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

November 23, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Nov-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 23 November 2004 Mardi 23 novembre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VOLUNTEER LIABILITY

MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY

ENERGY RATES

FOREST INDUSTRY

REGION OF PEEL EMPLOYEES

ALPHONSE DESJARDINS

EDUCATION FUNDING

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CELEBRATION OF HELLENIC

HERITAGE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA FÊTE DU

PATRIMOINE HELLÉNIQUE

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

LONG-TERM CARE

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

LONG-TERM CARE

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

LONG-TERM CARE

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA AGREEMENT

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

OMA AGREEMENT

CHILD CARE

FALL BUDGET

OMA AGREEMENT

INSURANCE RATES

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

ONTARIO BUDGET

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

WOLVES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

STUDENT SAFETY

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

HIGHWAY 407 RAMP

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG COMMUNITIES

(PLANNING AMENDMENT) ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS (MODIFICATION

DE LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VOLUNTEER LIABILITY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to bring a matter to the attention of the Minister of Transportation and the

Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Last Friday, I met with Mike Henderson, the fire chief for the Northern Bruce Peninsula Fire Department. He informed me of a matter that

needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

As many of the rural and northern members in this House know, when an automobile accident or fire occurs within an area covered by volunteer firefighters, it is

common practice for several of the on-call members to travel to the scene of the emergency in their own vehicles, often flashing a green light, thanks to the good work of our colleague Ted

Arnott.

The problem occurs when firefighters are responding to an emergency situation that is taking place on a road that has been closed by the police due to poor

weather, or if the road that is closed is the fastest way to get to the fire hall or the scene of an emergency. Under the Highway Traffic Act, the definition of a fire department vehicle does not

include personal vehicles used to respond to emergencies. Therefore, if a firefighter proceeds down a closed road, they are considered to be breaking the law, their vehicle insurance is deemed

invalid and they are personally liable for anything that happens while they are travelling the closed section. It seems like a huge risk to take, especially when they are en route to serve and

protect other people in trouble.

I would like the ministers to figure out what legislative or regulatory changes need to be made to solve this problem. I am more than willing to work with them

to ensure that this issue is resolved quickly, because it is approaching that time of year when poor weather conditions will undoubtedly result in road closures. I have also spoken to the

parliamentary assistant for transportation, Mr Lalonde, and I know he is working on it.

MINIMAL ACCESS SURGERY

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I rise in the House today to thank Dr Mehran Anvari and his team for their groundbreaking work in the field of

minimal access surgery. Hamilton is home to a number of cutting-edge researchers and facilities, and it gives me great pride to tell you about one of them today.

Dr Mehran Anvari, the director of Hamilton's McMaster University Centre for Minimal Access Surgery, is part of a team of doctors, scientists and engineers, as

well as astronauts, who are testing ways to provide care to people in remote environments where it's very difficult to access medical care. Recently, astronaut Catherine Coleman performed the first

simulated gallbladder surgery 19 metres underwater off the coast of Florida. Dr Anvari, who watched from St Joseph's Hospital in downtown Hamilton, coached Catherine through the procedures.

This technology would allow people in remote parts of Canada to have the same immediate access as patients in Hamilton to diagnostic tests and treatment in an

emergency. I would like to thank Dr Anvari and his partners, McMaster University Centre for Minimal Access Surgery and St Joseph's Health Care, for keeping Hamilton on the forefront of medical

technology.

ENERGY RATES

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): The price of electricity is a very important thing to the people of my community. Many people live

on limited incomes. This government's energy policy will have a serious impact on many of the people in my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

A large part of my constituency doesn't have access to natural gas as an alternative. They're forced to rely on electricity to heat their homes. Increases in

electricity rates are especially difficult for seniors and others living on fixed incomes to bear.

Your energy policy and the higher electricity rates that are part of it will have a serious impact on Karen Shearer Layton, who resides in Dunsford. She and her

husband are both retired and live on fixed incomes. Her hydro bill last March was over $600. Since then, Hydro has estimated her bill at approximately $100 per month for the months of June and

July, in the middle of the hot season.

She is certainly not alone, but there is something that sets her apart from many of her friends and neighbours, many of whom have bills just as large as hers.

She took the time to collect signatures from other people who have the same concerns about the high hydro rate and she sent them to me in order to give them to the Premier. I have those here today

with me, and on behalf of Karen and the 92 other people who signed, I'm going to send them across the floor so they can be delivered to the Premier.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Yet again, the Minister of Natural Resources of the province of Ontario is not listening to what

communities across the north are saying in regard to this government's move to change regulations within the sustainable forestry development act.

We know that the government has introduced in Bill 106 a provision that would uncouple the trees that are in the forest from local mills. We already know, for

example, that in the town of Kirkland Lake, we saw a move a couple of years ago where the mill owner tried to shut the mill down and consolidate operations by moving the wood from the local

Kirkland Lake forest into mills in Cochrane and Timmins. We know that's a bad idea because if we allow forestry companies to do that, we're going to see supermills across northern Ontario and we're

going to see the closure of mills in communities like Kirkland Lake, Opasatika, White River, Chapleau and others, to the detriment of those communities.

So we're saying to the government: Listen, enough is enough. Northern Ontario residents deserve good representation when it comes to the Minister of Natural

Resources. We know he's an honourable member; we know he wants to do the right thing. We're saying to the minister directly, withdraw your amendments on Bill 106. Those amendments, at the end of

the day, will be job killers for people in northern Ontario, and I'm sure the government of Ontario does not want to be put in the position of having every mill closure in northern Ontario wrapped

around its political neck.

I say to the government, this is the opportunity to withdraw that particular provision. If you withdraw it from Bill 106, you will certainly have the support of

the New Democratic Party of Ontario, and we urge you to do so.

REGION OF PEEL EMPLOYEES

Mr Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I rise today to pay tribute to an organizational leader in my community.

I rise to acknowledge the collective efforts of all the employees of the region of Peel. The region of Peel is the first municipal government in Canada to

achieve a silver level in the National Quality Institute's prestigious Canada Awards for Excellence, which recognize Canada's leaders in excellence for public sector organizations. By meeting the

National Quality Institute's criteria, the region of Peel demonstrated that it is one of the 10 best-run organizations and a leader in organizational excellence.

The region's employees bring a spirit and a drive to succeed that have earned Peel its reputation as a leader in municipal government and have resulted in a

government that offers real value to its citizens.

Last February, the region of Peel also became the first government in Canada to be certified at level 3 in the National Quality Institute's progressive

excellence program. In achieving the level 3 designation, the region joined an exclusive list of Canada's leading corporations involved in continuous improvement through the National Quality

Institute; among them, American Express, Delta Hotels, IBM Canada and the Bank of Canada. Few organizations, be they public or private, have achieved a similar level of success.

I am proud of the efforts of all the employees of the region of Peel, and I am proud to stand today and acknowledge the valuable services they provide to all the

residents of Peel.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Today I rise to comment on the disturbing and almost weekly trend of the McGuinty Liberal government of either

making announcements that have already been announced or trying to suggest to the public that something new is of their design and of their making when in fact it is the law of the land and these

programs exist.

One such example occurred last week on November 18, which is why the minister didn't announce it in the Legislature, about the new barrier-free requirements for

provincial government buildings. The minister and members opposite should be aware that Bill 125, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act brought in by the previous government, made it the law of the

land that all Ontario government programs, their buildings and their services must be fully accessible within 10 years under the regulations contained in that legislation.

What's interesting is that rather than saying in the press release that the regulations being announced are the ones that have been worked on by disabled persons

being implemented. But what's interesting is, the government now does not put a dollar budget figure attached to each ministry's costs to become accessible. Why? Because they have cleverly buried

ALPHONSE DESJARDINS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Je suis heureux de commémorer aujourd'hui le 150 e anniversaire de la

naissance d'Alphonse Desjardins, un grand innovateur qui a développé une formule originale de coopératives de services financiers. En conséquence directe de ses travaux, on

trouve aujourd'hui en Amérique du Nord plus de 10 000 caisses populaires et « credit unions » dont les actifs atteignent près de 900 milliards de dollars.

Né à Lévis, au Québec, Alphonse Desjardins fonde la première caisse dans cette ville en 1900, avec la collaboration de son épouse,

Dorimène Desjardins.

En Ontario, M. Desjardins a collaboré en 1908 à la fondation de la Civil Service Savings and Loan Society, avant de fonder en 1910 la Caisse

populaire Sainte-Famille d'Ottawa.

Les Ontariens profitent aujourd'hui de plus de 250 caisses populaires et « credit unions » dont les actifs dépassent les 20 milliards de

dollars. Le Mouvement des caisses Desjardins est devenu la sixième institution financière au Canada. Les activités de Desjardins et des caisses populaires de l'Ontario dans notre

province représentent maintenant plus de 2 000 emplois.

Dans le secteur culturel, par exemple, l'engagement du Mouvement Desjardins dans nos communautés est d'autant plus important. Desjardins commandite le

spectacle L'Écho d'un peuple, présenté par Francoscénie, qui rappelle l'histoire des Franco-Ontariens, de même que le Toronto Symphony Orchestra et l'exposition Picasso et

la céramique, présentement en cours ici à Toronto.

S'il était parmi nous aujourd'hui, Alphonse Desjardins aurait bien raison d'être fier de cet héritage.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): Education is key. It's key for a good future for the children and youth of this province. To ensure that our

children and youth have the resources they need to succeed, we need to invest in resources -- resources like teachers, including primary teachers, resources like guidance staff to help our young

people grow, and resources that give young people the opportunity to grow beyond the classroom.

That is why we are investing in our schools. Schools like St Mary's Elementary School in my riding will benefit from smaller class sizes. They will have smaller

class sizes because funds directed to the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board will allow for the hiring of at least nine new primary teachers.

