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

December 6, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Dec-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 6 December 2004 Lundi 6 décembre 2004

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ARTHRITIS

VOLUNTEERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

BRAMPTON FIREFIGHTERS

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

ARTHRITIS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

DEFERRED VOTES

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

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)

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION

ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

TUITION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

HYDRO GENERATION

GREENBELT

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

HIGHWAY 17

MIDWIFERY

NORTHERN ONTARIO

PETITIONS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PIT BULLS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

PIT BULLS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OPTOMETRISTS

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

LANDFILL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT (FALL), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (AUTOMNE)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

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

hand.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates and supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the

services of the province for the year ending March 31, 2005, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ARTHRITIS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): The number of people with arthritis in our province has increased in only seven years by 23%, affecting over

1.6 million citizens who today live with the daily pain and disability of arthritis. In the next 20 years, people with arthritis will increase by 2.8 million, or more than one in five Ontarians. As

arthritis claims more victims, the increased demand for hip and knee replacement surgery will mushroom over those years.

The Arthritis Society, whose members are here today in the Legislature to mark Arthritis Day, has confirmed that people with arthritis are not getting the care

they need to manage their disease and minimize the pain and disability it causes. They ask the government to provide improved access for arthritis sufferers to early diagnosis, disease information,

self-management education, specialist care, rehabilitation, and medication to reduce pain. What is also needed is the development of a province-wide strategy to improve access to programs and

services for the prevention and management of arthritis. The society has established a 12-point agenda to improve arthritis care in Ontario.

On Arthritis Day, I would like to salute the members of the Arthritis Society for all their dedicated hard work on behalf of arthritis sufferers and to join with

them in calling on the government to take arthritis seriously by moving forward to implement the society's 12-point plan to properly address the prevention and management of this painful

disease.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Today is Arthritis Day at the Legislature, and I'd like to acknowledge representatives from the Arthritis

Society, including Sheila Renton, Jessie MacIsaac and Helen Cotnam from Sudbury, as well as the 1.6 million Ontarians currently living with the disease.

Arthritis is the second most prevalent chronic condition in Ontario, resulting in more pain and disability than any other chronic disease. In 2001, one in six

Ontarians reported having arthritis. By 2026, 2.8 million Ontarians will have the ailment, with the largest increases among adults over 55. More than 50% of people with arthritis reported long-term

disability. For those under 55, almost twice the proportion of people with arthritis than any other chronic condition reported long-term disability. Nearly one in three people of working age with

arthritis, compared to one in seven people with other chronic conditions, reported being without a job in the previous year, contributing to a significant cost of $4.4 billion a year.

Despite the huge need, health services have been static since 1997, while the incidence of arthritis is increasing at the rate of 1% per year. The Arthritis

Society, with over 50 years in the arthritis rehabilitation and education business, has proposed an ambitious 12-point agenda to improve arthritis care in Ontario. There are three key areas: Reduce

wait times and increase capacity for joint replacement surgery; develop and implement an arthritis prevention and management strategy for Ontario; ensure access to early diagnosis and treatment for

inflammatory arthritis.

I applaud the efforts of the society in raising awareness and I urge this government to implement the recommendations so this looming health care crisis can be

averted.

VOLUNTEERS

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Yesterday, December 5, was International Volunteer Day. The invaluable contributions that are made

every year by the millions of volunteers across the world and the almost 2.5 million right here in Ontario come in the true spirit of kindness and an unwavering commitment to caring for others.

The selfless and noble acts performed in Ontario contribute over 390 million hours and almost $6 billion to our economy annually. Our government values these

contributions and promotes and recognizes volunteers through several initiatives, such as the Volunteer Service Awards, the Outstanding Achievement Awards, the Senior Achievement Awards and the

Ontario Medal for Young Volunteers.

Today, I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to a few of the thousands of volunteers in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore: Tony Panzuto, Dwane McDonald

and Jeannie Robinson, of the Etobicoke-Lakeshore Housing Task Force -- thank you for your ideas; Elizabeth Sloan, Chelsea Takalo and Tiffany Jiminez at LAMP -- thank you for your compassion. Allan

Ritchie, Christine Campbell, Tina Blandford, Jim and Jennifer Saunderson, Arden Lambe, Wendy Gamble, and all of the volunteers whom I have not had a chance to recognize here in my minute and a

half, thank you for building a better community in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Thank you for your hard work each and every day.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Not long ago, the Minister of Children and Youth Services announced what was called the Best

Start plan for preschool students in Ontario. The problem I've got with that is that it's a laudable goal but, like so many Liberal announcements, it's not backed up with the money.

The other question I have is, do these people over there ever talk? If the minister had been speaking to the Minister of Education, she might have known that in

my riding we haven't had half-day busing for 15 years because the funding hasn't been there. We need the announcements to be backed up with the money.

The Minister of Education has promised a new funding formula for school busing. In my riding, we have the oldest fleet and the lowest-paid drivers and operators

in the province. We are closing bus routes every year, with more to be scheduled for 2005. I say to the minister, I implore you to get together with your advisers and come up with a funding formula

that addresses the needs in rural Ontario.

The minister must know that our students are just as important as the students everywhere else in the province. We are not second-class citizens; we should no

longer be treated like them.

BRAMPTON FIREFIGHTERS

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I rise today a very proud Brampton resident because of an important achievement by a local firefighter

named Captain Peter Reid. For those who may not know it, Brampton has one of the best fire departments in the world, and they have the awards to prove it.

The fire department combat team has dominated the most gruelling firefighter competition in the world, the World Firefighter Combat Challenge. In this

competition, the Brampton combat team competes in an obstacle course against more than 100 teams and 700 of the best firefighters on the planet.

The excellence of the Brampton fire department is demonstrated by their performance over the past decade. For example, the Brampton fire department won the

championship in 1996, took second place in 1997, first place in 1998 and first place again in 1999. Not only has the Brampton fire department consistently dominated this international competition,

but the Brampton firefighter combat team has won the Canadian championships at least five times.

This year, the Brampton combat team won the 2004 over-40 Canadian championship with a world record time. Most recently, captain Peter Reid broke the over-40

world record and finished first in the World Combat Firefighter Challenge. This is just another example of the professional, highly trained and determined people who protect my community from fire

every day.

I offer congratulations to the members of the Brampton firefighter combat team, and I commend Brampton firefighters for their commitment to good training and

dedication, which Brampton firefighters have demonstrated for more than 150 years.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Today the parents, family and friends of 16-year-old Andrew Stewart are mourning his tragic and violent death. On

behalf of all members of the Legislature, I extend our condolences.

According to reports, Andrew lost his young life attempting to defend his friend against a gang of thugs just steps from the East York Collegiate school, where

Andrew was a student. While crisis counsellors today are attempting to help Andrew's friends to deal with their grief and their fears, the community and this Legislature have a responsibility to

address the underlying issues that have led to this tragedy.

The Toronto Sun's Kim Bradley reported, "Parents of some students at East York Collegiate warned the school about the brewing violence weeks before Andrew was

slain." The parents want it to be known that they contacted the school to report incidents of bullying at the school, and as one mother said, "`They have done nothing.'"

This is not an isolated case. I bring to the attention of the Minister of Education another serious issue involving a 14-year-old student at Mother Teresa High

School in Ottawa. The boy's parents have pleaded with the school to ensure a safe and secure environment for their son, and their appeal is being ignored. I will ask that a page deliver this letter

from the parents of this student to the Minister of Education at his desk here in the Legislature, and I ask that the minister personally intervene to ensure this child's safety.

I'm also calling on the Minister of Education to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that every principal, every teacher, every administrator in our

school system treats bullying as a serious issue and that every school has a prescribed response protocol for this serious issue.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of Ontarians with acquired brain injuries and the

dedicated men and women in the community-based agencies who work so tirelessly on their behalf.

As members from all sides of this House know, the Ontario Association for Community Based Boards of Acquired Brain Injury Services is hosting their annual MPP

reception in the Legislature tonight. I would encourage all my colleagues to attend and show their support for the clients, their families and the service providers in this important sector.

One of the agencies that provide valuable residential and outpatient services to people with acquired brain injury is located in my riding of Willowdale.

Community Head Injury Resource Services of Toronto, CHIRS, is an organization that does wonderful work in this area. I have had the pleasure of visiting with the clients and staff at CHIRS and was

touched by the good work that takes place there. Many of the people who are cared for by CHIRS have few, if any, alternatives.

I am sure that all members will join me in welcoming the acquired brain injury community to the Legislative Assembly today.

ARTHRITIS

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): I'd like to bring your attention to some of the visitors you will find in our gallery representing the

Arthritis Society, led by their executive director, Jo-Anne Sobie.

Arthritis is a chronic condition that affects one in seven adults and one in 1,000 children. Individuals affected live with the daily pain and disability of

arthritis.

The Arthritis Society is a multidisciplinary and integrated team, including occupational and physiotherapists, social workers, managers and program support staff

and 435 program volunteers, that provides invaluable services, treatments and education programs for people with arthritis.

