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

November 16, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Nov-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 16 November 2004 Mardi 16 novembre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

METIS NATION

CORRECTION OF RECORD

GORDON KENNARD

HEALTHY WORKPLACE AWARD

SCARECROW FESTIVAL

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FACILITIES

PHARMACISTS

STEVEN TRUSCOTT

PHARMACISTS

CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PRESERVATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 PRÉSERVANT LA PROPRIÉTÉ

FAMILIALE DE FREDERICK BANTING

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

CORRECTION OF RECORD

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ROAD SAFETY

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

PHOTO RADAR

HEALTH CARE

CHIROPRACTIC CARE

HEALTH CARE

CONTAMINATED SOIL

CONSUMER PROTECTION

SHELTER SERVICES

AUTISM SERVICES

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

PIT BULLS

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED

PETITIONS

PIT BULLS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

LANDFILL

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

OPPOSITION DAY

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

PHOTO RADAR /

RADAR PHOTOGRAPHIQUE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

METIS NATION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It is my pleasure to welcome members of the Metis Nation of Ontario to Queen's Park today. In particular, I

would like to welcome MNO president Tony Belcourt and all the members of the Georgian Bay Metis Council, many of whom are my constituents.

These members of MNO are here, along with Regional Chief Charles Fox, to attend a commemorative gathering on the anniversary of the hanging and death of Louis

Riel, and to honour his memory and celebrate his contribution to his people and to Canada. As well, the gathering today honours the historic bond between the MNO and First Nations. A protocol has

just been signed between the MNO and the Chiefs of Ontario.

The Metis Nation of Ontario currently has major issues with the MNR, and I'd like to read a clip. I want to put this on the record today.

"On October 7, 2004, Metis Nation of Ontario (MNO) president Tony Belcourt and the Ontario regional chief of the Chiefs of Ontario, Charles Fox, expressed dismay

at the actions of the Ministry of Natural Resources, which unilaterally decided to break the historic agreement with the Metis Nation of Ontario. The MNR announced the changes with no notice to the

Metis people.

"Mr Belcourt and Ontario Regional Chief Fox called upon Premier McGuinty to immediately convene a meeting to discuss the creation of an aboriginal policy, to

prevent this situation from occurring in the future.

"The government continues to treat the aboriginal people in Ontario in an arbitrary manner. Ontario Regional Chief Fox and Mr Belcourt said that they expect the

government to live up to its commitment to the constitutionally recognized aboriginal people in Ontario -- the First Nations and the Metis Nation."

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this today.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Before I start my statement, I just want to correct a date I cited in yesterday's statement. My by-election

was May 13, and Ms Fairclough's was May 15. I apologize for that error.

GORDON KENNARD

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I rise today to honour a long-time resident of Hamilton East who passed away April 12, 2004, at the age of

Mr Gordon Kennard was a very special person who did not allow his physical disabilities and challenges to keep him from living a life that was full and

meaningful. When Gord was born, his family was advised to place him in a home, but his loving and close family would not do so and Gord was enrolled at George Armstrong school in Hamilton, where he

made close friends who remained part of his circle all of his life.

Through his physical therapy at Chedoke, Gord met a doctor who saw his potential and helped him to obtain a position at Chedoke Hospital as an orderly, where he

worked until retirement. He became a proud and active member of his union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

For Gord, the church and the NDP were what kept everything in perspective. He might have experienced adversity because of his many health challenges, but they

never stopped him. He was a long-time Hamilton East NDP executive member and a proud life member of the New Democratic Party. Talking politics at the food court of Hamilton's Centre Mall was a

favourite pastime, and he was never prouder than when he signed up his own church minister as a member of the NDP. He also was a talented pianist who played the organ on most Sundays at church,

Fairfield-St David's United.

I feel honoured to have known Gord Kennard. Gord was a man of courage and dignity and used his life and time to work for the betterment of everyone. His

compassion for others was limitless, perhaps because he himself experienced cruel taunts and discrimination.

Rest in peace, Gordon. You touched many in Hamilton by your kindness and caring, and are missed.