Other schools in my riding such as St Joseph's, Notre Dame and St Anthony's will benefit from learning opportunity grants, and schools like St Mary's Secondary

School will benefit from the student success initiative, giving grade 9 students the opportunity to participate in a work placement.

Board by board and school by school, we are ensuring that not only do our children get the best possible start in school, but that we have a system in place to

help them grow as individuals throughout their time in our education system. When we invest in children and youth, we invest not only in them and their future, but we invest in all of us.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I rise today to speak about the work the McGuinty government is doing in the field of mental health. For too

long, mental health has been an unspoken health problem, and Ontarians with mental illnesses were not getting the care and support they needed and deserved in their communities.

That has begun to change. This government has invested an additional $65 million this fiscal year to serve an additional 13,650 clients in our community mental

health services. That money represented the first increase in funding in 12 years. That's 12 long years that community mental health programs in Ontario have been underfunded and underappreciated.

This figure will rise to $185 million by 2007-08.

David Kelly, the executive director of the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs, had this to say about the new money: "We're very

excited that after 12 years the Minister of Health and the government of Ontario have recognized the need to support addiction and mental health programs based in the community. It's

fantastic."

Susan MacPhail of London East Community Mental Health Services said, "We have been underfunded and undersupported for so many years that I believe this is the

beginning of a new era."

I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes and is willing to invest in community services.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I beg leave to present a report on science and technology from the standing committee on public accounts

and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Sandals: Just briefly, this represents the work of the public accounts committee on the science and technology research investments in what

is now the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.

The Speaker: Are you moving the adjournment?

Mrs Sandals: I moved the adoption of the recommendations, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I presume you are also moving the adjournment of the debate.

Mrs Sandals: If that would be appropriate, I would like to do that as well.

The Speaker: Ms Sandals has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carried? Carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CELEBRATION OF HELLENIC

HERITAGE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA FÊTE DU

PATRIMOINE HELLÉNIQUE

Mr Duguid moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 150,

An Act to proclaim a day and a month to celebrate Hellenic heritage in Ontario / Projet de loi 150, Loi proclamant un jour et un mois de fête

du patrimoine hellénique en Ontario.

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

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): The Hellenes, the Greeks of today, are proud descendants of a culture that originated in the glorious

civilization of ancient Hellas. Many of the ideals and institutions upon which modern civilization is based, such as democracy, were first developed by the ancient Greeks.

Today, over 100,000 people of Hellenic descent thrive in Ontario and make significant contributions to the economic and social fabric of our province. One such

contribution, of which I'm very proud, is the new Hellenic Home for the Aged, which opened on August 6 of this year in my riding of Scarborough Centre.

In honour of the Greek community in my riding and in recognition of all people of Hellenic descent living in Ontario, this bill would proclaim March 25, Greece's

national day, as Hellenic Heritage Day and the month of March as Hellenic History and Heritage Month.

There's no better time to talk about our Hellenic heritage than when this government is introducing democratic reforms and has shown its commitment to those.

When we look at what has happened in the last year, with the Olympics in Greece and with the recent soccer victory, I think the timing is perfect to consider this kind of bill.

VISITORS

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to recognize, and I know members of the

Legislature would like to join us in welcoming, members of the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario, who have been meeting in the Legislature for the last two days. They are in the government

members' gallery, and they are led this year by their president, Milica Kovacevich.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): While we welcome the group here, it's not a point of order. But we do welcome them.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have the distinct honour to introduce to this House a very special person,

the Consul General of Romania, Mr Teculescu. Let's welcome him. He's on the opposition side.

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: May I take the opportunity to introduce the former mayor of the

town of Ajax and former chairman of the region of Durham, Mr Jim Witty.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'm pleased to be able to tell the Legislature and the citizens of Ontario that we are

moving forward with two distinct initiatives designed to address immediate and mid-term financial needs of Ontario's agricultural community.

The first, which will ease the financial crisis facing our ruminant livestock producers as a result of the May 2003 discovery of BSE in an Alberta cattle herd,

is this government's commitment to provide cash advances through the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, the CAIS program. These dollars will flow through the CAIS program to

eligible producers.

This undertaking is one element of the national BSE repositioning strategy announced earlier this fall. This six-part strategy is designed to facilitate an

increase in abattoir capacity in this province; sustain the industry until that increased capacity comes on stream; deal with older cows; provide cash flow assistance; find new markets for Canadian

meat; and, most importantly, reopen the border with the United States to the trade in live animals.

Ontario has already taken steps to increase its abattoir capacity and to develop new markets for Ontario's meat products through the $10-million cull animal

strategy, which was introduced this past February. On September 27, Premier McGuinty announced that the province would provide up to $30 million toward the set-aside programs of this repositioning

strategy. The programs encourage cattle producers to hold animals back from slaughter by providing financial assistance to offset the costs associated with feeding livestock over a longer period.

At that time, the Premier also told the industry that we would do everything in our power to find the additional funds necessary to join with the federal government in providing advances on the

2004 CAIS benefits for eligible ruminant producers. We have found that money: as much as $16 million. All told, the BSE repositioning strategy could put as much as $100 million into the pockets of

Ontario farmers.

The second initiative will see the McGuinty government, in partnership with Ottawa, deliver $172 million over the next three years through short-term,

Ontario-specific programs designed to complement the two national business risk management programs as industry and government work together to make the transition to the CAIS and production

insurance. This funding announcement includes support for the self-directed risk management program for the fruit and vegetable industry. As well, we'll soon be making an announcement on the market

revenue insurance program for the 2003 and 2004 crop years.

As you know, Ontario's agricultural sector is the most diverse in the country of Canada, and these companion programs play an important role in addressing the

unique needs of this province's agricultural industry. Securing the continuation of these programs over the short term is a key element in moving us closer to our vision of a strong and sustainable

agricultural sector, where greater income stability contributes to increased competitiveness.

When we have completed this transition, our farmers will be able to rely on CAIS, the program I mentioned previously, which is designed to protect them from

both small and large declines in their farm incomes, and on an expanded package of production insurance plans. In the interim, however, Ontario's producers will have the support of the programs

that they value as effective business risk management tools. But our goal is to work with the industry to improve and expand the coverage available to this province's producers through production

insurance which will provide alternative, long-term solutions to help manage the business risks associated with farming.

We have in fact already begun this undertaking, and we are making excellent progress, but this government fully appreciates the severity of the situation

facing our farmers right now. We understand that we must provide this financial assistance for their immediate short-term needs.

We are confident that our long-term approach to income stability will better position our agricultural sector to grow and compete in global markets. That is

good news for Ontario's farmers. And it's great news for all Ontarians, because a strong and competitive provincial agriculture sector is a key factor in ensuring that all Ontarians enjoy a quality

of life that is second to none.

When you go to that grocery store, buy local, buy Ontario, buy Canadian. If you ate today, thank a farmer.

LONG-TERM CARE

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I am proud to rise in my place today to talk about an important part of our

plan to change the culture of long-term care in this province and to improve the lives of seniors receiving that care. I am referring to the new regulation governing the placement of couples in

long-term-care homes.

Almost since the day I became minister, I have had a very clear objective with respect to long-term-care homes in this province. It is an objective I have

shared with Premier McGuinty, whose passion and commitment in this regard are equal to my own.

It is this: Long-term-care homes in Ontario must be "homes." I can tell you that nobody in my ministry, nobody on this side of the House, refers to

long-term-care "facilities" any more. That word is a throwback to a previous government and an outdated way of thinking. It is a word that does not do justice to the warm, dignified,

community-based culture we are bringing to long-term care and the people receiving it.

It was in the interest of dignity and community that we introduced the regulation making it easier for couples who have spent much of their lives together to

stay together when the time comes to move into a long-term-care home. Effective October 22, a higher priority for placement in long-term-care homes is being given to couples who are both eligible

for admission based on the care requirements. Only people in crisis will receive a higher priority.

This is a simple matter of decency and respect.

Changes introduced in 2002 by the previous government slowed down the process for couples who want to spend their long-term-care years together. We believe

this was wrong. How can we presume to call these places homes when the people in them have been separated from their partners in life? How can we not see that a critical component of the care we

are trying to give in these homes is the kind of love, support and companionship that couples give to one another?

Quality of life, happiness, joy: These things increase in the presence of loved ones, and we want more of that for long-term-care residents.

My colleagues may remember that this initiative was recommended last May by my parliamentary assistant Monique Smith in the groundbreaking report she prepared

on long-term care in this province. It is part of our overall action plan to change the culture of long-term care in Ontario.

Applause.

Hon Mr Smitherman: That's for Monique.

I have spoken many times of a revolution in long-term care, and that is exactly what has taken place these past few months.

We invested additional funding of $191 million beginning this year to hire 2,000 new staff, including 600 nurses. We're requiring a higher standard of care,

reinstating the requirement that a registered nurse must be on site 24 hours a day and ensuring that residents receive at least two baths a week. We increased the comfort allowance for

long-term-care residents for the first time in 19 years and froze their accommodation fees for the first time in 11 years.

We are giving residents and their families more of a voice through residents' and family councils. We have adopted a policy of unannounced inspections of

homes, and strengthened enforcement and accountability to ensure that seniors are treated with dignity and with respect. Just last week we launched a Web site to provide detailed information to

seniors and their families about individual homes, including the results of the ministry's annual inspections.

To engage long-term-care residents, their families, long-term-care providers and other concerned Ontarians in a dialogue about the future of long-term care, we

recently released a discussion paper. It is now available on the Web, in long-term-care homes, seniors' centres, community care access centres and libraries across the province of Ontario.

Next year we propose to introduce a new long-term-care homes act, first promised in 1993, a comprehensive modern piece of legislation that will, over and above

all else, put residents and patients first. Putting people first is exactly what long-term-care homes should be doing, and it is exactly what the government is doing.

Ontario seniors deserve the best care we can give them. They deserve comfort and respect. They deserve to live in a warm, caring community that feels like

home.