Within my community, Sue MacQueen and Judy McKague are two of the invaluable occupational therapists who assist community members each day. I would like to

acknowledge Judy and Sue, whom I had the pleasure to meet with a short time ago, along with their colleague Lynne Tintse and a brave young spokesperson, Tricia Riddell, and her mother. I would also

like to acknowledge Tom Millen, the president of the Kitchener-Waterloo Arthritis Association, and Shirley Mitchell, who runs the office each day. The society reaches close to 150,000 Ontarians

with arthritis through its Web site, a 1-800 information line, print materials and self-management programs.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Arthritis Society for their dedication to this cause and ask all members of the House to join

me to acknowledge their efforts in treating and educating others about this chronic condition.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Today will be the third and final reading of Bill 73, the Highway Traffic Statute Law Amendment Act. I'd like

to highlight to all members that this is an extremely important bill dealing with highway safety for Ontario's children. This is a bill that, if passed, will make sure that Ontario's youngest

citizens arrive safely at school in the morning and arrive safely home at night.

When parents see their kids off in the morning, they are putting a fundamental trust in the public education system, a trust that their children will be

transported safely to and from school. To that end, we are putting a new school bus safety measure forward.

This enhancement in the school bus law would not have been possible without the support of Colleen and Larry Marcuzzi and Ginny and Ed Loxton. For over eight

years, they stuck by me. They were never discouraged and they never gave up. I can never thank them enough for their courage and selflessness. They came forward to share their personal tragedies

with the public in order to spare other families the nightmare and pain that these two families had to endure. I will forever be grateful for their help, perseverance and friendship.

This government recognizes that we have an important duty in protecting the lives of our children. That is why I'm asking for support of this bill from all

members in the House. I encourage you to join me in voting in favour of this bill today.

VISITORS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the members' gallery we have the Car Seat Safety Committee of

Haldimand-Norfolk that worked on Bill 73. Please join me in welcoming Karin Marks, Joanne Alessi and Kim Henzy.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): That's not a point of order.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

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

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The government House leader has moved government notice of motion number 258. Is it the pleasure of the House

that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I am proud to stand in the House today to talk about our government's plan to

improve access to front-line care in communities across the province.

Today, I had the opportunity to make an announcement at the Escarpment Primary Care Network, a place that is at the heart of community care in Hamilton. This is

a place where physicians work together with nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, mental health workers, dietitians and others and provide comprehensive care to their patients. This is a

place that takes prevention as seriously as treating illness. It provides the kind of cradle-to-grave care that more and more patients and their providers are looking for in the province of

Ontario.

Government is a steadfast defender of medicare. We believe it's the best expression of our Canadian values, and it does a relatively effective job of making sure

Ontarians get the quality care they need. But we all know that it's far from perfect. In many ways, it's still a work in progress.

For one thing, Ontario's health care system really doesn't operate as a real system; it's more of a loose collection of all too often uncoordinated services, and

we all know that too many patients slip through the cracks. Too many patients feel as if they are being shunted from one provider to another without any one professional or team looking out for

them. Most urgent of all, one million Ontarians are without a family doctor -- one who knows their health history, advocates on their behalf and coordinates their care -- and 142 communities in our

province are underserviced, which means they have inadequate access to basic health care services. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, and our government is determined to fix it.

Our government has been moving forward this year with a plan to build strong community-based health care, because we believe that the very best health care is

found close to home. The cornerstone of our plan is creating front-line primary health care teams, a model that we call family health teams. Our government is investing $600 million over the next

four years to create 150 family health teams to bring comprehensive front-line primary care to 2.5 million Ontarians. These will be teams of doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists and

other health professionals who deliver a full range of health care services to people after hours, 24/7.

We all know that people don't get sick conveniently between the hours of 9 and 5. Far too many people end up queuing up in emergency rooms because their local

clinic closes down in the evening. Others in the same situation risk letting a cough become bronchitis or a sore turn into an infection. They might go to work or school without getting the proper

care or medication and put others at risk of getting sick as well.

Members of a family health team arrange their work schedules so they can provide after-hours care and weekend coverage for each other's patients. And they

provide comprehensive care. Prevention and health promotion are as important as treating minor ailments and managing serious, chronic diseases.

Health care is the most basic, most human endeavour, and the very best kind of health care comes from people working together. Family health teams allow patients

to benefit from the combined talents of different health care providers.

Diabetes is a textbook example of why primary health care teams work. Diabetes is a complicated condition that requires a combination of treatment and prevention

measures, including medications to control blood sugar levels, dietary support and assistance to manage a host of symptoms including eyesight problems, heart disease and foot problems. Here's what

the Canadian Diabetes Association said in a recent letter to me: "The Canadian Diabetes Association strongly supports the evidence that diabetes care is most effective when it is organized around a

multidisciplinary diabetes health care team." I don't imagine anyone here disagrees with the idea; it just makes sense.

The family health team concept is attractive to many doctors and other health care professionals because it allows them to share their workload, have greater

flexibility and balance their work and home lives. If you talk to providers who are part of a team practice, many will tell you that they were sceptical at beginning; they thought it would be

difficult to get used to and that they might lose income. Instead, what they discover is that they get paid and supported for spending more time with their patients and delivering the kind of care

that they know their patients need. Family health teams will build on successful teams, like the Escarpment Primary Care Network. They will be created from the bottom up and respond to the distinct

needs of the patients and the local community they are established to serve. No one family health team will be exactly alike.

More and more family doctors and other professionals are seizing on the opportunity to practise in teams. In fact, we have already received 100 unsolicited

expressions of interest from groups across the province interested in setting up family health teams. Some 3,500 family physicians are already choosing to practise in one of the existing primary

care models and bring care to 2.8 million Ontario patients.

I had the pleasure of announcing today another milestone in our plan to build family health teams. Communities across Ontario can now apply to establish the

first 45 family health teams. These first 45 family health teams are expected to serve up to 650,000 people when they are fully up and running --

Applause.

Hon Mr Smitherman: -- and they have one strong supporter in the Liberal back bench --

Applause.

Hon Mr Smitherman: -- and more all the time. Evidence of the strong, growing support for family health teams is found here today on the floor

of the Ontario Legislature.

Importantly, over the next few months we will be working with communities across the province on their applications, and we will approve and announce the first

45 locations early in 2005. Dr Jim MacLean, lead of primary care on the government's health results team, has just begun travelling from one end of the province to the other to inform communities

about how to apply for and set up a family health team. Interested groups will be provided with tools and hands-on support to develop their applications.

We also announced that we have established a family health team action group to help communities design and implement family health teams, headed by Dr Ruth

Wilson, the former head of family medicine at Queen's University.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I appointed her.

Hon Mr Smitherman: Yes, the former government appointed Dr Ruth Wilson, and they made a very, very good choice in so doing -- something I've

had the opportunity to say many, many times.

The action group that Dr Wilson is leading includes representatives from the Ontario College of Family Physicians, the Ontario Medical Association, the

Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Nurse Practitioner Association of Ontario, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, the

Ontario Pharmacists' Association, the Association of Ontario Health Centres, and a mental health/social work group to ensure that we get input from a wide range of disciplines.

The McGuinty government is moving forward so that all Ontarians have access to the high-quality care they need, whenever they need it and where they need it.

Ontarians have waited on too many governments for far too long. We're getting on with the job of making the changes we were elected to provide, and we're making these changes together with health

professionals and with communities all across the breadth of this vast province. Some 12 million Ontarians are counting on us to do so. Thank you very much.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I listened with great interest to the statement by our colleague the Minister of Health with respect to

this groundbreaking announcement that he made this morning. I thought it was actually a pretty good announcement, and then I remembered that Elizabeth Witmer, when she was Minister of Health back

in the year 2000, made a very similar announcement. But this is a context.

The previous government made this announcement in a rather different context. It was actually part of the 2000 OMA agreement. You know, agreement, where you

work with physicians and the government and you come to a collective decision? But this minister cannot seem to come to an agreement with physicians in Ontario, because he wants to bully them.

These family health teams were first negotiated as part of the last agreement, working together with Dr Ruth Wilson in her appointment by Elizabeth Witmer, the

former Minister of Health:

"Family health networks will be encouraged," through the budget in the year 2000, "throughout Ontario in accordance with the April 2000 framework agreement

between the ... (OMA) and the provincial government. A total of $250 million was committed in the budget that year to support this effort, with $100 million of this amount for the provision of

incentives for family physicians to change from fee-for-service payments to population-based funding."

This minister wants to once again talk about his agreement, talk about great announcements, instead of getting back to the table and talking once again with

Ontario physicians.

I looked in papers right around the province of Ontario this past weekend and read the disgust -- even many of the groups that supported the initial agreement

that failed are angry at this government and their tactics in dealing with Ontario's physicians.

Look at the Ottawa Sun. "Docs Ready to Battle Liberals," the

article says. "Ontario's physicians are beginning to mobilize against the Liberal government's

final offer.... `Doctors have acted in good faith during negotiations and believe we deserve the opportunity to work with the government,'" and many other physicians are coming out.

I look at the

section on pediatrics, those physicians in the province of Ontario who look after our children, and what they say about this agreement. They are

tremendously angry with this government and the way they're dealing with physicians. Here are the concerns that they have for physician services and the provision of services, particularly to our

youngest, most vulnerable citizens. They note the following: "There is no enhancement of counselling fees for children with serious behaviour and developmental disorders such as autism, cerebral

palsy, global development delay and learning disabilities."

Once again, this government takes a whack at children with autism. You could say a lot of things about the previous government, but no one on this side of the

House ever lied to an autistic child. We never lied to an autistic child. You can say to the member for Nickel Belt -- she's never lied to an autistic child, and we're quite proud of that.