HEALTHY WORKPLACE AWARD

Mr Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I rise today to acknowledge the tremendous contribution of DaimlerChrysler Canada to both the

city of Brampton and the province of Ontario. DaimlerChrysler Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers have recently been awarded the National Quality Institute's Healthy Workplace Award. The Healthy

Workplace Award recognizes employers who promote, encourage, support and offer exemplary health-related policies and programs in the workplace.

The National Quality Institute has recognized the unique collaborative partnership between the company and the union, and the innovative health, safety and

wellness initiatives delivered to DaimlerChrysler Canada's employees, retirees, and their families.

DaimlerChrysler Canada and the CAW provide numerous employee initiatives, such as health and safety programs and policies, education and training programs,

on-site health and wellness services, and environmental programs and policies. This award recognizes the way in which DaimlerChrysler and the CAW are working together to ensure DaimlerChrysler's

international success. I commend the efforts of both DaimlerChrysler and the Canadian Auto Workers union and congratulate both DaimlerChrysler and the Canadian Auto Workers on their award.

SCARECROW FESTIVAL

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the organizing committee and over 120 volunteers who made

the eighth annual Meaford Scarecrow Invasion and Family Festival possible. In a bid to set a new Guinness world record for the largest scarecrow population in the world, thousands of scarecrows

have been found sitting on front lawns, climbing up lampposts and lounging on front porches all over my riding for the past couple of months.

This year was especially significant because the organizing committee, led by head scarecrow Marilyn Morris, partnered with the executive of the International

Plowing Match. Scarecrows were a prominent theme during the rural expo, with over 500 of them on display throughout the tented city and beside signage leading visitors to the event.

While the partnership was a tremendous success for both committees, I guess it was a little bit too confusing for Ministry of Transportation officials. It seems

the MTO took the scarecrow invasion title just a fraction too literally and feared for the safety of people in my riding. I don't know how else to explain their decision to remove all the

scarecrows from their highways.

While that may be a little bit untrue, Mr Speaker, I can think of one other explanation: Perhaps MTO officials were worried that the travellers going to the

plowing match on Highway 26, the roughest highway in this province, could not afford any distraction. Drivers taking their eye off the road or a hand off the wheel for even a split second risked

hitting one of the potholes, sending them into the ditch for an up-close-and-personal visit with each of the scarecrows.

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FACILITIES

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I rise in the House today to speak about the tremendous opportunities for post-secondary students

that are now available in Durham region at Durham College, which has served students in the region and beyond for over 37 years, and at the province's newest university, the University of Ontario

Institute of Technology, or UOIT, as it's known locally. I'm sure my friends opposite, the members for Whitby-Ajax, Oshawa, Durham, and Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, would agree with me.

In what many consider a model for post-secondary education in the 21st century, UOIT shares its campus with Durham College, one of the province's leading

community colleges. Less than two years after opening its doors, enrolment at the university already stands at 1,850 full-time students, and Durham College has more than 5,600 full-time students

and an astounding 19,000 part-time students.

Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the grand opening of the university's new academic buildings and the brand new, state-of-the-art campus library, which

serves both the college and the university. The buildings reflect the college's and the university's dedication to academic excellence and cutting-edge, market-oriented innovation. That commitment

is attracting some of the finest scholars and researchers in the world. Just recently, for example, one of the university's engineering professors, Dr Ibrahim Dincer, received UOIT's first major

research award, the $100,000 Premier's Research Excellence Award, for his leading-edge work involving practical fuel cell technology for automobiles.

For more than a decade, parents in the region have dreamed of a local university that would enrich the lives of their children and of students from across Canada

and around the world. Today, thanks to the tireless efforts of local educators and countless volunteers, as well as the support of the local and Ontario governments, that dream is a wonderful

reality.

I proudly invite Ontario students to learn more about these two great post-secondary schools on-line at www.durhamcollege.ca and www.uoit.ca.

PHARMACISTS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I would like to join all members of this House today in welcoming over 100 of Ontario's professional

pharmacists, who are here at Queen's Park to celebrate Pharmacists' Day.

We clearly acknowledge and value the professional services provided by Ontario pharmacists every single day. They don't simply dispense medications. They give

invaluable health advice. They recognize and intervene when medications are prescribed that could cause adverse reactions or even lead to hospitalization, the number one reason why seniors go into

hospitals for a pharmacological reaction.