The expression "home is where the heart is" should be as true for our seniors as it is for anyone else. A move into a long-term-care home should not mean a

separation from the person with whom you've shared your life, and we are determined to see that, wherever possible, it will not be.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): First of all, I want to congratulate the minister, not on the announcement but in fact the title of the

announcement. I'm very pleased to see that finally the minister has realized there is a cash flow problem in agriculture in Ontario.

Incidentally, the minister made this announcement yesterday, but there was great confusion because of the way the announcement was written. No one, including

the farmers I talked to, could understand what he was actually announcing, whether there was anything new in this announcement from what he had announced three or four times prior to this.

It became quite obvious this morning when I received my local paper that there is absolutely nothing new in this announcement, and that comes directly from the

minister. It's from the London Free Press: "Peters conceded the money isn't particularly new, but its arrival should prove timely for farmers in a pinch. Some is being advanced from funds intended

to be paid next year."

One of the things I want to tell the minister is if he would just get some of the money out that was due last year to our farmers for this year, the 2003 CAIS

payments, that would help a lot of these farmers who are presently having difficulty.

Mr Peters "told the Free Press the money was `all part of the budget process. It's not like we are putting new money in. As much as we were criticized for our

budget, these were things that were contained in the budget....'"

There is absolutely no new money in this program. It's just that that they're finally going to get their act together and start getting some cheques out to the

farmers who have them coming.

He talks about the support being in two forms: $172 million over the next three years for the business risk management program under the agricultural policy

framework and $16 million in income payments for the BSE repositioning as part of the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program.

Everyone knows -- at least the farmers know; I'm sure the minister does too and it's just an oversight -- that the CAIS program is part of the agricultural

policy framework. But that's not to take away from the announcement.

I also want to say that the Premier promised they would -- and I think the minister had that in his statement: "At that time, the Premier also told the

industry that we would do everything in our power to find the additional funds necessary...." I want to commend the Premier. He found the farmers' pockets to take it out of so he could give it to

them. There's absolutely nothing new here that wasn't in previous announcements.

I just want to take one comment out here, and it was made through the Chesterfield Record by Jim Brownell from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. It says, "I

don't think they understand the struggles outside rural Ontario." He wasn't speaking about us; he was speaking about the minister and his Liberal cabinet colleagues.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): There is a lot of discussion going on and I can't hear the responses.

The member for Burlington.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I'm pleased to respond to this not-so-new news from the Minister of Health yet again on long-term care

changes. The member, having been elected in 1999, may not be aware that on June 15, 1998, a regulation was brought into the province. In fact, I was the minister responsible. It was regarding

discrimination in a nursing home in Dalton McGuinty's own riding, if one wants to check Hansard -- and I have it here -- from the debates of June 2, 1998:

"Today I am announcing these regulatory changes under the Nursing Homes Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act and the Charitable Institutions Act.

Starting June 15, a person applying to join his or her spouse in a long-term-care facility in Ontario will be placed in a higher category for admission," and it goes on.

There is no change. The minister would be aware that if you have lived with another person in this province for over two years, you are defined in law as a

spouse. All our regulations and laws have adjusted for that.

Minister, you did not get good advice from your parliamentary assistant. You did not get good advice from your own personal staff. Frankly, I thought you'd be

standing on your feet to talk about other initiatives.

What you didn't mention earlier is this issue around freezing the resident copay. You campaigned in the last election, you were in virtually every Conservative

member's riding, saying that you promised -- you and Dalton McGuinty -- to roll back that increase. In your first year in government, you, as minister, increased the payment. You broke that

promise. It was a $90-million commitment per year to seniors and the frail elderly in this province, and you still haven't corrected that. It will take four and a half years before they catch up to

what you promised and said to the seniors of this province.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Briefly to the Minister of Agriculture: I'm sure that farmers will be happy with this limited

announcement insofar as it goes, but I think the minister needs to recognize that this is a small piece of the puzzle. This is perhaps going to help farmers over the next six or seven months, but

most farmers in the beef industry will tell you that the problem is really going to hit after the next six or seven months. Most farmers have already used up their equity, remortgaged the farm,

remortgaged the house, exhausted their line of credit and are in debt to their suppliers. What they need from this Liberal government and the Liberal government in Ottawa is a longer-term plan for

financial stability, a longer-term plan for low interest loans so that farmers can begin to get back their equity and dig themselves out of the financial problem that the BSE crisis has created.

We're still waiting to hear from the Minister of Agriculture on what the longer-term plan is.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): In response to the statement made by the Minister of Health, let me begin with his statement on page 2: "We

invested additional funding of $191 million beginning this year to hire 2,000 new staff, including 600 nurses." That is just not true. The fact of the matter is, in October when the announcement

was made with respect to allocations to long-term-care homes, the allocation was $116 million added to the base budgets of long-term-care homes, not $191 million. I asked the question in this House

to the Premier a couple of weeks ago and was told that the $75 million -- the gap that is remaining -- will be used to pay for the new Web site, for a public reporting system etc. It is not money

that is going to be added to base to increase nursing staff and support workers in those homes. So the minister should stop saying publicly that the government has invested $191 million, because

that is not true. And he should tell people just how many nurses and support workers are going to be hired, because the promise was 2,000, based on an allocation of $191 million. The allocation is

only $116 million. How many new nurses, how many new personal support workers will actually be hired? Why doesn't the minister tell families and institutions that?

Second, the minister said, "We are requiring a higher standard of care by reinstating the requirement that a registered nurse be on site 24 hours a day." Do

you know, Speaker, that the regulation to ensure that a registered nurse is on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, does not go into effect until February 1, 2005? What is the reason for that

delay, since the government promised that before the last election?

You should also note that the regulation regarding baths will only go into effect January 1, 2005. And people should know that the Liberal promise before the

election was for three baths a week, and the new regulation only says two baths a week. So three baths a week are now down to two baths a week.

Far more importantly, this government promised that it was going to reinstate the 2.25 hours of hands-on nursing care per resident per day that had been

cancelled by the Conservatives. They said that in a letter to SEIU before the last election. I wonder if the Liberal members know that during the estimates committee your minister said very

categorically that he wasn't going to reinstate 2.25 hours of hands-on nursing care a day. He wasn't going to put a minimum standard of care at all by way of regulation. That will mean that homes

that always operate to the lowest common denominator are going to continue to do so. Where is that promise made? That is now a promise that has been broken.

This government also said before the election campaign that it was going to roll back the fee increase that had been put in place by the Conservative

government. This government has not rolled back the fee increase that was put in place by the Conservative government. The fee increase in the first year alone was over 7%, much higher than it

would have been in the housing market. It would have never been allowed in the private housing market, and this government has done nothing about that promise to roll back increases.

Finally, if the government wanted to do something today with respect to the abuse of seniors in long-term-care facilities, they could pass the bill that stands

in the name of our leader, Howard Hampton, Bill 47, which would place a positive obligation on anyone who works in a nursing home to report abuse. That's what the government could do today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. If I could get the attention of the members, so I can announce the next proceeding.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, yesterday a senior member from your office was

quoted in the media as saying that your plan B for your failed OMA agreement was the same as your plan A, and that the rejection of your deal by Ontario's doctors did nothing to change your plan.

It's unbelievable, even for a Liberal, that you were so presumptuous to believe doctors would accept your deal at face value. We've had indications for weeks that doctors were unhappy with this

deal. You've had more than enough time to put a backup plan in place, and it's sheer incompetence that you haven't done so.

Premier, my question is simple, so you should be able to give us a straight answer. This morning you said the rejection of your deal does nothing to change

your overall health scheme. Further, your health minister has remained noncommittal to resuming full negotiations with doctors. Is your plan B really a plan to impose this failed deal on Ontario's

doctors?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No, it is not. The Minister of Health has indicated that he'll be

meeting with a representative of the Ontario Medical Association, and we will continue to work with our physicians and, in fact, all of our partners in the delivery of health care, as we execute

our plan to transform health care in the province of Ontario.

It turns out that one part of that plan hinges upon our ability to enter into a good arrangement with Ontario's doctors, but there's a huge panoply of services

that extend far beyond those that are delivered by doctors, and I listed those at some length yesterday. They include our new arrangement with hospitals, including the development of new

accountability agreements; our plan to reduce wait times when it comes to services delivered in our hospitals; it includes the plan that we're bringing to our long-term-care centres, which was just

further elaborated on by the Minister of Health, and the improvement of the quality of services that we provide there; and so on and so forth.

The point I'm trying to make is that we will work with our doctors to get this thing right, but we're doing many other things in many other areas as part of a

comprehensive plan to transform health care.

Mr Runciman: The instability you're creating with your failed health scheme will do nothing to keep the 3,500 doctors currently considering

retirement from retiring, or attracting new doctors, or preventing Ontario's doctors from moving to other, more competitive, jurisdictions.

What's more galling is your minister's blame game approach to dealing with stakeholders. This morning he blamed the OMA for not doing a good enough job of

selling your failed deal to doctors. He's blamed hospitals for inciting fear over cuts that your government is forcing them to make. Then he blamed patients affected by the delisting of physio,

chiropractic and optometry services for expecting those services to be covered under medicare.

Since your health care plan is failing and the person you've put in charge of the health file has proven to be a menace to stakeholders, is there anybody --

anyone -- in your caucus capable of restoring stability to our health care system?

Hon Mr McGuinty: What the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that we should give up on a plan to improve the quality of health care for the

people of Ontario. We will not do that. He's suggesting that we give up on primary care reform, suggesting that we give up when it comes to reducing wait times, suggesting that we give up when it

comes to better managing the costs connected with the delivery of health care. We are not prepared to do that. What we're trying to do here requires some considerable ongoing effort; there is no

doubt about that whatsoever.