But let's look at what the

section on pediatrics says. "Waiting times will not be improved" for the youngest citizens of the province of Ontario because of

their disagreement. "The

Section on Pediatrics is at a loss to understand why the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care would not see fit to give children with chronic disease the same benefits as

adults with chronic disease" -- tremendously concerned. They go on: "By excluding pediatricians from your proposed health care teams, the front-line care of thousands of children will be in

jeopardy."

I see the minister doesn't want to make reference to that today. Instead he takes a reannouncement, a four-year-old reannouncement by the previous government,

and he wants the status quo. He is not prepared to stand up and to agree that he has made a terrible mistake and just simply agree to sit down with Ontario physicians and to try to give

negotiations a final opportunity. They met 122 times, they continue to say. All we're asking them is to sit down one more time and give it an extra go. But that is unlikely.

Look at what Ontario physicians said about this government just last week. The Ontario Medical Association "are unanimous in their indignation and rejection of

the process and tactics" of this government, that they have unilaterally imposed "a new contract on Ontario's 24,000 doctors." Going on, in Dr John Rapin's words, "It was apparent at" the meeting

you held with them "that your government had no intention of working with" the OMA.

It's time this minister put away his boxing gloves and sat down to work constructively with Ontario physicians.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): In responding to the minister, I want to pick up near the end of the statement where he said, with respect to

primary health care, that Ontarians have waited on too many governments for far too long.

I was very proud to be part of a government that established 21 new community health centres in the province of Ontario during our time in office. I was proud

to be part of a government that established nine aboriginal healing and wellness centres, which are essentially aboriginal community health centres, because those centres made a tremendous

difference in the lives of many people in many communities who were trying to access primary health care. This responded to a very direct and a very clear need for those people to get primary

health care.

For the life of me, I don't understand why the government doesn't use a model that has been effective, that has worked, and just expand the number of community

health centres in Ontario in order to respond to community needs. That would make sense.

Now, CHCs have been in existence for over 30 years in Ontario. They are run by local community boards, which take into account the particular health needs of

the community they represent and establish their programs and services to respond to those health care needs.

I wonder if the family health teams that the government is going to put in place will have community-run, local boards. That is key to the effective running of

community health centres. We know that local control means that boards can respond effectively and in a timely fashion to the needs that come from the community. Those needs can be very diverse,

can be very different, can be linguistic needs that need to be responded to, can be the needs of very difficult populations that people have to respond to -- HIV/AIDS clients, for example.

Community boards can do that, and it will be interesting to see if the government will use what has been an effective strategy from CHCs and implement those with the family health teams, namely the

community boards.

We know that CHCs already draw on and effectively use the skills and expertise of many health care providers. Community health centres already have a broad

range of health care professionals: physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, dieticians, community health workers -- any number of health care providers who bring their skills,

bring their expertise, bring their scope of practice to the community health centre and work together in a team to ensure that people get the health care they need from the health care professional

who is best suited to provide it. Each of them uses all of their talents in this model, each of them is paid on salary and each of them ensures not only that they are delivering treatment in

response to a health care need, but that the team is also involved in initiatives with respect to health care promotion, with respect to illness prevention, with respect to the maintenance of

chronic illnesses like diabetes and arthritis. Those are things that community health centres already do, and most of them already ensure that there is a health care provider who is on call 24/7 to

respond to the needs of the local community.

What's interesting is that about four years ago, the Ministry of Health did an internal review of community health centres to determine how they were

functioning in the province. I can tell you that the results of that review were very positive. This was done by the Ministry of Health itself. On every level, the ministry concluded that community

health centres do respond effectively and fully to the primary health care needs of Ontarians. Why on earth, in the face of a review that is now four years old and that clearly shows how important

and effective CHCs are as a model for primary health care reform, would the government be looking to now another model to deliver primary health care in the province? It makes no sense.

There are over 80 communities now that have proposals into the Ministry of Health for community health centres. I say to the minister and this government, fund

those communities now. We have a model that is effective. We have a model that has been proven. We have a model that the Ministry of Health supports. Why doesn't this government support community

health centres and get on with the business of funding them now?

DEFERRED VOTES

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 25,

An Act respecting government advertising / Projet de loi 25, Loi concernant la publicité

gouvernementale.

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

The division bells rang from 1407 to 1412.

The Speaker: Mr Phillips has moved third reading of Bill 25,

An Act respecting government advertising.

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

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Crozier, Bruce

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 17.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

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)

Deferred vote on the motion for third 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): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1415 to 1420.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, 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

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Churley, Marilyn

Crozier, Bruce

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 69; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION

ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for each

party to speak for up to five minutes in memory of the Montreal massacre victims. I believe we also have unanimous consent to wear the buttons in respect of that.

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

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I rise today in memory of 14 young

women who were murdered at l'École polytechnique in Montreal 15 years ago today. These young women, who had so much to live for, so much to offer, were murdered because they were women. None

of these innocent women should have died. We mourn each tragic and senseless loss.

Today, I attended events of remembrance -- and they are legion across the province -- at Mount Sinai this morning, health professionals getting together to

talk about their role on the front lines of protecting women against domestic violence; at Women's College Health Sciences Centre, a wonderful service of remembrance for the 14 women who died; and

at George Brown College, the students and faculty together discussing their role in our future in changing attitudes in Ontario and the world to protect women against violence.

Today is the national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. The United Nations, in its Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against

Women, recognizes that violence against women allows for a power imbalance and is a mechanism to force women into a subordinate position compared with men. Violence against women impoverishes

society economically, politically and culturally by limiting the active role that women can make in the development of our communities.

Despite its pervasiveness, violence against women is not natural or inevitable. Preventing violence against women requires us to challenge the cultural

attitudes and stereotypes that diminish women's equality and to promote equality in all areas of a woman's life. We must transform systems, institutions, attitudes and behaviours.

This government is committed to action on the issue of violence against women to achieve real, positive change. I'm proud to be associated with a government

that sees violence against women as a priority and to step behind our leader, Dalton McGuinty, as he leads that charge.

On Thursday of last week, I was proud to be in attendance at the Canadian Women's Foundation as they launched a strategy to further involve the public sector

with the private sector on issues of domestic violence. This strategy involves raising funds from the private sector to assist in the violence against women prevention movement. A safer environment

for women and their children won't be created by any single action or by government acting alone. It will be created because of a concerted and coordinated effort across all sectors of society.

Women's organizations have worked hard to raise awareness of violence against women. Networks that have been created at the local, provincial, national and

international levels have inspired a wide range of campaigns and have brought the issue of violence against women front and centre. Since 1991, YWCA Canada has distributed rose buttons to mark

Canada's national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women each December 6. Over 200,000 buttons have been distributed to schools, shelters, places of work and individuals across

Canada.

I have with me here for all of us in the House our own rose buttons. I invite all of us to pick them up and wear them today and on to demonstrate your

commitment to ending violence against women. Together, we've got to ensure that a massacre like the one in Montreal never happens again.

As I close, I'd ask all of you to rise with me as we read the 14 names of those women who died and those who were lost to us so tragically: Geneviève

Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay,

Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte.

We'll stand in our places today and do our part to see that this doesn't happen again.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I am pleased to join my colleagues from the other two parties in recognizing today, December 6, as

the national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Canada.

Established in 1991 by the Parliament of Canada, this day coincides with the anniversary of the deaths of 14 young women who were tragically murdered 15 years

ago, on December 6, 1989, at École polytechnique in Montreal. The 14 young women were killed in a senseless act of violence simply because of their gender.

Regrettably, today, 15 years later, violence against women continues. It is not enough for us to just remember all the women who live daily with the threat of

violence or who have died as a result of deliberate acts of gender-based violence. We must work for change. We must commit ourselves to eradicating violence against women.

criminal harassment in 2000 were women. Of the almost 34,000 victims of spousal violence reported in 2000, women accounted for the majority of victims, 85%, a total of 28,633 victims. In 2001, 86

persons were killed by a current or ex-spouse. Four of five victims of spousal homicide were female. There were 69 women, compared to 17 men. In addition to those killed by a spouse, six women were

killed by a current or ex-boyfriend. These statistics speak to the need to do more to end the violence. All women in this province, this country and this world deserve the right to live without

fear.

We need to continue to educate people, and we need to continue to change attitudes and behaviours that, no matter how casual or seemingly innocent, do

contribute to the continuation of violent and abusive behaviour against women. Moreover, violence against women carries heavy consequences for those who are victims and for society in general. For

the victims of violence, there are psychological consequences along with the physical. We know that girls and boys who witness or experience violence in the home are at high risk of becoming

victims and/or abusers later in life.

As a community and a society, the fear of aggression is present not only in the lives of victims of violence but also in the lives of far too many other women.

How many women do you know who will not travel alone, who worry about waiting for or using public transportation alone after dark, or who are afraid to walk home alone in the evening? According to

the statistics, there are far too many.

