defences. But one can't put up a defence unless one knows he has been charged with an

offence. I worry about that as I try to find my way through the legislative language here with respect to service on an owner of a vehicle when the owner was not the driver of the vehicle.

The other issue, of course, is the tendency of the government these days to deal with relatively peripheral issues. There is no promise that the government

made about this issue, when I look through the 213 promises, but there is an issue about trustworthiness here. Again, it's this concern about bringing in legislation with detrimental provisions

with respect to the rights of the people of Ontario in a bill which is designed for a laudable purpose, of course, such as safety for our children. We see in the bill -- and something that is not

talked about -- the potential for conviction of the owner of a vehicle who has not done anything wrong. We also see the naming of photo radar as being a way of adducing evidence in those cases.

Again, these are not issues that I hear talked about on the other side. I do hope some of the speakers will address those issues so that people in Ontario can

be satisfied that there is not this subversive intent to do, indirectly through this bill, what ought to be done directly and debated in this place, if that's the intention of the government.

The member for Toronto-Danforth, also the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and the member for Simcoe-Grey, I believe as well, all mentioned this ownership issue.

The member for Simcoe-Grey expressed some concern about it and said that it should be something that ought to be discussed at some length in committee. I certainly support that view of my colleague

from Simcoe-Grey. There seemed to be less concern expressed by the government member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I'd suggest to him, respectfully, and to his colleagues that they might want to ask the

Minister of Transportation questions about this issue and satisfy themselves, if it's possible to be satisfied on this issue, that it is necessary for the purposes of the bill to have this kind of

vicarious liability imposed on persons who are not actually committing an offence.

It's quite rare for that to be done. It's not that it has not been done, ever. We have vicarious liability for the owner of a vehicle being operated with

consent by another person for the damages or harm caused to another or another person's property. That principle in the civil law is well established, but when you move into provincial offences, or

certainly into the criminal law, the tradition has been that one has to be an actor in order to be charged and convicted and not simply passive, the fact being that you own something, imposing some

sort of criminal or quasi-criminal liability on that person.

That's an important issue that I hope we hear more of in the remarks by members on the government side, from the minister and the parliamentary assistant, and

that I hope gets covered in committee at some length, because it does not appear, or at least we haven't heard any evidence here that is convincing, that it is necessary to impose this kind of

vicarious, quasi-criminal liability on people in Ontario in order to accomplish the goal.

The photo radar aspect is a major issue, because as the member for Simcoe-Grey noted, it creates at least a two-tiered system. It says to people who are

wealthy in the province of Ontario: "The amount of a fine won't mean that much to you compared to someone of more m