I want to make reference to something the then Honourable Jim Wilson said. I say it not to embarrass him; rather, it was an honest assessment of what he went

through as Minister of Health. At the end, he said, "I regret that during my time as Minister of Health, I was unable to rally the support, beat back the bushes and actually do what's proper for

the people of Ontario." Again, I say that not to embarrass him. I think it was an honest assessment of the amount of effort that is required --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Hon Mr McGuinty: -- to move the ball down the field. I accept that assessment. We recognize how important it is to move forward, and we will

continue to move forward in the interest of the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr Runciman: The Premier wasn't so kind to Minister Wilson when he was minister.

Premier, this morning your health minister said your failed OMA agreement was meant to entice physicians into specialty areas and group family practices, and

yet these are the very doctors who voted overwhelmingly against your offer. Who can blame the doctors? You've proven that your word means nothing, in reality. Remember your promise not to raise

taxes? You failed. Remember your promise to reduce wait times? You failed. Remember your promise to open 1,600 new hospital beds? You failed. Remember your promise to give hospitals adequate

funding? You failed. Yet you maintain that your plan will not change.

Premier, when will you smell the coffee and admit your health scheme is failing, and failing badly?

Hon Mr McGuinty: If I didn't know any better, I would have thought they rehearsed that one.

They have a plan B that they are asking us to adopt, which is to embrace the status quo, to pay doctors more so they can do more of the same, to give up on

primary care reform, to give up on shorter wait times, to give up on our plan to proceed with more vaccinations for Ontario children, to give up on our plan to improve the quality of care in

long-term-care centres, to give up on our plan to go ahead with investments to provide help right in the community for 78,000 more adults when it comes to mental illness issues. We're not going to

give up on any of that.

Is there an issue between us and Ontario's doctors when it comes to arriving at an agreement? You bet there is, and we're going to work together with the

doctors to get that right. But I can tell you that we will not give up on our plan to transform health care, to ensure that it's there in a better and more affordable way for the people of

Ontario.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Premier, and it concerns the rejection by Ontario doctors of his plans for them and

for Ontario's health care system. I want to ask, Premier, why do you think doctors in Ontario rejected this deal?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The Minister of Health.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I had the opportunity yesterday -- well, it's a news clipping actually, but I

just want to take the opportunity to tell the honourable member some of what I said yesterday. I think it was in the same sense that the first agreement their party negotiated with doctors did not

receive support. They did a bit more work and eventually it did. The key point is that the honourable member can't remember the Globe and Mail front page from Friday, November 1: "MDs Reject

Tentative Deal." It makes the point that the Premier just made: Yes, we have more work to do, but we'll do that work along the principles that we've established. We are not going to take the

approach you did, which sees 142 communities underserviced from the standpoint of doctors in local communities. We're not going to accept the idea that we simply pay more for more of the same.

Change is often difficult. We've got some more work to do. We're a hard-working government, and we're going to get down to that work and get it done for the patients of Ontario.

Mr Baird: This is astounding. The Premier in this House could not name what he did wrong. He could not give us one reason why Ontario doctors

voted against this deal, and I think that's part of the problem.

I say to the minister, if you don't recognize that you and your government made significant mistakes in the conduct of your negotiations with Ontario's

doctors, you're bound to repeat those same mistakes.

Ontario's doctors, by a margin of 60%, have given your government's plan for health care reforms a huge vote of non-confidence. Across the province, many are

starting to wonder whether they can trust you and your government with the future of their family's health care. Increasingly, working families in Ontario are questioning your government's

competence.

I want to come back to my first question and ask you one thing, Minister: Can you name one thing that you'll do differently at this time when you try to clean

up the mess that you've created?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The honourable member's amnesia is well kicked in today, and he forgets about the cruel record of their days in office. The

fact of the matter is that, for eight years, you had the honour and obligation of running the health care file for the people of the province of Ontario, and the net effect of those days is very

clear. It can be felt in an ever-present way in community after community across the province.

We did fall short on the weekend of the success that we'd hoped for, but the principles we brought to the table and the support that is there is support on

which we will build. The fact of the matter is that, among those who are the future doctors in the province of Ontario, the younger ones who are practising, and a variety of others, we have a good

basis of support.

We acknowledge that we have more work to do. What I have been impressed by, which is something I recommend to the honourable member, is that many of those who

did not support the deal have been far more tempered in their critique of it than the honourable member is. That is evidence that while there is some more work to do, we are going to be able to

work with doctors to make the agreement one that enjoys a higher degree of support. This is incredibly important work on behalf of the patients of Ontario, and we will not stop.

Mr Baird: Let's look at what we've heard today. The Premier can't name one reason why doctors voted against this deal and the minister won't

stand in his place and say one thing that he would do differently to clean up the mess that he created.

Let's look at why this deal went down in flames. You first tried to bully doctors by telling them that it was your way or the highway. Next, you tried to offer

physicians a kickback if they would cut back on prescribing drugs to the frail elderly, the disabled and poor Ontarians. They voted against this deal because you seem to be out of touch with the

reality that one out of six doctors in the province of Ontario is on the verge of retirement. Rather than listen to their concerns, you have tried to stigmatize and vilify them with your spin

doctors. This agreement failed the doctors who are about to retire.

I want to introduce a new concept to you: It's called personal responsibility. Will you or anyone over there take some responsibility for the instability and

for the mess that you've made of these negotiations?

Hon Mr Smitherman: We're very prepared to take responsibility for the agreement that we took forward. But I'm going to take that and share

that with the negotiating team of the Ontario Medical Association, which, for nine long months, with a unanimous endorsement and a recommendation, did the work on the agreement.

The honourable member verges on the edge of absurdity when he tries to make the case that this was somehow an arrangement that the government on their own

brought forward and imposed on doctors. The fact of the matter is that a negotiating team put forward by the Ontario Medical Association worked very hard for nine months on a very large and complex

deal. While we agree that it hasn't met the favour that we had hoped for, we believe there is a strong basis in principle for being able to build on it.

This is the work that we are cut out to do and that we will do. We will do so without falling victim to the kind of rhetoric that the honourable member seeks

to use --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question?

PRIMARY CARE REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Your doctors' deal has been voted down by the doctors themselves and,

as a result, your plans for primary care reform in Ontario are stalled. Today, ordinary Ontarians are worried. They're worried about the instability your government's bungling has created for our

health care system.

We say that you need to get all of our health care partners, like nurses and nurse practitioners, on board to drive the primary care reform agenda. But so far,

your government's plan B looks identical to your failed plan A: Go back for more meetings in the backroom with physicians and exclude everyone else. What is your plan B if it's not simply a

repetition of the failed plan A?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I obviously don't agree with the leader of the third party's

characterization of what has happened so far and where we're going. First of all, part of this very agreement that has been rejected by Ontario's doctors provided for new funding for nurse

practitioners, just so you know what we counted on in that part. Secondly, our goal is to establish 150 family health teams. We have requests so far for 90. These are full, interdisciplinary teams,

including nurse practitioners, other physicians and other members who want to get involved in the delivery of primary health care in Ontario. So we are moving ahead on that front, notwithstanding

any arrangement that we can or cannot obtain with Ontario doctors.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it was a very specific question: What is your plan B? Is it simply going back and meeting with the same physicians in a

backroom or do you have a plan to bring all of the health care providers together?

Let me tell you what one self-described expert said. He said, "You know, if we're going to move this agenda forward, at that table should be nurse

practitioners, nurses, other health care professionals and representatives of the patient community." This self-described expert goes on: "It is simply impossible to move primary care reform

forward [by just talking to the doctors]." Do you know who that was? It was Dalton McGuinty, a mere four years ago. But now we see you adopting the very plan you used to criticize the Conservatives

for. You used to be critical of them for talking only to the doctors of the OMA.

So I ask you, Premier: Do you have a plan B to include all of the health care providers involved in primary care reform or is it simply a repetition of plan A:

Go back and talk to the doctors in a backroom?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to assure, reassure and confirm for the leader of the NDP that we are in fact working with all of our health care

partners when it comes to defining the kind of family health team we want to have in Ontario. The Minister of Health just spoke at the annual general meeting of nurse practitioners a couple of

weeks ago and I understand he got a two-thirds standing ovation, and in these days, that's not bad. We will take that.

We are bound and determined to proceed with these family health teams in a way that proves to be effective. By their very nature, they have to be

interdisciplinary in order to ensure that we've got a good working model. You can't construct that without the advice and support of the other partners, and that's exactly what we're doing.

Mr Hampton: Here is your problem, Premier: You structured this as a discussion between your government and the doctors. You tried to achieve

primary health care reform by means of backroom meetings, and the doctors have now voted that down. They say they're not interested in your so-called incentives. So you have to tell people across

Ontario what the replacement plan is. What is plan B? To simply repeat once again the promises you keep on making and keep on breaking isn't going to do it. What is your plan to achieve primary

care reform in Ontario? What is your plan to create a critical mass of people to move forward so that physicians -- at least some of them -- will get on board?

Hon Mr McGuinty: When it comes to our family health teams, again, to repeat, we are working with all health care practitioners who could

possibly be involved in an interdisciplinary team. We've had requests so far from 90 communities that are eager to get going on that particular front. So we are going to be proceeding,

notwithstanding any arrangement we come to with doctors when it comes to the establishment of family health teams throughout Ontario.

I reject the leader's characterization of our government's negotiations with Ontario doctors as some kind of backroom deal. This is as close to collective

bargaining as you can get. Doctors put forward their representatives and we put forward our representatives. We spent a considerable amount of time -- in fact, some nine months -- working together.

It was laborious, but it was productive. We then came up with a result, which obviously has not been acceptable to all doctors in Ontario, and we are prepared to continue to work with them to make

sure we get it right.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: I think the Premier just said that plan B is more of the same of plan A.

Yesterday was National Housing Day, Premier, and we asked you to keep the promises you made on housing during the election campaign. Just to remind you, you

promised 20,000 new affordable housing units, 35,000 rent supplements for low-income households and 6,600 more supportive housing units for people with mental health needs. That was all contained

in your election platform.