The Minister of Health lauds his OMA agreement that bonuses doctors by $50 million if they will help cut consumption of medications for seniors and social

assistance recipients and their children for up to $200 million, and yet nowhere has the government acknowledged the vital role that pharmacists play as learned intermediaries in the drug

prescribing and dispensing continuum.

The Ontario Pharmacists' Association has expressed concern about the growing number of Americans coming across the border into Ontario to acquire cheaper drugs

and the proliferation of Internet pharmacies. Perhaps the Ontario College of Pharmacists should be focusing on creating proper regulations governing the practice of pharmacy in this province and

not simply getting involved in attempting to manage the business side of pharmacy in this province.

STEVEN TRUSCOTT

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I would like to state that the people of Clinton wish to see the final

chapter of the Steven Truscott case

resolved quickly.

As you are aware, this event took place 45 years ago in Clinton, Ontario, a small town in my riding, and many people today still feel a very strong attachment to

this case. Justice Minister Cotler stated that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred in this case.

Closure needs to be brought to the case that has weighed heavily on the people of Clinton for over four decades. The people of Clinton and Ontario wait to see

the final

chapter written.

PHARMACISTS

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I'd like to echo some of the sentiments of my colleague from Burlington and welcome to the Legislature today

the members of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. They come to us on Pharmacists' Day to showcase the many diverse services that pharmacists provide in today's health care system.

The pharmacists' interactive displays in room 228 show how they manage their expertise in drug and medication management to improve the health and well-being of

Ontarians. Pharmacists help reduce asthma attacks, control diabetes and obesity, manage medication appropriately and much more. Ontario pharmacists play a key role in alleviating health care

pressures. They are an accessible health care provider. They have the ability to outreach to patients and to collaborate with other health care providers to ensure Ontarians receive the best

patient care within their community.

Recently, the Ontario Seniors' Secretariat partnered with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association to deliver safe-medication-use seminars for seniors across

Ontario. The seminars involve a presentation by a community pharmacist and a question-and-answer period. Pharmacists have a wealth of information to share and to make a positive contribution to the

health and well-being of Ontarians every day.

If you managed your medication well today, thank a pharmacist.

CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Unfortunately, I have to rise in the House today and bring to the House's attention the resurgence of what

I consider to be irresponsible opposition in this House. This time, it concerns the delaying of Bill 70, the Consumer and Business Services Statute Law Amendment Act. This bill, if passed, will

enforce stronger rules on fitness clubs. It will strengthen time-share disclosure rights. It will extend cooling-off periods. It will ban negative-option billing and bring a host of stronger

remedies and enforcement powers.

This bill will address the issues brought up recently in the Hamilton Spectator. This is a bill that has the support of unions and the business community. The

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council of Ontario supports it, TransUnion supports it, and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce supports it, just to name a few.

I would like to end by asking a simple question: Why are they opposed to getting these consumer protections in place? Why, yesterday in the House, did they not

grant unanimous consent to bring the bill out of committee into this House? We called the bill yesterday at 6 o'clock, not at 6:45. The opposition didn't want to work here. No, they were too busy,

maybe going off to a party or something. Instead, we could have had this matter settled. They denied the fact that all of us want this bill passed. Opposition? Boy --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PRESERVATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 PRÉSERVANT LA PROPRIÉTÉ

FAMILIALE DE FREDERICK BANTING

Mr Wilson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 146,

An Act to ensure the preservation of the Frederick Banting homestead / Projet de loi 146, Loi visant à assurer la préservation de la

propriété familiale de Frederick Banting.

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

Mr Wilson?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): The purpose of this bill, which I hope will be supported by all members of the House, given that Sir Frederick

Banting was the first Canadian Nobel Peace Prize winner -- his homestead is just outside of Alliston and, unfortunately, in the last few years it has fallen into a state of disrepair. It's

deteriorating rather quickly.

The Ontario Heritage Society was bequeathed the property by Edward Banting for $2 in 1999. They've let the property deteriorate. As I said, this would allow the

Minister of Culture to place a covenant on the property to ensure that, for ever and ever, it would be maintained as the Sir Frederick Grant Banting homestead.