Today, as we remember and observe a moment of silence to the memory of those 14 young women, and all women killed as a result of violence, let us not only

reaffirm our commitment in this House and this province to end violence against women, but let us personally reflect on the actions we can take as individuals to prevent and eliminate all forms of

violence against women in the future.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): It was 15 years ago today that a 25-year-old man walked into the University of Montreal's school of

engineering building carrying a semi-automatic rifle. He walked into the classroom, shouting, "I want the women." He separated the men from the women, ordered the men to leave, and lined the women

up along an execution wall. "You are all feminists," he yelled, and he began shooting. As we all know, by the end of his rampage he had murdered 14 women and injured 13 others, mostly women. This

is one of the most tragic mass shootings in Canadian history. These killings shook us to the core and brought to the forefront how common it actually is, in a tragic way, for women in this nation

to face threats to their safety and prosperity simply because they are women.

Today being the 15th day of remembrance for the lives lost, I just returned with other colleagues from Women's College Hospital, where once again I partook in

a vigil to honour and mourn these 14 women. Today I held a rose representing the life and memory of Anne-Marie Edward. Every year such tributes and the other events leading to it transport me, and

I'm sure many of us, back to when we first learned what had transpired. I relive the acute horror, anger and agony we felt that day and the days after. I also remember how in the immediate days,

weeks, months following the murders, an urgency set in to root out the causes of violence and discrimination against women. It is natural after such a tragedy to seek some meaningful change.

In the years following, however, violence against women remains a prevalent and growing crisis while efforts to end it have suffered setbacks. There is a

troubling rise in sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. The occurrence of sexual assault has also increased, particularly incidents involving younger women as the victims. Women

between the ages of 16 and 21 face the highest risk of experiencing sexual violence.

Since December 6, 1989, we have seen two high-profile coroners' inquests in Ontario involving homicides stemming from domestic assault. On average, one woman

in Ontario will be killed in a domestic homicide every week.

This past year, there was a disturbing T-shirt available for purchase, showing a sledgehammer and the phrase, "She deserved it." Supporters of the T-shirt

characterized it as "a joke," and one scoffed at criticism by telling media that no one would really smash someone's head with a hammer. While the shirt was removed from storefronts following

protests, a woman was murdered in St Catharines a few weeks later by her estranged husband. Her skull was smashed in by blunt force trauma.

Ontario came too close again to a femicide when Wyann Ruso was attacked by her husband with an axe, despite having contacted the police about the threat to her

life. I was asked to speak at a press conference with Ms Ruso. When asked why she was coming forward, she said that she hoped that speaking publicly about her ordeal would be a catalyst for

change.

Government does have a paramount role to play in seeing to that change, but change is drastically slow. We have been reminded by a multitude of groups of what

needs to be done on this front. As Rhonda Roffey, executive director of Women's Habitat, who was the keynote speaker at Women's College Hospital, said today, there have been reports, studies, maps,

diagrams etc on how to do it. We need to act. We don't need more reports.

Recommendations that sexual harassment be deemed a workplace hazard under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, that affordable housing be built so women do

not have to make the choice between staying in a violent relationship and poverty, that the clawback be ended and that daycare be made affordable and available: All of those are things that have

been recommended time and time again and need to be put in place.

One of the things we heard today is that because shelters -- the emergency housing -- are so crowded now, women can't get in because women can't get out. The

length of their stay remains longer and longer.

So the core message for today is that consciousness about the real and ever-present threats women face cannot be reserved for occasions that fall during

November. The sombre words uttered at these times must be accompanied by a resolve by all of us to put an end to the prejudice that undermines equality and underlies acts of violence. Anything less

equals being complicit.

The Speaker: Would all members and guests please rise and observe a moment of silence in remembrance of the tragic events at the University of

Montreal, in Quebec, on December 6, 1989.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Finance. I'd like to ask you about what has been

described as the largest breach of privacy in Ontario's history: the release to complete strangers of 27,000 names, addresses and social insurance numbers.

Minister, this happened through your ministry under your watch. Why did it happen, and what are you doing about it?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I know the Chair of Management Board will want to comment on that.

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'd just say that to a very large extent it is under Management Board, so I

will accept responsibility for it.

Just so the public is aware, there was a change in a program designed to provide cheques to individuals receiving something called the child care supplement.

During the implementation of that change what happened was that the name, address and SIN number of individuals were given on the stub of the cheque of the individual above. In other words, there

was a sequence of these things and one individual got the name of the next person and their SIN number and address as a result of, frankly, a computer error and human error.

The minister found out about it first thing Friday morning, took steps immediately to fix it, to ensure that the 27,000 people were notified of the problem,

and immediately notified the Information and Privacy Commissioner as well.

Mr Runciman: We have the Web site, we have the cheques, and they all say "Ministry of Finance." They don't say "Chair of Management

Board."

The Minister of Finance might want to consider a spine transplant and answer some questions that deal with his ministry. We're talking about some basic

questions. All the minister gave us here was what has already been made public, and there are basic questions he is either not prepared to answer or is avoiding.

Minister, why didn't you test your new computer system before sending out 27,000 cheques? Were you concerned about costs? Who made the decision not to do a

test run? Was your office, the Minister of Finance's office, involved or advised? At least 27,000 people now face the real possibility of having their identities stolen, and they deserve answers.

Please start delivering real, meaningful and helpful answers.

Hon Mr Phillips: First, I accept full responsibility. It was Management Board that, in the end, ran the program. We've taken, I think, all the

steps that were appropriate.

As soon as we found out about it, we made sure the problem was fixed. Twenty-seven thousand letters were in the mail at 7 o'clock this morning, giving people

the answers to those very questions that you've outlined. Ministry staff worked the entire weekend to make sure the problem was solved and that the problem was not going beyond this. Twenty-seven

thousand letters were prepared and in the mail first thing this morning. At 7 o'clock, in what's called the first sort, those letters were all there.

So when you want to know about what action we took, we took action as quickly as we found out about the problem, we took the appropriate action under the

advice of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and we provided real answers to 27,000 people. Frankly, this problem should never have happened. We will make sure it doesn't happen again, but

we have taken every appropriate step possible.

Mr Runciman: Somebody is screwing up again. We talked to one of these individuals less than 30 minutes ago. No letters, no phone calls, no

contact, no indication of how to destroy this information -- the only thing they've received from you or your government is a copy of a press release.

Several years ago, during my term as Solicitor General, I stepped aside for a potential privacy breach. At the time, your leader, Mr McGuinty, citing

ministerial accountability, said I'd done the right thing. Given Mr McGuinty's professed belief in ministerial accountability and the acknowledged fact you've indicated here today that you're

responsible for this largest privacy breach in Ontario's history, why have you not stepped down as minister until such time as an investigation into this serious incident is completed?

Hon Mr Phillips: Let's put on the record a few facts. It was the previous government that released private, confidential information to

something called the provincial office of savings -- bank accounts, SIN numbers. Here is the difference: They blocked the Information and Privacy Commissioner's attempt to get at it. We immediately

notified the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We took every step possible.

As for the individual you contacted, you probably were not listening to the answer: At 7 o'clock this morning, in the first mail sort, a letter to that person

went in the mail. They will get that letter tomorrow or they will get it on Wednesday, and it will provide them with the answers to how they deal with this problem.

So I think we've done the appropriate things, contrary to what the previous government did on the provincial savings office's leak of some very confidential

information. They handled it very differently. I think we have handled it appropriately.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr Runciman: I'm going to go back to the Minister of Finance, since his fingerprints are all over this.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they were great believers in ministerial accountability and called for the heads of ministers for matters far less

serious than this. What we're talking about today is the worst privacy breach in the province's history.

Minister, your ministry's mistake could facilitate many people's identities being stolen, and jeopardize their finances, their credit rating and even their

home. This was a massive violation. Can you advise this House and the 27,000 people whose identities risk being stolen if you have placed their SINs on a watch list looking out for fraudulent or

possible criminal use? Have you done that?

Hon Mr Sorbara: The Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Phillips: To the member, I again say we have taken the appropriate steps. We have consulted the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

We have sent a letter to the 27,000 people. They are aware of the problem, and that is that the next person on the list got their name, their SIN and their address. We have asked them to destroy

that information. We have taken those appropriate steps. We know the magnitude of the problem. We know that individuals only have one additional name. We think we've taken, as I've said, the

appropriate steps.

Mr Runciman: The minister doesn't know the magnitude of this. There's no urgency. No one has even heard from this government. It sounds like

you're not prepared as a minister or as a government to take any responsibility for this massive violation of privacy laws. Blame it on some dumb, incompetent bureaucrat. Liberal hands are clean; a

human mistake.

We don't accept that, and I'm sure the 27,000 poor souls whose identities now risk being stolen --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could I get some order, please. Member from Durham.

Mr Runciman: We don't accept this Liberal attempt at a whitewash, and I'm sure the 27,000 poor souls whose identities now risk being stolen

don't accept it either. This is an enormously significant breach of privacy, one that deserves more than a behind-closed-door review by the privacy commissioner.

Will you establish a public legislative inquiry to determine what happened, why it happened and who is responsible, and to review the steps taken to protect

those whose privacy was violated? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Phillips: I will answer. I hope you listen to the answer, because your question indicates you weren't listening to it.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Phillips: Please be calm. I said --

Mr Runciman: I wish you'd listen to the questions.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Phillips: I accept responsibility. I said that. On Friday I accepted responsibility. I indicated to the 27,000 people that we

apologize. We began action. The letters went in the mail as quickly as they possibly could. The first sort is at 7 o'clock this morning. The letter was there.