You haven't kept even one of these promises. Instead of coming forward with the $366 million to implement any of these promises, you simply reannounced the

announcements the Conservatives used to make. When are you going to keep your promises and deliver affordable housing that works for people?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Speaker, I am very proud of the progress we've made so far. You will

well know, as will the member opposite, that the government was out of the affordable housing business for some eight years. We're back in the business and proud to be able to do so.

Let me repeat for the member some of the announcements we have made so far: Waterloo, 597 units, for $8 million; London, 104 units, $2.8 million; Wellington,

94 units, $2.4 million; Toronto, 895 units, $24 million; Peel, 384 units, $5.5 million; York, 118 units, $3.2 million; Hamilton, 60 units, $1.6 million; Peterborough, 90 units, $3.4 million;

Ottawa, 300 units, $8.1 million; Kingston, 105 units, $1.9 million -- a total of 2,747 units so far.

Mr Hampton: Premier, your minister of infrastructure back there, Mr Caplan, tried to read that list to a group of housing advocates a short

while ago and they laughed him off the stage. Do you know why? Because every one of those was announced by the Conservatives. You're simply trying to take credit for announcements made by the

former government.

Yesterday, you tried to pat yourself on the back again. Moments later, police arrested six housing advocates in front of Queen's Park for daring to stand up

and protest the fact that you haven't kept your promises.

In Ontario, 158,000 families are waiting for affordable housing. One in five tenants is at risk of homelessness. With cold weather approaching, homeless people

and their friends don't want to hear more old announcements repeated. When are you going to deliver on the promises you made in the election instead of reannouncing the tired old promises of the

Conservatives?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Mr Speaker, the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal has some good news for us here.

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): First of all, the leader of the third party is quite wrong in his assumptions

and in his facts. In fact, his own housing critic was at an affordable ownership announcement when we had a groundbreaking in Scarborough: almost 400 units of new affordable ownership housing in

Toronto, Markham and Pickering, in addition to the over 2,700 units of housing that the Premier just talked about.

I would say that in eight months of our government, we have done more than the previous government did in eight years. And I would add, for the Leader of the

Opposition, that the Provincial Auditor gave their housing program extreme criticism that made it possible for the next government to come along and cancel the program entirely. We are going to

learn from the mistakes of your government, sir, and we are going to make sure we don't repeat those errors, that we get value for money and that we deliver the much-needed affordable housing

units. In your second supplementary, I'd be very happy to answer --

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

Mr Hampton: I think I know why your government is in trouble on this front: Your minister refers to condominiums as affordable housing. This

is why you're in trouble.

Let me point something out. Today, not a single member of your caucus could find it in their hearts to meet with members of the Toronto Disaster Relief

Committee about these urgent housing issues, not even the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Mr Caplan, who used to be at every housing protest complaining about the Conservatives, talking

about how sinful they were, how awful they were. Now he won't even answer the phone when housing advocates try to call him.

Is this how you salute those people who are advocating for housing and who want to deal with the homelessness problem, Premier: You stand by, while their

activists like Cathy Crowe are arrested, and your minister doesn't even answer the phone?

Hon Mr Caplan: The member is just plain wrong. In fact, I wish he or one of his colleagues would have joined me on the weekend to meet with

the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. Not one New Democrat even bothered to show up to talk to housing providers. I was there. I know my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing was there. The federal Minister of Housing was there.

I suggest to the leader of the third party, get your facts straight. I've met with many housing providers. I'm going to continue to meet with them. We're going

to continue to negotiate with the federal government to get a housing deal to build those much-needed affordable housing units.

As I said, we have done more in eight months than the previous government did in eight years: 3,200 units of affordable housing delivered already, and much

more to come. It's a great record.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, with each passing day as we

start to get reports about what happened and why the OMA deal failed, it becomes more apparent that your health plan is an absolute and total failure. In fact, if we take a look at your health plan

thus far, any changes that you have made have been done without any consultation, and they have been imposed on the people in the province of Ontario.

You imposed Bill 8 without consultation. You imposed the delisting of chiropractic, optometry and physiotherapy services. You have not introduced more funding

for hospitals. You have introduced a new health tax without consultation.

I ask you today, Minister: Will you guarantee that your plan, whatever it might be, in your negotiations with your doctors will not impose an agreement on

physicians as you have imposed every other change that you have introduced?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As we have imposed every other change that we have introduced -- the honourable

member, herself the longest-serving Minister of Health in a previous government that was sent packing, in large measure because of their performance on the health care file, says that we have not

consulted?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member for Nepean-Carleton --

Hon Mr Smitherman: The honourable member obviously misses the mark. Long-term-care reform is moving --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I've called upon the member from Nepean-Carleton twice. The next time I call upon you, I may have to name you.

Hon Mr Smitherman: Long-term-care reform moved forward with the considerable support of both of the two organizations that work together.

Community care access centres -- $103 million in additional funding this year -- and community-based investments in mental health reform make the point rather well that the honourable member is

really not up to asking the kind of question that she offered.

In her words, she said that we have not introduced new funding for hospitals. Oh, $385 million when we first arrived wasn't new funding, or the $469.5 million

in this budget, which I might remind the honourable member is a full $700 million more --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs Witmer: The health minister simply doesn't get it. The bullying, aggressive and threatening manner that he has used in all his

relationships with stakeholders is not going to benefit the people in the province of Ontario.

Your OMA deal was rejected because it did not recognize that there were doctors in this province who were near to retirement age who were not given due

consideration. In fact, if you take a look at the paper today, we see an

article by another doctor who says that this agreement does nothing to improve access to patient care.

I would ask the minister, when are you going to finally start to consult, listen to people, stop the bullying, and get down to work and start renegotiations

with the doctors in the province?

Hon Mr Smitherman: What we're not going to do is take the counsel that the honourable member offers. The counsel that the honourable member

offers is simply to pay more for more of the same. She says, "When are we going to consult?" The facts of the matter are very clear. For nine months -- nine months -- a team of negotiators sent

forward by the Ontario Medical Association sat down with the same number of people from the province of Ontario. They worked very, very hard; they came to an agreement. The agreement was

unanimously recommended by the nine members of the OMA negotiating team. The evidence is very clear. The agreement that we sought has obviously fallen short of what we had hoped for, but we will

not compromise the principles that were espoused in it. Those principles are important to communities.

Why did the doctors in the most rural and northern communities, vote in favour of the agreement? Because they recognize that it was an agreement that would,

for once, turn the tide on the situation created by that party while in government, and endorsed by you and your slow reaction to the fact that Ontario was not producing a sufficiency of doctors.

This agreement is not the only means. We've tripled the number of international medical graduates to put them into action in communities.

CHILD CARE

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, today the Ontario Coalition for

Better Child Care released their vision for better child care in Ontario. They want Ontario to use new federal daycare money to begin building a desperately needed non-profit system for all of

Ontario's two million children under the age of 12. The coalition consulted widely before releasing this report, which reflects the real voices of the child care community in Ontario. We need a

real advocate for the children, the parents and the child care workers of our province at the negotiating table in Ottawa. Minister, are you prepared to be that advocate, or will Ontario families

be waiting without a plan?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I thank the honourable member for

the question, and indeed two weeks ago, historically, in Ottawa all levels of government were aligned to do something, finally, about the plight of child care in this country and in this province.

I'm very proud to represent Ontario at that table, and work very hard with my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services to ensure that Ontario's needs will be met through this

agreement. Indeed, we've been meeting with the coalition on an ongoing basis and will continue to meet with the coalition to ensure that we have the best-quality early development and child care in

the province.

Ms Horwath: Well, Minister, in your child care election platform, you pledged to spend the majority of federal early childhood development

initiative funding on regulated child care. But the so-called Best Start strategy you promised has been a non-starter; in fact, none of the $194 million of that fund has been spent to this date.

Some 14 months after the election, none of it has been spent, and the pathetically low wages of child care workers are very sad and disturbing in a province like Ontario. Ontario spends less on

regulated child care today than in 1995.

Minister, now you have this crucial report in your hands, as you've already agreed to. You've already acknowledged that. Now we need to know for sure, and the

child care community across Ontario needs to know for sure, that they are going to get what they want, that they're going to get from you what the families have asked for. Since you didn't keep

your past promise to put federal child care dollars where they belong, how can we trust to you invest the federal funding into a plan for affordable, licensed, quality child care?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I thank the honourable member from Hamilton; I know of her concern for the children in Hamilton. We were at a meeting

with the board of education two weeks ago, and she voiced it quite passionately.

Indeed, this year, I think it's a clue, how we spent the federal money. For the first time in a decade, we spent it on child care, and a lot of that was on

capital, but most of it was on child care spaces: 4,000 subsidized child care spaces. We have been developing our Best Start plan. I ask for your patience for a little while longer. We will take

into account the coalition's recommendations as well as the consultations that we did across the province, to offer the best possible early development and child care program in Canada, right here

in this province of Ontario.

FALL BUDGET

Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, you rose in the House and presented your third budget

bill. You mentioned the cancellation of nine tax credits and the creation of new ones, along with pilot projects to help balance the province's books by 2007-08. How do you expect these actions

will accomplish that goal?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I really appreciate the question from my friend for Willowdale. There were really four main points in

the budget we presented last May. The first was to strengthen the economy, the second was to get the province's own financial house in order, the third was to improve health care and the fourth was

to improve education. If you look in the fall budget bill, you'll see a number of initiatives that go directly toward a stronger economy. One that I think is going to touch people most directly is

the improvements we've made to our apprenticeship system. It means that several thousand new young people will be in apprenticeship programs. It ultimately means much better jobs in a stronger

economy for our young people. I thank the member for the opportunity to talk about it.

Mr Zimmer: You mentioned that the bill proposes the first increase to the Ontario property tax credit for seniors since it was created 12

years ago. Can you explain to those in this House how this tax credit will help Ontario's seniors?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Perhaps I can allow the minister responsible for seniors to answer that.