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 147,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act / Projet de loi 147, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite.

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

Mr Levac?

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I would like to thank legislative counsel Albert Nigro and my intern, Adam McDonald, for the assistance they gave to me

on this bill.

Police service personnel, through no fault of their own, are losing huge sums of pension money because of a flaw in the Pension Benefits Act. This bill will

correct that flaw. The bill amends the pension act by allowing police officers transferred from municipal police services to the OPP, or the other way around, to transfer their pensions from one

plan to the other. This is not possible and seriously disadvantages officers whose municipalities have chosen to contract out their police services to the Ontario Provincial Police, or to move it

back into their realm.

This started as a constituency issue in 1999. Officers Packer, Maxwell and Always brought this to my attention, and I thought I'd try to help them on an

individual basis. It seems that we need to pass a bill in order to correct that. I look forward to passing this bill very quickly.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): On a point of order, Speaker: I wish to correct my record of a couple of minutes ago. I indicated that Sir

Frederick Banting was Canada's first Nobel Peace Prize winner. Of course, he's Canada's first Nobel Laureate in medicine.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ROAD SAFETY

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a group of men and

women who protect our communities and help make Ontario an even safer province than it is. I'm talking about the police officers of this province who risk their lives every day they report for

work. They are in the vanguard. They are the people we turn to when we are in trouble. They are the people who are prepared to risk their own lives to safeguard others. They are the people who are

there for us when we need them most.

Today, members of this House have had the opportunity to meet first-hand the representatives of more than 20,000 police and civilian members of police services

across the province. I'm talking about the Police Association of Ontario, or the PAO. I want to acknowledge that they are in the east gallery and we are delighted to have them here today.

The PAO provides representation, resources and support for 66 police associations. Just as the PAO and its members are dedicated to making Ontario's

communities even safer, so is the McGuinty government.

Today, I have an important announcement that will help make our streets safer for all drivers. The McGuinty government is serious about highway traffic safety

and the safety and security of its citizens. We support a consistent, fair and lawful approach to traffic safety and enforcement across the province. Unsafe drivers should not be allowed to

circumvent the laws of the province.

Currently, motorists who are charged with offences under the Highway Traffic Act have three valid options: (1) they can plead guilty and pay the prescribed

fine; (2) they can plead guilty before a justice of the peace with an explanation; or (3) they contest the charge in court.

Twenty-one municipal police services across the province have been offering these drivers another alternative: traffic offender diversion programs, commonly

known as option 4 programs. Program implementation varies among police services. The usual practice of police services offering option 4 involves drivers attending a course at the police service

and either watching a video or writing a true-or-false test on road safety. As such, a person exercising option 4 does not have to admit guilt or risk conviction by the courts. The driver does not

face a monetary fine. They do not receive demerit points or face increased insurance premiums.

Because option 4 programs are not standardized across the province, the Ministry of Transportation has no way of confirming whether police services permit

drivers to complete the option 4 program more than once in the same jurisdiction. They are not obligated to provide the ministry with that information. There is no shared database that lets police

officers know they've stopped someone who has been pulled over for the same infraction in other jurisdictions previously and has taken an option 4 course.

Suppressing convictions from a person's record hinders the identification of high-risk drivers. That's why I'm asking all Ontario police services that

currently offer option 4 programs to cancel them effective January 1, 2005. Eliminating option 4 will make Ontario safer by holding bad drivers accountable for their actions. These programs aren't

designed to improve safety on our roads, they aren't effective in correcting driver behaviour, and there is no standard program province-wide. Even the association representing the 20,000

front-line police officers in Ontario objects to these programs.

Here's what Bruce Miller of the Police Association of Ontario has to say: "Option 4 calls the administration of justice into disrepute."

The Canadian Automobile Association also objects to such programs and has called on the province to "quickly resolve what has now become an inconsistent

two-tiered enforcement program."

The government supports innovative and effective means to increase road safety, but not at the expense of existing provincial laws designed to address these

problem drivers. Option 4 programs don't work and they must stop. We expect the police services to adhere to this directive.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Here we've got another warm and cozy little announcement by the minister.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Not that warm, not that cozy.