We called in the privacy commissioner. We asked for her advice. She is conducting a report. She is an officer of the Legislature. Surely we have some faith in

her to conduct a proper inquiry. I am saying to the Legislature that we now have an officer of this Legislature looking at it. Surely we can await her report. Isn't that the sensible thing to

do?

Mr Runciman: That is an unbelievable response from a Liberal. Back in 1996, in the wake of Jim Wilson's resignation for a breach of privacy,

your leader, Dalton McGuinty, said an FOI commissioner's investigation wouldn't do. It's conducted in secret: no media or public scrutiny; no testimony under oath. That was your leader's position

in opposition.

Today we are dealing with the worst breach of privacy in Ontario's history, and you're telling this House and 27,000 people that the Liberals are now singing a

different tune. They'll say one thing in opposition and then completely the opposite in government. And you wonder why people are cynical. Why are you wondering? Minister, will you follow the 1996

advice of your leader, Mr McGuinty, and call a legislative inquiry?

Hon Mr Phillips: Again, I say to the public, and you should listen to this, Mr Speaker: When they were in office, "... disclosure of highly

confidential information given out." Then, what did they do to the Information and Privacy Commissioner? Here's what she says: "The ministry was disrespectful of the mandate of this office. The

ministry's efforts to limit our investigation and its failure, in our view, to use its best efforts to ensure that its current and former employees co-operated with us has hindered this

investigation," and the previous government was found in contempt of the Legislature.

We're doing it differently. We have asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner to look at this -- we notified her immediately. We've taken all the

appropriate steps to deal with these 27,000 people. We are doing what I regard, and what I hope the people of Ontario regard, as the appropriate things in this matter.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the finance minister. In February, the McGuinty government promised historic action

on North America's fastest-growing crime, identity theft. Do you know what? It's a promise kept. Last week, the McGuinty government delivered the biggest breach of personal privacy and security in

Ontario's history. The McGuinty government disclosed the names, addresses and social insurance numbers of 27,000 Ontarians, and you've put those 27,000 people at serious risk of identity theft and

fraud.

In February, you promised action of historic proportions. Last week, you failed in historic proportions. Finance Minister, what's next?

Hon Mr Sorbara: The Chair of Management Board.

Hon Mr Phillips: I think it's very important that the public understand what we're dealing with here: Some 27,000 individuals got the name,

social insurance number and address of the next person on the list to receive a cheque. That's what happened. We've notified those 27,000 people. Everybody knows whose name is on the next one.

We've asked them to destroy that. We've done what the Information and Privacy Commissioner has advised us to do.

I think we have dealt with this appropriately. It was a mistake that should not have been made. It will be fixed. It is fixed. It's limited, as I say, to one

individual knowing the name of the next person on that list and their SIN number. We'll ask the people of Ontario to do what I know they will do: destroy that information.

Mr Hampton: This is the leaflet that the McGuinty government released in February, called Keep Your Identity Safe: What You Need to Know to

Protect Yourself. We now know that it should have said, What You Need to Know to Protect Yourself from the McGuinty Government.

Apologies and excuses aren't enough, Minister. In the electronic age, identity theft is a very serious threat to those 27,000 people, and the McGuinty

government is responsible.

Under the law of Ontario, if a private corporation did this, they would possibly be subject to a $250,000 fine and compensation of the victims. Will the 27,000

victims of the McGuinty government receive any compensation for the damage you've caused them?

Hon Mr Phillips: Again, the damage is the need for them to get rid of that information. I remind all of us -- I shouldn't need to spell this

out -- that we know exactly who got the name of the next person. Frankly, I think that eliminates any possibility of theft or fraud in this case.

So we have taken the steps the Information and Privacy Commissioner has outlined for us. We know exactly the size of the problem, and we know who got the name

of the next person. As I say, I have confidence in the people of Ontario to do the appropriate thing and simply say, "I inadvertently got the name of somebody," and it's gone.

Mr Hampton: Ten short months ago, this government said, "Security is a top priority for our government, and the integrity of each Ontarian's

identity is critical...." So said the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. But by your government's own actions, you've demonstrated that security is a low priority and that the integrity of

each Ontarian's identity is trivial to you.

Minister, if you agree that this is a serious matter, will you agree to a full public investigation by the privacy commissioner, with the terms of reference of

that investigation determined here in the Legislature and the full report tabled here in the Legislature within six months?

Hon Mr Phillips: Again, I say to the public, I take it extremely seriously. I found out about it Friday morning. We took all of the steps to

correct the problem. We began the action to make sure that we communicated to the 27,000 people. We have launched an internal audit as well.

I would just say to all of us, once again, we have the Information and Privacy Commissioner, an officer of this Legislature, a highly regarded individual, who

I have every confidence in to do the appropriate investigation. Now, in another case, her report led to the government of the day being held in contempt of the Legislature because they didn't

co-operate. I assure you and the public that we'll co-operate and are co-operating absolutely fully with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Health. For months we have warned you that your failure to properly

fund Ontario's hospitals is hurting patient care in communities across this province. Now we learn of another most disappointing incident: 10 of the most fragile babies in Ontario became seriously

ill last week after catching a virus in the overcrowded neonatal unit at Women's College Hospital in Toronto.

In 2003, the Conservative government committed funding to address the problem of overcrowding and inadequate space in the neonatal unit, but when you became

government, you stopped the project and put these infants at risk of what happened last week. Minister, why did you stall this project when you knew that doing so would put frail infants at

risk?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the honourable member for the question and say to those women

and men who are working today, as they have for some time, at the perinatal and gynecology program at the Women's College site of Sunnybrook and Women's, that we appreciate their efforts on behalf

of the patients -- the youngest and their moms -- in the province of Ontario.

I would like to correct the statement that the honourable member made. The previous government certainly did not provide funding; they provided a press

release. The challenge that we confront as a government is that all across the breadth of the province of Ontario in the run-up to the last election, the previous government ran around and

presented plastic cheques -- rubber cheques, actually.

The fact of the matter is that the receiving institution, Sunnybrook, which has an expectation of an extraordinarily large capital plan, does not have the

fiscal wherewithal to raise their local share of the project. We are, on an expedited basis, asking one of the highest-quality public health administrators that we have in our province, Dr Jack

Kitts, the CEO of the Ottawa Hospital, to review the decision point that was taken to make sure that we're moving forward in a fashion which is in the best interests of the patients of the province

of Ontario and also within the fiscal capacity of those institutions --

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

Mr Hampton: After 10 frail babies' health is put at risk, then you appoint someone to do damage control. You've known about this for 14

months: Women's College neonatal unit is overcrowded. The Ministry of Health officials say that there should be 100 square feet for each baby's bed and the accompanying equipment. At Women's

College Hospital there are just 30 square feet of space in the neonatal unit per infant.

As I say, you've known about this for 14 months. You could have moved ahead to fix this. When will you approve this project, so that we can provide these

frail, vulnerable babies with the health care they need and deserve?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I think the honourable member should acknowledge that these babies are being provided an excellent quality of care. There

are challenges there, of course, with respect to space. I've had the opportunity to personally tour that facility. I think we should also give appropriate credit to the work that's being done there

by the front-line health care workers in the province of Ontario.

There are challenges with respect to infection, which is a reality in all institutional environments, and we seek to try and deal with that.

There is no connection, which the honourable member makes, between that incident and the announcement of Dr Kitts's appointment. This is something that has

been in the works for quite some time and in discussion with officials from Women's College Hospital and others.

It's important that we get on with it; I agree. But unlike the honourable member, I will not be a Minister of Health who advances a policy idea or a political

decision that cannot be supported from a financial standpoint by the receiving institution. That's in part a measure of the challenge we're facing, and we are seeking to make sure we can move

forward in a fashion that allows the organization that is to provide the services to do so in a fashion that's consistent with their financial capabilities. We will make that decision on an

expedited basis, with a view toward enhancing the quality of care for these young patients.

Mr Hampton: You know, Minister, I remember when you were over here 15 short months ago, and if someone had given that answer, you'd have gone

through the roof. This is what you've known for the past 14 months: Women's College Hospital cares for 280 premature babies a year. Each of them weighs less than three pounds. Many are born very

premature and are hospitalized for 100 days or more. We have a duty to provide the best possible health care for these fragile babies, and you are failing them.

Women's College neonatal unit is overcrowded. It needs larger quarters so that it is not conducive to the spread of viruses and infections among these frail

babies, exactly what happened under your watch. Minister, will you provide the funds now for the new space that is so badly and obviously needed?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I think the honourable member unwittingly puts himself in the position where he supports a process that will see a 33-month

construction

schedule be placed as a barrier to progress on the very same point that he champions today. I support the most timely resolution possible to this issue, but it is not necessarily to be

found, sir, in a 33-month construction cycle.

What we are doing on an expedited basis is to find the circumstance that will as quickly and efficiently as possible deliver on the challenge we confront,

which has been identified. I agree with the honourable member that it's important to move forward promptly and that's why, as a matter of faith, unlike the honourable member, I don't accept the

idea that the only resolution possible is to leave these children there for 33 months while we build an additional wing at a hospital.

I think there are other alternatives that I want to have examined, so I've reached out to one of the most accomplished public health administrators, Dr Jack

Kitts, to give us his advice. I think this will happen on an expedited basis, and we'll be able to make a decision that is in the best interests of those young patients.