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): As you know, this is the first increase to

this program in some 12 years, and nobody deserves it more than the seniors of this province. It will be an increase of $125 per senior family -- a total increase of over $85 million to the seniors

of this province -- and it will also include, for the first time, some 33,000 senior families who were not eligible under the limits before. This is a great advancement for our seniors. There's no

group of people in our society who deserve more credit and more help from government than the seniors in our province.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is to the Premier, and it involves his failed agreement with the OMA. In response to not having a

plan B or failing to tell us what your plan B is, you keep mentioning five key areas -- cancer, hip and knee surgeries, cardiology, cataracts and diagnostic care -- that you want to make

improvements in. Yet if we look at the rejection you've received from Ontario's doctors -- 75% of the doctors involved in those five key areas clearly rejected your plan A -- how are you going to

move ahead? How are you going to move ahead without lawsuits, given the law of this land that there must be an agreement between the OMA and government? Disgruntled doctors are going to start suing

you. Doctors who feel unappreciated and bulldogged by your health minister are going to start suing you, doctors who don't feel properly compensated are going to start suing you, and you can't move

ahead in your five key areas. Tell us what plan B is, so we don't have one heck of a bigger mess in this province than you and your health minister have already created.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Apparently the world as we know it is coming to an end and I missed it

-- I guess I missed that part. Just because the member opposite seems to have forgotten what happened on his watch, I've got a copy of the Globe and Mail from Friday, November 1, 1996. The headline

is: "MDs Reject Tentative Deal....

"In a province-wide plebiscite, physicians voted 76% against the deal...."

At the time, the sun still rose in the east and set in the west, and the government set out to come to a new agreement with Ontario's doctors, which they did.

We will do the exact same thing, only we are insisting that we get more for more, that we complete one part of our plan that calls for the transformation of our health care system so we're

delivering more primary care reform, more family health teams, and more working with patients when it comes to the management of chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and the like. We're

going to get more for more.

Mr Wilson: Premier, the difference between your government and our government is, we went immediately back to the table with the OMA because

we knew the right thing to do for patients was to make sure that doctors were relatively happy in this province, able to deliver the services and not impeded by government and the lack of agreement

and being distracted with all the legalities of that.

Your health minister failed to go out during the time of this agreement and explain to all the local OMA branches what his transformation agenda was and what

this agreement was about. He failed to go out and sell the agreement. He sat silent on a secret agreement. For a month and a half he sat on this agreement. He failed to sell it. He failed to

explain it. He failed to get the confidence of the people of Ontario.

Premier, your plan B should be to fire Mr Smitherman.

Interjections.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): You scared the gallery.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Minister of Finance?

Hon Mr Sorbara: There's the evidence.

The Speaker: You are the evidence of disruption.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, Minister of Consumer and Business Services.

Hon Mr McGuinty: Well, Speaker, that is the calm, thoughtful and conciliatory approach that's been missing from this debate. But I appreciate

the energy brought forward in that.

Let me tell you what the then Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, said when his talks did not meet with success. He said in his statement issued on October 31,

1996:

"`I am disappointed that the council of the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) has rejected the agreement,' Minister of Health Jim Wilson said today.

"`It is a fair and reasonable agreement. Our priority remains to ensure patients in Ontario have access to quality care.

"`We will take the weekend to decide our next steps.'"

I prefer the approach brought by the then Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, than the one demonstrated today by the member of the opposition. We are going to

continue to work with Ontario's doctors to make sure that we get this thing right. But we remain resolved when it comes to ensuring that we move ahead with the transformation of health care.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Minister of Finance. The insurance industry kickback scandal is going from bad to worse.

We just learned that in the year 2002-03, premium payers in Canada, policyholders, paid an additional $427 million to insurance companies to finance the hidden commissions and the kickbacks to

so-called independent brokers. That's the same period of time -- 2002-03 -- that the insurance industry was crying poverty and lobbying governments -- successfully, I must add -- for limits on the

awards to be paid out in soft-tissue injuries like whiplash. The numbers are huge: ING, $68.4 million; Economical Mutual -- economical, my foot -- $48.1 million; Dominion of Canada General

Insurance, $43.3 million.

These hidden commissions have fleeced Ontario premium payers to the tune of millions. Will you simply stop it? Will you simply stand up and say that you will

ban, not permit, secret commissions, kickbacks, any commission, in addition to the standard regulated commission charge?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I think one of the real, recent successes in the regulation of insurance, beyond auto insurance, in

the province is that we have been able to inspire the industry to voluntarily establish a code of disclosure on commissions, whether they be direct brokerage commissions or so-called contingency

commissions, that will be a leader in North America.

Not only that, we have asked the regulator in Ontario to join with the regulators right across Canada to do a full analysis of the issues relating to

commissions. I think we in the province of Ontario can say now that we are taking the lead on this issue in a North American context.

Mr Kormos: Minister, people in this province are tired of getting ripped off by insurance companies, whether it's home or auto. These

kickbacks, these secret commissions, very selectively paid, are in addition to, on top of, the 12.5% commissions typically paid for auto and the 20% typically paid for home. That doesn't even begin

to address the inherent conflict of interest that arises from the cross-ownership relationships between insurance companies and brokers.

You have been inactive -- merely passing the buck. It's not good enough for Ontario drivers who have seen double-digit increases in their premiums while the

nine largest auto insurers have seen their profits jump to $541 million last year from $72 million in 2002. It's not a 100%, not a 200%, not a 300%, but a 400%, 500% increase in profits.

So I ask you once again, Minister: Will you ban this practice of tacked-on commissions, of extra commissions, of additional commissions, be they secret or

not?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Here's the advocate from the New Democratic Party that back in the 1990 campaign was arguing for public auto insurance. That

was the solution to everything. Then they got into power and Bob Rae stood in this place, right here, and said, "Oh, my goodness. Public auto insurance would destroy an industry." Then they got

thrown out of office, not just for that but for a wide variety of things, and now, in opposition again, suddenly there is a new clarion call.

I want to say to my friend from Niagara Centre that whether it is the steps we have taken to bring down premiums, now almost 10%, or whether it's the recent

steps we've taken to ban credit checks as a means of rating, to control interest rates on premiums or a variety of other steps, including those we will take soon to further clean up the industry,

that party and that member have absolutely no credibility when it comes to insurance, auto or otherwise.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The farmers of Ontario are under more

economic and personal stress than I can recall at any time in my lifetime. As they struggle, not only the associated industry but all of Ontario struggles. I am very proud of our government's

commitment to the agriculture industry in this province, so I was thrilled yesterday when you announced $172 million going into farmers' pockets.

I have two questions to ask of you, Minister: First of all, how will this funding be allocated, and second, how will it enable this industry to move forward in

a positive direction?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I want to thank the member for the question.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member for Oxford.

Hon Mr Peters: It's very sad for the farmers of Ontario that the critic on the other side heckles this announcement.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member for Oxford, will you come to order, please.

Hon Mr Peters: Again the ag critic heckles an investment in agriculture in this province, and that's a pretty sad day, because this is moving

forward. As we signed the agricultural policy framework, one of the things coming out of the agricultural policy framework was moving away from the companion programs such as market revenue

insurance and self-directed risk management.

This announcement is going to allow us to work with the agricultural community in a transition period to phase out those companion programs and move to new

programs. There's $35 million in support of the fruit and vegetable industry through self-directed risk management; $10 million for the tender fruit industry for plum pox eradication; general

top-ups of almost $90 million; and, most importantly, $35 million that's going to be invested in research and development in support of agriculture and the agrifood industry in this province.

The Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Perth-Middlesex.

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Minister, that is indeed great news for the farmers in my riding in Perth-Middlesex -- perhaps not in

Oxford but in Perth-Middlesex.

I want to thank you for taking some time out of your busy

schedule and agreeing to meet -- with me and my seatmate, the member for Markham -- with the consul

general for the People's Republic of China in regard to expanding our agricultural markets. That's just wonderful news, and I appreciate that.

In your announcement yesterday, I understand that you pledged up to $16 million in interim payments under the CAIS program that will benefit those ruminant

farmers whose income has declined due to BSE. I know you share my concern about the ruminant sector in Ontario. Can you tell my farmers in Perth-Middlesex how this new money will work to benefit

those in financial need as a result of the BSE crisis?

Hon Mr Peters: I'm looking forward to that lunch because part of what we need to do, as we reposition the industry as a result of BSE, is

develop new markets. This is going to be a great opportunity to work with the government of China to develop new markets for our farmers.

When the federal government announced the BSE repositioning strategy, Ontario came to the table with $30 million in new money to support the industry through

set-aside programs. One aspect that perhaps many people don't realize is that, as they focus on this issue as a beef issue, the dairy exporters have been extremely hard hit as a result of this. The

sheep, goat, deer, bison and elk industries are other ruminants that have been affected as well. These CAIS advances are going to allow us to provide assistance to these other ruminants because

that is one sector that very much needs help.

But we need to continue to work with the federal government because the most important thing that can happen is getting that border open. Premier McGuinty has

been advocating on that behalf. Premier McGuinty met with the US ambassador, pushing forward that issue. We're going to continue to drive that forward as well.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Minister of Finance. The matter of broken promises is well known. My question, though,

deals with competence in the financial management of the province of Ontario, particularly on the spending side. As you well know, Minister, it's necessary to manage the spending in order to

balance the budget and keep the commitments of the government.

Eighty per cent of the operating spending of government is transferred to spending partners, as you set out in the budget. As you also said in the budget,

between 2004-05 and 2007-08 we will restrict program spending to an average growth rate of just 1.9% a year.

Now we have this failed landmark agreement, so described by the Minister of Health, with the physicians in Ontario. It's no secret, as you know, Minister, that

the nurses, teachers, the Ontario public service members and so on are negotiating. My question to you is, who is going to pay the price for this failed landmark agreement among those groups, or

are you abandoning your spending commitment in the budget?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I think my friend from Whitby ought to have listened carefully to the responses of the health

minister, but he'll hear the same thing from me. We are bound and determined and we are focused in the work that we're going to do. You heard my friend the health minister say the agreement may

have been rejected on a weekend vote, but we are focused on the priorities that drove our part of the negotiations.