Mr Dunlop: Warm and cozy.

It's a directive. Why don't you either create legislation or not? If you're against option 4, put legislation through. But any of the legislation we've seen

from this government, let's review a little bit of it. Let's review some of the legislation. The grow op legislation was brought forward on a warm and cozy morning here one day. They did a big

special announcement on eliminating grow houses. We've never seen the legislation come forward.

The mandatory gunshot reporting: We haven't seen that come forward either. Where has it been? My colleague from Leeds-Grenville brought forward that

legislation in a motion, a resolution, last year. It was supported by this House, and we still haven't seen it come forward.

The 1,000 police officers: the $200-million cost to the citizens of the province of Ontario. That is what the 1,000 police officers will be if you start to

implement it today. We have $30 million on the table with some kind of an action plan behind it.

Let's talk a little bit about option 4 and the removal of it. Just a few minutes ago, I talked to the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. Again, of

course, as usual, no one was consulted. The $750,000 hole in the city of Barrie's police services budget: Who is going to make that up? I think the minister should bring forth legislation, remove

this -- if it's a tarnish on the police services industry, I think he should bring forward legislation, along with the money to help police services like the city of Barrie's replace the $750,000

hole in their budget.

Again, here we go. It's a special day. The Police Association of Ontario is here, and I'm very pleased to see them. I've got a lot of friends in the PAO; with

the general headquarters of the Ontario Provincial Police in my backyard, I've got to know a lot of people.

One thing I'm hearing from the people very clearly, and from police services, is that we have a lot of fancy announcements and no action. I want to know when

the action is going to take place. Or is it like the pit bull legislation? You bring out a warm and cozy piece of legislation on pit bulls, and what happens? It turns into a nightmare across the

province, as the Attorney General is likely finding out today.

We just got this legislation -- I got this note, like, five minutes ago, so I didn't have a lot of time to really speak on it, but I did want to say a little

bit about another piece of legislation that the minister promised: amendments to the private security guards. I have a bill, Bill 88, a private member's bill, that makes up for the Shand inquiry

and implements all 22 recommendations. I don't see anything about that here. The minister, in the spring, promised legislation for this fall. Well, we've got five weeks left and we haven't had any

legislation debated in the House. No legislation whatsoever has been debated, and we keep getting these little promises, like today; it's a directive. He is asking the police services of the

province of Ontario to -- he's directing them to obey his orders.

Just put a piece of legislation through. We'll likely support it, as long as the money comes with the piece of legislation to support our police services. The

$750,000: that's only one police service that I know of. I have no idea what it would cost in metro Toronto. Maybe we should contact Chief Fantino and find out what he's found out about this

particular piece of legislation -- I'm sorry, this particular directive.

I think what is important here is, again, no consultations, a smooth and warm, cuddly announcement on a day when the Police Association of Ontario is here. He

is trying to make them happy and trying to comfort them for the lack of money that goes along with the 1,000 police officers, the $30-million pittance. That's the type of thing we're hearing from

this government. I hate to be negative, because I'm so supportive of the police services in the province of Ontario, but not under these rules and conditions, where it's all fancy announcements and

no money to go with it.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this today.

Mr Kormos: On behalf of New Democrats here at Queen's Park, I'm more than pleased to respond to the Minister of Public Safety.

Look, we expected something from you today. We've got police officers from across the province here at the PAO lobby, so we knew the Minister of Public Safety

was going to stand up and somehow address those police officers and attempt to reassure them that this government is finally, maybe, sometimes, perhaps, on their side, and this is what we get, this

lukewarm, sort of pleading with the municipalities? "Please, if you don't mind, stop doing these option 4s, these shakedowns of drivers, these fleecings of drivers."

You have to understand why municipalities are doing it. Do you think they like doing them, Minister? Of course not; they're doing them because they have to,

because they're forced to put cops out there doing fundraising; because these police services across Ontario are chronically underfunded and you have aggravated the scenario by downloading yet more

on to them and not giving them the resources, the tools to do the job.