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services dealing with the worst

privacy breach in the province's history, and given that we're not getting any helpful responses from the Chair of Management Board. Minister, earlier I asked the Chair of Management Board about

the 27,000 people, 27,000 potential victims, whose identities risk being stolen, whether your government has placed their SIN numbers on a watch list, looking out for fraudulent or possible

criminal use. We know that a SIN can be used as a possibility in obtaining a birth certificate, a driver's licence, a range of identity documents, foundation documents. Can you inform the House and

those 20,000 concerned people of Ontario just what your government is doing to respond to this concern?

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I'd refer it to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Again, just for the public review, as soon as we found out about this -- my

office found out early Friday morning -- the Information and Privacy Commissioner was advised and we sought her input. A letter went out to 27,000 people, with her input, advising them what to do.

We are taking all of the appropriate steps based on the best advice we can get, including the advice from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Some 27,000 people will be getting a letter

tomorrow or on Wednesday outlining the steps they're to take to destroy the information, to advise us if there are any particular problems that they see in the days ahead.

Mr Runciman: It's obvious the Liberal government is circling the wagons. They're more intent on protecting their political hides than these

potential 27,000 victims. That's the reality.

I'm going to go back to the minister and ask him a question I asked him earlier, which he avoided responding to, and that's with respect to a quote attributed

to his now leader back in 1996, when he took a look at the role of the Privacy Commissioner in relation to what could be looked at in terms of a mandate of a legislative committee taking a look at

this issue, the worst breach of privacy in the province's history. Minister, I remind you of that. Why are you refusing? Why do you believe it's inappropriate to establish a legislative committee

to have a full mandate to take a look at all of the implications of this, not just for what happened in the past, but what may happen in the future? Why will you not do that?

Hon Mr Phillips: Again, what would the public expect from us? Friday morning, as soon as we found out, we notified the Information and Privacy

Commissioner, notified every MPP's office. The Information and Privacy Commissioner is the appropriate person to look at this. An officer of the Legislature, she reports to the Legislature. She is

looking at it. She's independent; she's someone the public has confidence in. I think that is the appropriate person and body to look at that, and that's what she's doing.

Apart from that, as I say, I think we've taken all the appropriate steps. As soon as we found out about it, we prepared the answer for the 27,000 people; the

Information and Privacy Commissioner was notified; all the MPPs here were notified. I instructed our staff to immediately determine whether there was any other problem in any other ministry dealing

with this. They began working on that. We spent the weekend fixing the problem. I think the public understands. It was a mistake; it shouldn't have happened. We've taken the steps that I think the

public would have expected of their government.

TUITION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, before you and the

others were elected, all of you adamantly condemned high tuition fees. You said, and I quote to you from your platform, "The Harris-Eves government raised tuition a staggering 45% for basic

undergraduate programs and allowed tuition to skyrocket in programs such as medicine, law and engineering. We will not let this continue." When they elected you, students believed you would not

increase tuitions, but your post-secondary review panel has already asserted that students will have to pay more to solve the province's post-secondary funding problem. We didn't think you would be

so Machiavellian as to promise a freeze, get elected, and then hike fees immediately after the two-year period is over. Minister, is that what you're planning?

Hon Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): Unfortunately, the member from Trinity-Spadina is now

speculating, and it's very unfortunate because it is our government that froze tuition fees. It's our government that announced improvements in Ontario student assistance for all students,

including opening up eligibility to protected persons and immigrants who have been here for less than 12 months, and improving opportunities for support for students who are not able to get as much

support from their parents as previous governments thought they should.

So I'm really surprised that the member from Trinity-Spadina is playing this little game. I have no idea where he's coming from, because the Rae report is not

available until January and his recommendations have not yet been tabled.

Mr Marchese: I'm surprised that you are surprised, because I attended a conference a mere couple of months ago where you yourself said that

tuition fees were likely to go up, but that a review of the loan system was necessary.

It's no secret to anyone that you and your panel are considering income-contingent repayment schemes. These loan schemes have failed everywhere that they have

been tried. Where they have been implemented, they put an unfair burden on lower- and middle-income families, on women and people of colour, and you know that. In Ontario, the Canadian Federation

of Students and the faculty association have condemned it, and the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance rejected it. Just today, the Ontario Coalition for Post-Secondary Education says that under

this loan scheme, we will see lower-income students pay more for their education than students from high-income families. I can't believe that you are thinking of charging working families more for

the same education.

Faced with these findings, and the findings that have failed -- the experience of loan schemes in other countries -- will you say no to these regressive and

irresponsible income-contingent loan repayment schemes?

Hon Mrs Chambers: I do appreciate the newfound interest that the member of the third party is pretending to demonstrate here. Do you know

plans to reverse the situation created by the last two governments, Tory and NDP. It was those governments that created a situation where Ontario's universities and colleges are funded at the

lowest level of all colleges and universities in Canada. It was those two governments that created a situation where tuition fees rose by more than 130% over the past decade. And it was those two

governments that created a decline in student assistance. We will fix that.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. Just a short time ago today, we voted in favour of third reading of

Bill 25,

An Act respecting government advertising. For a few years, I sat on the other side of this House and watched the previous government waste hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on partisan

government advertising such as the Magna budget, which was perhaps the previous government's biggest advertising ploy but, thank God, a failed one.

I can remember being on campaign trails and people talking about these glossy booklets that showed up in their houses, and all through the year, not just

during campaigns. They talked about how much of a waste it was of taxpayers' dollars for them to look at all these government faces taking credit for things they shouldn't have, in a partisan

way.

I need to know, for us in my riding, how will Bill 25 be different than yesterday's practices? How can the government have that commitment not to use

taxpayers' money on partisan advertising? Can you tell us what changes are happening with Bill 25?

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm quite proud of the piece of legislation passed today. There's nothing like

it in North America, and perhaps the world. It bans partisan advertising.

The public should be aware of the most important thing: The Auditor General must approve all advertising. The Auditor General is an officer of this

Legislature. We've laid out in the bill, as you know, the criteria: It can't be partisan; it must include the cost paid for by the taxpayers; it can't have a picture of the cabinet or the Premier

in it; and it lays out the criteria for approving it. I think the public should be comforted that an independent officer of the Legislature, the Auditor General, must approve it. As my colleague

said, it will save tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that can be better spent on health care, education and the environment.

Mr Levac: Speaker, he stole a little bit of my thunder, because that's exactly what we're talking about: making sure that the money gets spent

in the right direction. I'm proud to be part of a government that said they were not going to be wasting valuable taxpayers' dollars on partisan government advertising. It will ensure that

taxpayers are being served with the right information at the right time about the programs that the Legislature and the government are doing for the citizens of Ontario. We want to focus those

monies on hospitals, on schools, as we've been saying since the very beginning.

But I want to know one thing that's important for the people to understand so that we know that we can get working on this, and that's when the legislation is

to be effective and start working. How soon can we expect not to see any more partisan advertising in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Phillips: Since the bill was introduced, we have been living up to the spirit and intent of it. The Auditor General has asked that we

not proclaim certain sections of the bill for a few months while he ensures that he has in place the necessary staff to approve it. As my colleague said, it makes sense. That was the request of the

Auditor General, that we not proclaim certain sections.

We're already living up to the spirit of the act. The Auditor General should, in the next few months, have the necessary staff in place so all of the

advertising can be referred to his office for his approval before it ever runs here in Ontario.

HYDRO GENERATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Energy. You know that you and your Premier both promised during the election to

cease the operation of the five coal plants before the end of 2007. You know you made these ridiculous promises while failing to listen to the Electricity Conservation and Supply Task Force, which

unanimously recommended that you postpone this reckless promise.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Oh, so you're opposed to closing them.

Mr O'Toole: No. Just last week, it's clear you broke your promise. Now you've decided that you'll keep some of the coal plants operating,

idling just in case. The real question now is, what plants and at what price? That's clearly the question.

You were quoted in the Windsor Star, your hometown paper, as saying you might need to keep coal reserves running, and God forbid a catastrophe at Beck or at

Niagara Falls.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr O'Toole: Furthermore, I would say that this is a really classic moment in Ontario where the Liberals are flip-flopping in public. They've

failed, and these are clearly irresponsible and reckless election promises. Stand and tell the people of Ontario what your plans are.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): We remain committed to replacing coal-fired generation in Ontario as per our

commitment in the last election. We think it is in the best interests of all the people of this province that we reduce nitrous oxide emissions, sulphur dioxide emissions, mercury and, most

important, greenhouse gas emissions.

There are those who say you can't do it. There are those, like Howard Hampton and the NDP, who will say, "Keep Lakeview generating station open. Keep polluting

Toronto. Keep polluting Ontario." There are those, like the member who posed the question, who are satisfied that smog days in Algonquin Park are acceptable to the people of Ontario.

We don't think that's acceptable. We made a commitment to reduce and replace coal-fired generation in this province. We are moving as quickly and with as much

dispatch and prudence as we can to ensure that we achieve the goal in the timeline we outlined. I invite the member opposite: Let's work together to eliminate smog days in Algonquin Park.

Mr O'Toole: I think the people of Ontario should get ready to find a lump of coal in their Christmas stocking. In fact, if you look at it, you

know you're running out of time. That's the issue here. It was an unrealistic, unfulfillable commitment by the Liberals during an election. You know that. The task force knows that. The only people

you haven't been straightforward with are the people of Ontario.