Similarly, I tell my friend that we are bound and determined to return this province to financial strength and financial health. I don't want to go into the

mess we inherited or where that came from, but I've got to tell you, we are determined to bring expenditures under control in this province. We are determined to strengthen the economy. Each and

every ministry is determined to manage within the allocations provided for them in our May budget.

Mr Flaherty: What we have seen for 14 months is failure. We've seen the failure of this landmark agreement. We've seen the failure to keep

taxes down. In fact, we've seen the largest tax increase in the history of the province of Ontario and then a massive spending spree.

But what you did say you'd do, Minister -- to talk about the things that you actually committed to -- in your budget was that, "the government will undertake a

review of major provincial assets.... This review will ensure that in all cases the public interest is promoted....

"The government will review its assets...."

Specifically, with respect to the LCBO you said, "The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, with the support of the Ministry of Finance, will initiate a

third-party independent operational review of the LCBO."

We're now at the end of November. The budget was delivered in the spring. Where is the review? Where specifically is the third-party independent operational

review of the LCBO?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I'm not in the habit of making announcements about when we are going to make an announcement. But I want to invite my friend

to stand by, as they say, because that review, like all the other things that were contained in the budget, forms part of the plan we are implementing diligently to make sure we achieve the

objectives that are set out in that budget.

My friend from Whitby-Ajax stands in his place periodically and spouts off things as if they were true. The other day he was talking about a decline in retail

sales tax. I invite him to look at this morning's papers and reports. There will be the clear evidence that this economy is getting stronger under this Premier, that this economy is returning to

financial health under this administration, notwithstanding the allegations that he makes in his place.

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Ma question est au premier ministre. En 2002, deux conseils d'éducation à Windsor ont eu

l'approbation de la province de construire une école secondaire francophone à Windsor.

Depuis ce temps, un de ces conseils a décidé de ne pas aller en avant avec la construction de la nouvelle école secondaire. Ceci laisse le

Monsieur le premier ministre, qu'allez-vous faire pour garantir que les élèves du secteur public francophone pourront continuer leur éducation

secondaire dans leur langue et dans leur propre école?

L'hon. Dalton McGuinty (premier ministre, ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales): Laissez-moi vous dire qu'en premier, mon ami sait

dans le passé par d'autres gouvernements.

C'est dommage que le ministre n'est pas ici pour répondre à cette question. Sans doute, il aurait d'autres informations à faire avancer ici.

M. Bisson: Mais vous savez, monsieur le premier ministre, qu'il y a une responsabilité de ce gouvernement de garder en idée notre

constitution, qui dit que les jeunes francophones ou anglophones ont droit à une éducation publique ou catholique dans la province de l'Ontario dans leur langue. Si c'est à Timmins,

si c'est à Sault-Sainte-Marie, si c'est à Toronto, c'est un droit, et les jeunes de Windsor doivent l'avoir aussi.

Vous savez qu'une

partie du problème, c'est le financement. Vous n'avez pas mis en place le financement nécessaire qui était recommandé par

Rozanski. Ma question est simplement celle-ca : allez-vous prendre la recommandation de Rozanski et vous assurer que les conseils francophones publics et catholiques ont le financement

et en étant le fils d'un Franco-Ontarien qui vient de Timmins, je peux vous dire que j'ai beaucoup d'intérêt dans ce domaine. Je peux vous dire aussi que je suis le parent de quatre

Je peux vous dire que nous avons investi beaucoup d'argent dans le domaine de l'éducation. Nous allons continuer à le faire, et nous allons continuer

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Mr Speaker, I know you will want to know that this Thursday, my wife, Karan, and I will be celebrating our 10th

wedding anniversary. I know she's busy in her classroom this afternoon.

I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Peterborough's downtown core took a hard hit during the July 15 flood that ravaged the

city and its surrounding areas. The heart of our downtown contains many one-of-a-kind, independently owned businesses. As we head into the busy holiday season, these shops, cafés and

restaurants are still struggling to get back on their feet many months after the flood. Supporting local businesses is important to a healthy, sustainable economy in the Peterborough area.

Minister, can you tell the people of Peterborough what is being done to help these business owners stay open and viable?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'd like to thank the member and wish him a happy anniversary. I hope you

bought your wife a very big gift on your 10th.

I am indeed very happy to say that we are moving to help small business in downtown Peterborough. But I want to say that the Premier acted very quickly and

showed decisive leadership in the wake of the floods last July, and our government has moved to assist Peterborough, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We are helping those businesses in

the downtown core. We're providing additional dollars to the tune of $67,000 for this initiative, which will act to promote and market the downtown core businesses, to bring in more shoppers again,

so that Peterborough's downtown core will remain vibrant for the years to come.

Mr Leal: The city of Peterborough thanks you, and the small businesses in my community thank you for your ongoing support.

Minister, can you please inform the House of other ongoing economic development activities in the province and your efforts to secure good jobs for the good

people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Cordiano: You know what? I'm delighted to report to this House the great vote of confidence that businesses and investors around the

world are demonstrating in Ontario -- voter confidence in the Premier of this province, Dalton McGuinty, and his government.

I want to report on what has been happening. A great vote of confidence has been shown by Multi Channel Communications, which is hiring 500 people in the city

of Peterborough. Siemens is investing an additional US$1 million to expand its Peterborough plant. Apotex is investing $627 million in four new facilities across the province to create 1,500 jobs.

The Ford announcement, which everyone will be aware of in this House: $1 billion. National Steel Car is hiring 500 more in Hamilton. Automation Tooling Systems is making a $100-million investment

to employ an additional 200.

I'm proud to say that businesses and investors are giving this government a huge vote of confidence by putting their money where their mouth is and investing

in this great province of ours.

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from the Georgian Chiropractic Centre in Owen Sound, and it's to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario, regarding support for chiropractic services in the Ontario health insurance plan.

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

WOLVES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have thousands of signatures on a petition submitted by Earthroots, and this petition reads as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas wolves in Ontario are given very little protection under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Endangered Species Act or any other laws of

Ontario; and

"Whereas it remains an open season for hunting and trapping wolves throughout much of Ontario without any limits to restrict the harvest; and

"Whereas there is no comprehensive plan to ensure the long-term viability of Ontario's wolf populations; and,

"Whereas few parks and protected areas are off-limits to hunting and trapping and are large enough to qualify as a viable habitat for wolves; and

"Whereas the use of neck snares to catch wolves is an unacceptable practice;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to quickly implement the following as part of a province-wide wolf protection plan:

"Immediately end the open season for hunting and trapping wolves across the province;

"Conduct a comprehensive population and habitat viability assessment of Ontario's two wolf species;

"Manage provincial and national parks with the objective of ensuring the long-term viability of wolf populations. Immediately ban the hunting and trapping of

wolves in all parks and conservation reserves and create buffer zones to decrease the impacts of human activities on the protected population;

"Expand protected areas and establish wildlife corridors to ensure more wolf habitat is protected to sustain viable wolf populations;

"Invest in comprehensive programs for farmers who suffer losses due to wild predators and encourage non-lethal control measures to reduce livestock

depredation. Require mandatory reporting of all wolves killed;

"Ban the use of wire-neck snares for trapping wolves. Snares are non-selective trapping devices."

I will affix my signature, because I support this petition.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition.

"To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, in Legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned states:

"That Ontario Works was slashed by 21.6% in 1995, and with the increases to the cost of living, that cut is worth nearly 40% today;

"That Ontario disability support program benefits have been frozen since 1993; and because current social assistance rates do not allow recipients to meet

their cost of living;

"That the people of Ontario deserve an adequate standard of living and are guaranteed such by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights;

"That the jury at the inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers recommended that social assistance rates be reviewed so that they reflect the actual costs of

living;

"Therefore, your petitioners respectfully request that the honourable House urge the Ontario government to immediately increase social assistance rates to

reflect the true cost of living. This means shelter allowances that are based on the average local rents as calculated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, a basic needs allowance that is based

on the nutritional food baskets prepared by local health units as well as the calculations for the costs of household operation, household furnishings and equipment, clothing, transportation and

health care as reported in Statistics Canada's Average Household Expenditures."

I affix my name to it.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has failed to ensure that students are protected from individuals whose past behaviours have directly harmed children;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has chosen to ignore the children's aid society's recommendation that certain individuals not work with children; and

"Whereas the introduction of a `volunteer' into the school system must not be solely at the discretion of the principal; and

"Whereas the Liberal government promised to ensure that school boards provide strong local accountability and decision-making;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to amend the Education Act to place restrictions on the eligibility of persons who act as volunteers in

schools, and to include as a formal requirement that volunteers be subject to the approval of the school board and parent council."

I sign my name.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding access to trades and

professions in Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

have and want to use;

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

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

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

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

workforce."

I send this to you, Speaker, via page Nick.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): A petition to save the Banting homestead:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

the Ontario Historical Society; and

"Whereas the town of New Tecumseth has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with the Ontario Historical Society to use part of the land to educate the

public about the historical significance of the work of Sir Frederick Banting;

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

"That the Minister of Culture endorse Simcoe-Grey MPP Jim Wilson's private member's bill entitled the Frederick Banting Homestead Preservation Act so that the

homestead is kept in good repair and preserved for generations to come."

Of course, I agree with this petition.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have a petition of 750 names that I received from Bruce Armstrong, fire chief, Russell

Fire Department.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

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

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

I fully support Fire Chief Armstrong's action on this very important issue.