You had a sad and miserable announcement a few weeks ago where you announced 1,000 new cops, and we learned in very short order, within a matter of mere

minutes, that these weren't 1,000 new cops; they were 50-cent cops on a good day. Municipality after municipality after municipality has made it quite clear that they can't afford to buy into your

scheme because they are already cash-strapped. You know full well that one of the most significant and ongoing tensions in municipality after municipality is between the chiefs of police advocating

for their police forces, the police services boards and the municipal governments.

Policing is labour-intensive. We all know that. Policing costs significant amounts of money. We all know that. We in Ontario and in Canada have acquired the

best-trained and most professional police anywhere in the world, but it doesn't come without investment. You, sir, have not been at all prepared to make that investment. You have been prepared to

talk a big game when it comes to policing, but you don't deliver. When the rubber hits the road, you are nowhere to be seen.

Look at what municipality after municipality has said about your rather sad and feckless proposal for 1,000 new cops.

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley says it's too costly for the city.

Damian Parrent from the Niagara Regional Police Service is concerned about the municipality's capacity to pay what you would have as its share.

Herb Kreling of the Ottawa Police Services Board doesn't think the city is in a financial position to hire more officers, even if the province picks up half

the tab.

The Timmins police chief says he won't be embarking on a hiring spree any time soon.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion described the plan as "a form of downloading" if the province doesn't fully fund the new officers.

The Hamilton Spectator notes, "Perhaps the Liberal promise book should have come with a disclaimer: `Objects may not appear exactly as shown.'"

What did Liberals have to say about this 50-cent-on-the-dollar funding for new police officers? Well, in 1999, when the Conservatives claimed, again

inaccurately, that they had hired 1,000 new police officers, one David Levac says, "Explain to me the 1,000 new police officers. I asked the police officers themselves, and I'm sure you heard it in

private but you don't want to publicly announce it. The 1,000 is not translated into 1,000. I tried to optimistically say that's going to be 600 people. They said, `You're way off, pal; it's more

like 250 to 300 officers.' I want 1,000 police officers audited."

The fact is that, again, the best this minister can come up with is recycling of pathetic, empty and hollow Tory promises with respect to new police officers.

Communities across this province expect you to give real support for policing in municipalities across Ontario. Police officers across this province are doing hard, dangerous work protecting

property, saving lives and protecting public safety. They expect and deserve more from you and your government. They expect and deserve real support. When this government promised 1,000 new cops,

the people of Ontario expected 1,000 new cops.

This government promised change, and all you've delivered is spare change to the people of this province. I say to this Solicitor General that the shakedown of

drivers on option 4 programs isn't going to end because he is pleading with municipalities to do it; it will end if and when this government starts supporting municipalities in their efforts to

develop strong, fully staffed, fully trained, fully resourced police forces across Ontario. Instead of making shabby, ill-conceived and poorly designed fluff-and-puffery statements here in the

Legislature, why don't you start to deliver to police forces across Ontario so that we can maintain the high standards that people have worked so hard to build in this province?

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I would ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the first session

of the 38th Parliament.

They are Sushil Chanana from Peterborough, Katharine Cooke from Prince Edward-Hastings, Emma Dobson from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Kay Dyson Tam from

Toronto-Danforth, Adam Edgerley from Thornhill, Lee Follis from Brant, Danika Hawthorne from Parry Sound-Muskoka, Emma Hinton from Trinity-Spadina, Curtis Jones from Scarborough-Agincourt, Dever

Jylha from York North, Nicholas Klimchuk from Hamilton West, Ellen Martin from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, Jane Michel from Oshawa, Savannah Nahwegahbow from Algoma-Manitoulin, Evan Odell from

Mississauga South, Aisha Qureshi from Scarborough Centre, Nick Rogers from Ottawa-Orléans, Eric Schildroth from Kitchener-Waterloo, Laura St Marseille from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh and

Daniel Walker from Parkdale-High Park.