You know that the timeline for a new gas plant or a nuclear plant is going to preclude the fact that you're going to need coal-fired generation. You also know

that coal traditionally has been used as a peaking power source. During this winter, the people of Ontario are going to have shortage of supply and higher prices.

You are the author of this misfortune. All I'm asking you to do today is to tell the people of Ontario -- the jobs, the economy, the threat that's hanging over

their heads -- that you have no plan except to tell them what they want to hear because of some poll you've done.

Hon Mr Duncan: Here's what the member said in committee on September 15, and just so you'll understand the context of the question -- this is

from Hansard -- he said, "You've got a balance here of stable, reliable supply and its relationship with quality of life." Then he rhetorically asked, "Which comes first?" Do you know what his

answer was? Stable prices.

We think quality of life comes first. We think it's important to clean up the environment. We think that there's a long-term cost associated with near-epidemic

proportions of childhood asthma. We think it's wrong that a government turns its back on 1,800 premature deaths a year. We think, and disagree with you. We don't agree. We will not put dollars and

cents ahead of quality of life. We will put quality of life ahead of everything else. We'll do it fiscally responsibly and ensure a better quality of life, and a better price for electricity, than

you could ever have imagined in your eight lost years in office.

GREENBELT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): A question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Members from the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance and

municipal leaders for the greenbelt have pointed out that 70,000 hectares of forest, wetlands and prime agricultural land need greenbelt protection. These include woodlands, ravines and other areas

designated as environmentally significant. There is absolutely no planning case why these significant environmental and agricultural lands are excluded from the greenbelt. These lands will be lost

forever if they're not included now. I'm asking you, will you do that today?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I'm very pleased to answer this question and

anything relating to the greenbelt. The greenbelt is good for you and me and for Ontario's future for generations to come. We are very proud of the fact that we're going to add one million acres of

environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands to the greenbelt.

We made a commitment to the people of Ontario when we ran in the election a year and a bit ago, in which we said, "We are going to protect a greenbelt around

the city of Toronto," and that's exactly what we're doing. We've had consultations through the Greenbelt Task Force -- we've had consultations in eight different settings just over the last couple

of months -- and we think we're doing the right thing.

It may very well be that at some point in time in the future, more land will be added to the greenbelt, once the Places to Grow study has been completed. But

right now, we think the one million acres of land we are adding to the existing Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment is good for the environment, good for future generations and good for

Ontario.

Ms Churley: I don't think you understand what they're trying to tell you and what I'm trying to tell you: If you don't include these lands

now, they will be gobbled up, developed and lost forever, and your stated goal of stopping urban sprawl under your Greenbelt Act will not be accomplished; it's that simple. By not including those

70,000 hectares of significant environmental and agricultural land in the greenbelt, urban sprawl will continue to encroach upon these natural heritage features and prime farming land.

Minister, I am telling you again, you can stand up and brag about this all you want, but you will not achieve your goal. We are running out of time. Will you

do the right thing and move today to designate the land lying between the existing urban boundaries and the proposed greenbelt areas as protected countryside in your final greenbelt plan?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: First of all, let me say that I know that I speak on behalf of the government when we say we appreciate the assistance that

member and that party have given, because I know they're all in favour of the greenbelt as well. But let me also say that there is a significant amount of urban land that is outside the greenbelt

right now -- below the greenbelt -- that is still ready for development. We want to take a serious look at the other 150,000 acres of land that lie between the urban area and the greenbelt. We want

to take a look at it in light of the greenbelt we are proposing and in light of the Places to Grow document that's still to come. At some point in time in the future, we will be looking at the

70,000 acres of land she's talking about to see whether that should or should not be included within the greenbelt.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Many families in my community were pleased to hear

that our government is increasing funding for programs like Healthy Babies, Healthy Children and infant hearing screening. When you announced Best Start, you made a compelling case for the

importance of investing in the healthy development of our children right from the beginning. Will you inform the House about these increased investments and what they will mean for the children and

families of Ontario?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I was very pleased to be in Ottawa

on Friday to announce the allocations. We are providing an increase of $2.6 million for this fiscal year for Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, and this will grow to $8.3 million in 2005-06. This is

part of our Best Start plan and is based on the fact that early identification and support is the best way to help keep our children healthy and ensure they have the language skills they need to

succeed in school.

This is what Dr Robert Cushman --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. May I ask the member from Burlington to just come to order, please. Could you complete your response,

Minister.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: This is what Dr Robert Cushman from Ottawa public health has to say: "The money will allow us to allocate more

resources to the families most at risk. We're finding that we visit two thirds of the families, but a certain number of families need long-term follow-up, and this money will allow us to follow

those families and to make the resources we have available to them."

Mr Wong: Thank you, Minister. This is exciting news. I know that parents in my community are eager to take advantage of these services.

However, I am concerned that not all families in my region will be able to access them. As you know, York region has one of the fastest-growing populations in the province. Over the past number of

years, services in York region have not grown to match the growing number of families that need them. Minister, what are you doing to ensure that all children in my community will have access to

important programs like Healthy Babies, Healthy Children?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: The honourable member is quite right. There are growing populations in places like York and Peel, and we took that into

consideration for the allocation of these monies. That is why regions like York will be receiving a larger piece of the pie than in previous years. This community will receive an increase of

$1,020,616, and Peel will receive an increase of $836,954, because these are growing communities and we want all children across the province to be part of our Best Start plan.

The greatest predictor for success in school is speech and language. The earlier we can screen for those difficulties and remediate them, the better the kids

will do in school.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, in the last election

campaign, your party promised "to comprehensively improve northern highways and four-lane vital links to major communities in the northeast and northwest."

In just one week in October, Highway 17 east of Nipigon washed out four times. As part of the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 17 is certainly a vital

transportation link. However, your announcement of the strategic highway infrastructure program and your reannouncement of the northern prosperity plan last week made no mention of improvements to

Highway 17 east of Nipigon. Minister, will you commit to make the improvements that are needed to this

section of Highway 17 east of Nipigon?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I would like to thank the member from Muskoka for the question. Clearly,

there is no question about our commitment to northern highways, and that's why we are ensuring that there is a northern highway strategy, as we committed to in the election. We will live up to our

commitment about putting together a northern highway strategy, because we understand that northern highways are economic lifelines to northern Ontario.

We committed unprecedented millions of dollars in the last budget to ensure that we address the concern that the member outlined and the concerns of

northerners when it comes to our highways. Certainly, for too long they were ignored by previous governments and we want to ensure that we address those through a northern highway strategy.

Mr Miller: Minister, when you were in opposition, you were demanding work on Highway 69 just about every day. I happened to drive up to

Sudbury last week and I didn't see any construction. I don't know what's going on there.

Highway 17 is also a vital link from Nipigon to Thunder Bay. When I visited the area last year, I met with local business people and representatives of the

Thunder Bay Regional Cancer Centre. Both told me that four-laning Highway 17 was their number one priority. That's the

section where Highway 17 and Highway 11 become one highway, and it's

frequently closed in the wintertime.

Minister, this is about safety, the economy, and people's access to timely health care. Will you take action to four-lane Highway 17 from Nipigon to Thunder

Bay and then on to Shabaqua Corners?

Hon Mr Bartolucci: For the precise reason outlined in the member's question, we are putting together a northern Ontario highway strategy. He

talks about the inaction on Highway 69. The only government to do nothing on Highway 69 south of Sudbury was the previous government.

After one month in office, we signed the strategic highway infrastructure agreement with the federal government. That's going to influence the amount of time

it takes to improve those highways: Highway 11, Highway 17, Highway 69. We are committed to ensuring that the economic lifelines, our highways, are addressed not only in a timely way but in a way

that is caring and will promote the economic growth and public safety that this government wants when it comes to northern highways.

MIDWIFERY

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): My question is for the Minister of Health. Ontario midwives provide vital primary care to moms and their

babies during pregnancy and the first six weeks after birth. This model of care provides the kind of results in maternity care that Ontario is looking for: reduced hospital stays, fewer

interventions and far fewer hospital readmissions, with excellent health outcomes for women and babies.

In a Ministry of Health survey done last year, women and families receiving midwifery care had a client satisfaction rate of 98.7%, and yet Ontario's 300

registered midwives have not had a wage increase since their profession was regulated by our government in 1994. Minister, midwifery represents a cost-effective way to provide maternity care. When

will your government properly compensate Ontario's midwives?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm very pleased to respond to the question from the honourable member and

agree very much that midwifery is a very important model of practice. That's why this year our government funded an additional 55 spots, 45 of which have been filled.

I agree with the honourable member that there is an issue about appropriate compensation, and that's why I went very directly to the conference of midwives

last year at Kempenfelt Bay and told them very expressly that my first priority was to find funding for the additional 55 spots, which I accomplished, and acknowledged that I would continue to work

to try to begin to address the compensation challenges.

I'd be clear in saying to the honourable member, as I have to midwives themselves, that their expectation of having an immediate catch-up for the period of

time that the previous government and the latter year of your party's government didn't increase their funding was not reasonable. Having said that, I continue to be of the opinion that we need to

do more to hire more midwives in Ontario and to look at compensation issues, and that's exactly what we're in the midst of doing.