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition to keep Muskoka part of northern Ontario. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the district of Muskoka is currently designated as part of northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the geography and socio-economic conditions of Muskoka are very similar to the rest of northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the median family income in the district of Muskoka is $10,000 below the provincial average and $6,000 below the median family income for greater

Sudbury; and

"Whereas removing the district of Muskoka from northern Ontario will adversely affect the hard-working people of Muskoka by restricting access to programs and

incentives enjoyed by residents of other northern communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Muskoka should not be confused with those who cottage or vacation in the district; and

"Whereas this is a mean-spirited and politically motivated decision on the part of the McGuinty government;

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

"That the McGuinty government maintain the current definition of northern Ontario for the purposes of government policy and program delivery."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): On behalf of my constituents in Thornhill and Concord, I present to the House today a petition requesting that

the Legislative Assembly of Ontario reverse the decision made to delist chiropractic services and to maintain its OHIP coverage. The petition reads:

"Whereas,

"Elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic" services "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" of Ontario.

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.

HIGHWAY 407 RAMP

Mr Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): On behalf of my constituents of Thornhill and Concord, I present a petition today in relation to Highway 407.

The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the residents of Thornhill and Concord, oppose the construction of a cloverleaf (ramp) at Centre Street and Dufferin Street connecting to Highway

407;

"Whereas a meeting to eliminate the ramp took place and hundreds of residents attended in opposition to the construction of the ramp and none of the residents

were in favour;

"Whereas a condition that a study needs to be conducted is, in our opinion in this case, a waste of public money;

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

"We ask that the Ministry of Transportation:

"

(1) Eliminate the possibility of the construction of a cloverleaf (ramp) connecting Hwy 407 with Centre Street at Dufferin Street;

"

(2) Eliminate the request of the city of Vaughan to carry out a preliminary design and an environmental assessment study to justify the elimination of the

cloverleaf (ramp)."

I affix my signature to this petition.

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have more petitions to save the Leslie M. Frost Centre. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

natural resource management, with a focus on ecosystems and how they can be sustained for future generations; and

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

clandestine manner; and

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

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

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

"That the McGuinty government reverse the decision to close the Leslie M. Frost Centre."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG COMMUNITIES

(PLANNING AMENDMENT) ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS (MODIFICATION

DE LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE)

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 22, 2004, on the motion for third reading of Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Planning Act / Projet de loi 26, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Further debate? The member for Toronto-Danforth.

Applause.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Why, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to be getting applause from the Liberal side of the

House. I don't know if they'll be applauding at the end of my hour, but we'll see. One whole hour: Get ready.

Just a week or so ago, I had the opportunity to stand in this place and talk for a full hour. Remember, it used to be 90 minutes, those of us who were here

before those Tories changed the rules? So we only get an hour now, instead of the full 90 minutes, to talk about these bills. But I think I can say everything I need to say about this bill in an

hour. So I'm going to take that opportunity now.

I thought I'd do a little bit of research before coming into the House today to remind members of some of the history of good, green land use planning in this

province. It's not, I suppose, in the interests of existing governments to give credit to previous governments or previous to the previous government, normally. So therefore, when the minister and

other Liberal members stand up to talk about this bill, it sounds like they've just invented the wheel, that nobody has ever thought about this before.

It was interesting, when I did my research. I mentioned this before -- and the minister will remember -- in committee, that some of this bill is NDP policy

redux. It has come back. It's like fashion concepts from the early 1990s are making a comeback and receiving due recognition, because what Bill 26 does is reintroduce the planning principle that

the official plans be in keeping with the provincial land use planning strategy and that they "be consistent with" the provincial policy statement.

So when I did my research, I thought I'd look up some of the old Hansards from the early 1990s, when some of the members who are in the Liberal Party were

sitting right there where the Tories are now. Some are new members, so I can't blame them for this -- I'll be clear about that; there are some new members -- but Mr McGuinty of the Liberals, the

now Premier, was here, and many other members. I've got to tell you that they voted against the NDP Green Planning Act.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Now, you wouldn't have. I'm sure the new Liberal minister for this act --

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I wasn't here.

Ms Churley: He wasn't here. I'm excusing you, because I'm sure you would have broken ranks with your caucus then, and, Mr Speaker, I'm sure

you would have too. I'm going to give you both credit for that. You would have broken ranks and risked everything -- the possibility of being in cabinet later on -- to do the right thing.

The Speaker, of course, is shaking his head. See? You wouldn't necessarily have gotten into cabinet anyway by playing by the rules, sticking with the

solidarity, but I know every person -- because I've been there, you see. I've been in government. I've been in opposition longer, I admit, but I've been in government and I know how badly every

single person wants to be in cabinet. So most members do toe the line and end up voting for or against things as they might normally not do. It's interesting. I know I'm veering off the subject

here, Mr Speaker, but you provoked me. So let me get back to this very important bill that we're talking about here today.

I was just rereading some of the aspects of the bill that was introduced by the Hon Ed Philip, who was then the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and before that

the Hon David Cooke, who later became the Minister of Education but then started the hard work, I think we all will agree -- and I've got to hand it to the Liberal government in terms of going out

there and doing the consulting and bringing this bill before us. But I know that when we took over government in 1990, after the Liberals had been in power, and previous to that the Tories for, I

think, over 43 years, what we found was that the whole land use planning process in Ontario was in a huge mess. There were all kinds of problems. Furthermore, it wasn't taking into account the

modern problems that we have around land use planning when it comes to protecting the environment, saving our prime agricultural land in environmentally sensitive spots.

So what the NDP did at that time was put a group together, chaired by Mr Sewell, the former mayor of Toronto, and I know that others were involved. They

crisscrossed the province for, I think, two or three years, and I have to always say this when I talk about our committee on land use planning, the Green Planning Act, because Mr Sewell was so

proud of this, as he should be, and so was our government: This committee came in on time and under budget -- which, of course, is quite often unheard-of in this place -- and did a tremendous job.

Dale Martin was very involved in this as well -- I should give him credit -- as was Toby Vigod, and I'm sure I'm leaving some people out who were involved in this. But those are the people I

particularly remember being extremely involved in setting up this working group that crisscrossed the province for two years and came up with a Green Planning Act that everybody could live with.

That is a very hard balance, as I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs understands today.

We had a certain set of principles, and those principles had to be adhered to. Then everybody had to come together and not get rid of those principles but find

ways and compromises where the main objectives would be achieved. That was done, and it was actually something we were very proud of. What I didn't do today, because I don't want to be negative for

very long, was pull out the comments from the Liberals of the day to read quotes as to why the Liberals of the day were opposing this bill.

I want to say that the NDP is supporting the bill before us today. We're supporting the planning act before us today. We have some problems with it. I made

amendments at the committee level to improve the bill. Mr Prue, the member for Beaches-East York, is our municipal affairs critic. I often handle bills that we see as very important environmental

bills. Either of us could have ably handled this one, but there were finance committee hearings at the same time. And as you know, with eight members we double and triple up in critic areas. We

work hard over here. At the moment, I'm sounding like George Bush in that debate. Did you hear him when he said about five times, "It's hard work"? Well, it's hard work over here. There are eight

of us doing a number of portfolios.

Mr Prue was away at the finance committee, and I did this committee on his behalf and on behalf of the NDP caucus. I want to take this opportunity here -- I

actually did this at the committee level -- to salute Fred Gloger. The minister will remember that the committee commenced shortly after we got the shocking and very hard news about our researcher,

Mr Gloger, who had been with the NDP caucus for, I believe, over 20 years and was well respected and well loved by our caucus. It was a terrible tragedy.

I had the pleasure of being able to use the notes that Fred Gloger left for us before he went on his holiday to France. As you know, Mr Gloger was only 44

years old and died unexpectedly while in Paris. Mr Gloger loved to travel. He was a world traveller. He saved his money, and every year he planned an exotic trip and would get very excited about

it.

I remember talking to Fred about this very bill a couple of days before he left. He left, as he always did -- he would work day and night. He was very

conscientious, very dedicated to this place, not only to our caucus but to the legislative process here. The research department, the Clerk's department -- everybody knew Fred Gloger. He was

meticulous and did excellent work. I worked with him, and he left us -- working with my executive assistant, Jasmine Singh -- very, very good notes for me to use. I want to pay my respects to Fred

here, because of course the information, the notes I'm still using today, are in the memo he left behind for us. It says:

"April 23, 2004

"To: Caucus

"From: Fred Gloger

"Re: Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2003."

There were several pages of notes explaining what's in the bill.

He did leave very good notes, and since then, of course, I've had the opportunity to sit on the committee and make amendments. None of those amendments were

accepted, unfortunately. I said at the outset that we would be supporting the bill, clearly. The Planning Act, after what the Tories did to our green planning act, needed to be reformed. We were

very, very pleased that the Liberal government moved forward on that. But there are some holes, some problems in the bill, and I took the opportunity at the committee level to try to strengthen and

improve that bill. Unfortunately, those amendments were turned down.

One of the things I want to talk about that I'm very, very much in favour of and very pleased to see -- unlike the Tories, because they're the ones who took

this out of our green planning act -- is that Bill 26 reintroduces the planning principle that the official plans be in keeping with the provincial land use planning strategy, that they be

consistent with the provincial policy statement. That is so incredibly significant.

To a lot of people out there it may sound like semantics. What's the difference between "be consistent with" and "have regard for"? One of the centrepieces of

the New Democratic green Planning Act was that the wording be consistent with -- and there was a huge fight over that in the community, absolutely huge. There were environmentalists and many of the

municipalities, but some not -- I think it was perhaps one of the most contentious parts of the NDP green Planning Act, but we insisted that it be kept in for the same reasons the Liberals are

bringing it back.

The history of that bill is actually very interesting. I have Hansard from November 23, 1995, after the Tories came to power. One of the very first things they

did was tear down that green Planning Act. It was heartbreaking. It was really difficult to watch how quickly a new government came in and tore it down, and many other pieces of legislation --

progressive, good legislation -- that we had worked very hard on. It was fairly new, and that was part of the problem. There was not enough of an opportunity after it was proc