Ms Martel: Minister, you would know, because midwives are telling you, that the number of new registrants just equals the number of midwives

who are leaving the profession. There has been no net gain of midwives in the province. That is because, in order to be (

a) attracted and (

b) retained in the province, these women need to get

adequate compensation for the excellent care they're providing to women and children. The lack of any compensation increase in the last 10 years means that many midwives are now unable to provide

the kind of high-quality maternity care that Ontario women are entitled to.

Ontario midwives submitted a proposal to your ministry in February 2004 regarding compensation. At their conference in May, you publicly stated you would

review their compensation. Since then, numerous meetings between the ministry and midwives to discuss this issue have been cancelled by your ministry. It's now December. No decision has been made

with respect to compensation for midwives. Minister, when is your government going to sit down and negotiate fair compensation for Ontario midwives?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I wish I had three minutes to answer all the misinformation in the honourable member's question. Let me say, firstly, that

I went very directly to their conference and said that, while I recognized that compensation was their number one issue, it was not mine, and that mine was finding additional resources to hire

additional midwives.

The honourable member suggests that we're just netting out the same number of midwives. That's obviously untrue. In 1995-96, the province of Ontario spent $6

million on midwives. In 2004-05, we're spending $37 million on midwives. We have gains of midwives and additional services being provided that way.

Having said all that, ministry officials are in very regular contact with midwives, as are political staff in my ministry. And while I regret --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Smitherman: See, Mr Speaker, the misinformation that one must --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I see that both are not interested in either hearing the question or in the minister's trying to

answer the question. Could you wrap it up in about 10 seconds?

Hon Mr Smitherman: All I would say is that I do regret that a planned meeting with me the week before last was cancelled because I had a

little stomach ailment, but we're going to have that meeting. We're going to work with midwives.

Interjection.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): You were trying frozen sushi.

Hon Mr Smitherman: It might have been that.

I want to repeat one thing. We are, as relates to health care, in an era of restraint, and the expectation to see all of this lost time made up in one fell

swoop is not practical, given our current fiscal realities.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. My constituents in

Algoma-Manitoulin have been anticipating the details of the government's northern prosperity plan. They've been looking forward particularly to the details about the new program areas for the

refocused northern Ontario heritage fund.

Since its inception in 1988, the northern Ontario heritage fund has been an important resource for our communities. Can you please tell my constituents about

the new program areas for the northern Ontario heritage fund and how they will benefit my constituents in Algoma-Manitoulin?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Before I start, I just want to begin by thanking my cabinet colleagues, who

have all been to the north. In fact, several of them have been to the north several times: our Premier, seven times; Minister Bountrogianni, five times; Minister Pupatello, four times. Our

ministers are visiting the north multiple times, and they understand it.

That's why I am pleased to say that our government is keeping our commitment to refocus the mandate of the northern Ontario heritage fund, which is a key

component of our northern prosperity plan. A refocused northern Ontario heritage fund will help northern communities attract and retain investments and jobs that they need to grow.

This new mandate will focus on job creation, private sector involvement and investment, and continued investment in vital infrastructure across the north.

There are going to be six new programs, which I'd like to outline in the supplementary.

Mr Brown: As the House will know, the north did not participate in the buoyant economy of southern Ontario during the late 1990s and the early

part of this century. We have a lot to make up for.

In my particular constituency, the government announced some months ago and is actively pursuing a $3.5-million investment from the northern Ontario heritage

fund to expand cellular service in the Highway 101 corridor between Chapleau and Wawa, and on Highway 17 between Sault Ste Marie and White River. Obviously, that is a very important initiative for

my constituents.

Access to cellular service and broadband Internet services are essential for northerners and northern business. Can you tell my constituents when you'll have

more details about the emerging technologies and telecommunications programs and when proponents may apply?

Hon Mr Bartolucci: These six new programs are vitally important to the north. They're called the enterprise north job creation program, the

northern Ontario young entrepreneur program, the northern Ontario youth internships and co-op program, and we will continue the infrastructure and community development program. We will provide

assistance supporting emerging technology projects in northern Ontario and we will introduce a new small business energy conservation program.

The member is correct. It is vitally important for his community and the businesses in his community to be able to access the information necessary to apply.

So we will provide an unbelievable marketing program in order to ensure that everyone has the information and can start applying in the new year.

PETITIONS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I am pleased to present petitions from firefighters and their supporters in the Grimsby area, which read 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 own free time; and

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters are being forced to resign as volunteer firefighters or face losing their full-time jobs, which is weakening volunteer fire

departments in Ontario;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should support double-hatters, and protect the right of firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free

time."

Behind S. Lawson and C. Kirkland, I affix my signature in support.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is no established province-wide standard to deal with anaphylactic shock in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylactic shock in the Education Act; and

"Whereas anaphylactic shock is a serious concern that can result in life-or-death situations; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario have the right to be safe and feel safe in their school community; and

"Whereas all parents of anaphylactic students need to know that safety standards exist in all schools in Ontario;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the McGuinty government support the passing of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students,

which requires that every school principal in Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I sign my name to this petition and hand it over to Adam.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly; in fact, it responds to Bill 154, my private member's

bill. It says,

"Re: support for chiropractic services in 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'm pleased to sign this on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Durham.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the funding formula used by the Ministry of Health provided only a 1% increase for Four Counties Health Services in Newbury; and

"Whereas Four Counties Health Services has a projected deficit of $1.7 million; and

"Whereas the plan to balance the budget of Four Counties Health Services by 2006 recommends the closing of all beds at the hospital; and....

"Whereas the continuing viability and operation is of critical importance to the quality of life of all citizens in the hospital's catchment area;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request a review of the budget/funding and consultation with the hospital board/administration/community to reflect the needs

of our rural hospital and community."

I have already signed this one.

PIT BULLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition that's titled "Ban the deed, not the breed."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Whereas breed ban legislation is not an effective solution to dog attacks; and

"Whereas the problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training and legislation encouraging responsible ownership

of all breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing breed-specific legislation, and instead implement a comprehensive

bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds."

This is signed by Danielle Kershaw, Bobbi Ann Dwornikiewicz, Rob Willett, Chris Kershaw and others.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Re: support for chiropractic services in 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 agree with the petition and I've signed it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the funding formula used by the Ministry of Health provided only a 1% increase for Four Counties Health Services in Newbury; and

"Whereas Four Counties Health Services has a projected deficit of $1.7 million; and

"Whereas the plan to balance the budget of Four Counties Health Services by 2006 recommends the closing of all beds at the hospital; and....

"Whereas the continuing viability and operation is of critical importance to the quality of life of all citizens in the hospital's catchment area;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request a review of the budget/funding and consultation with the hospital board/administration/community to reflect the needs

of our rural hospital and community."

This petition is signed by a number of residents from Wardsville, Rodney and Muirkirk.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This is a "Save Our Regional Centres for People with Developmental Disabilities" petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal government were elected based on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Ontario's three remaining regional centres for people with developmental

disabilities, located in Smiths Falls, Orillia and Blenheim, Ontario;

"Whereas the regional centres are home to more than 1,000 disabled adults, many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the

community;

"Whereas closing the regional centres will have a devastating impact on people with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental services

sector and economies of the local communities; and

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of the regional centres to extend specialized services, support and professional training to

thousands more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Ontario's regional centres for people with developmental

disabilities open, and to transform them into centres of excellence to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

I'm pleased to sign that.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "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'm pleased to sign my name to that.

PIT BULLS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation that is breed-specific, and

instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds."

As I am in favour of this, I will affix my signature.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal government were elected on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Ontario's three remaining regional centres for people with developmental

disabilities, located in Smiths Falls, Orillia and Blenheim, Ontario;

"Whereas the regional centres are home to more than 1,000 disabled adults, many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the

community;

"Whereas closing the regional centres will have a devastating impact on people with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental services

sector and economies of the local communities; and

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of the regional centres to extend specialized services, support and professional training to

thousands more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Ontario's regional centres for people with developmental

disabilities open, and to transform them into centres of excellence to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they might live."

I'm pleased to sign my name to that.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the last funding agreement between the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ontario Association of Optometrists (OAO) expired March 31, 2000;

and

"Whereas the optometric fees for OHIP-insured services remain unchanged since 1989; and

"Whereas the lack of any fee increase for 15 years has created a crisis situation for optometrists; and

"Whereas fees for OHIP services do not provide for fair or reasonable compensation for the professional services of optometrists, in that they no longer cover

the costs of providing eye examinations; and

"Whereas it is in the best interests of patients and the government to have a new funding agreement for insured services that will ensure that the most

vulnerable members of our society are able to receive the eye care that they need;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care resume negotiations immediately with the OAO and appoint a mediator to help with the negotiation process in

order to ensure that optometrists can continue to provide quality eye care services to patients in Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This is written to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is no established province-wide standard to deal with anaphylactic shock in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylactic shock in the Education Act; and

"Whereas anaphylactic shock is a serious concern that can result in life-or-death situations; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario have the right to be safe and feel safe in their school community; and

"Whereas all parents of anaphylactic students need to know that safety standards exist in all schools in Ontario;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the McGuinty government support the passing of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students"

-- my bill -- "which requires that every school principal in Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I want to thank NASK, the Canadian association for anaphylaxis and Cindy Paskey for this particular petition. I hand this over to Emma.

LANDFILL

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I will definitely be supporting Mr Levac's bill if it goes forward.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

landfill at site 41; and

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

are r