Will you all welcome these new pages.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. I would like to ask you about the contract you signed

with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation during last year's election campaign. You put your signature to two solemn promises in that document: One, not to increase taxes; and two, if you felt it was

necessary to increase taxes, you would not do so without the explicit consent of Ontario voters. Premier, we've heard your excuses for breaching a signed contract with respect to tax increases. Why

did you also break your second signed promise, your commitment to seek the consent of Ontario voters?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I had the opportunity to address this issue yesterday and I'm pleased to

do so once again today. I want to remind my colleague opposite that on June 27, 2002, in this very Legislature, he, among many other colleagues of his in the Conservative Party, voted to break the

Taxpayer Protection Act. The Leader of the Opposition now stands in his place and professes to be a champion of the Taxpayer Protection Act, the very act he and several of his colleagues broke in

the past. This member, like this party, has no consistency and no credibility when it comes to these issues.

Mr Runciman: Once again, a non-answer from the Premier. He's pretty consistent in that respect, in any event.

Premier, your Liberal government now has two or three government lawyers in court at taxpayers' expense defending your political party's right to breach a

signed contract. Your lawyers, at taxpayers' expense, have argued that this signed contractual promise by the Liberal Party of Ontario is no different than any other campaign promises, signed

promises. You signed that contract with great fanfare. As a lawyer yourself, did you not understand the difference between a campaign platform promise and promises made through a signed contractual

commitment? Or was it all political theatre where you knowingly and purposely hoodwinked Ontario voters?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The mistake we made on this side of the House was that we relied on a government financial document: the quarterly statement

issued by that then government -- this was released, by the way, just three weeks prior to the election being called -- a document that specifically stated that there was no deficit, that the

budget was balanced.

Doing our due diligence as much as we could, we estimated they were hiding a $2-billion deficit. Never did we in our wildest nightmares suspect they would be

hiding close to a $6-billion deficit. The mistake we made, and the mistake we will ensure will never happen again in the province of Ontario, was that we relied on a government that was in fact

hiding close to a $6-billion deficit.

Mr Runciman: That response had nothing to do with the question of a referendum, nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of a referendum.

Premier, today you said you intend to hold a referendum on the issue of democratic reform. You appear willing to hold a referendum when it suits your political

purposes but reject one, even if it violates a signed contract, when it doesn't fit the interests of a tax-and-spend Liberal government.

Premier, it's not too late to honour your signed pledge. A referendum early next year will give Ontario voters the opportunity you promised them to get their

consent. If your so-called health tax is appropriate, it will be supported. If not, it will be rejected and the tax stopped. It's called democracy. You promised it. Demonstrate some integrity: Keep

the promise and call that referendum now.

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member may not like it, but we're moving on and we're making profound changes in health care. We're transforming health

care. We're investing in more nurses, more doctors, family health teams, MRIs, shorter wait lists for cataracts, cardiac care, cancer care, hip and knee replacements and the like. We are moving

ahead. We're working in the interests of the people of Ontario. And no, we will not be held back by someone who lacks credibility and sincerity when it comes to honouring the Taxpayer Protection

Act in the province of Ontario.

Mr Runciman: That response demonstrated complete disdain for the voters of Ontario -- complete disdain.

PHOTO RADAR

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Transportation. I want to revisit an issue that we

raised with him yesterday to no avail; we got the usual non-response from that minister. It is with respect to your office working with an organization called the National Campaign to Stop Red

Light Running.

Minister, this is a group that approached your office to organize a road safety event in support of photo radar. A member of your staff sent an e-mail to

stakeholders across Ontario, and we have a copy of it here, lending your office's support for the event and inviting interested parties to speak directly with a photo radar company. Your office

even went so far as to write the press release for the event on behalf of the organization.

The problem is, Minister, the organization is funded by companies that market and sell photo radar cameras at upwards of $100,000 a pop. Undoubtedly, these

companies stand to make a lot of money from your government if you bring back photo radar, which you haven't ruled out.

Do you believe that large photo radar companies should be using your office as a promotional tool to advocate for photo radar? Minister, try to answer the

question today, please.

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): It might come as a surprise to the honourable member that we do talk to the stakeholders,

and we do consult them before we make any decisions, unlike the other government that just went ahead and did things.

The red light camera discussion was no different from the other discussion that we had to consult with stakeholders, and that was the spirit this was done in.

They sent us the release. We passed it on to the other stakeholders. That's all we did. There was nothing more done than that.

Mr Runciman: The minister's office has now been directly linked to an organization that advocates for, and is funded by, photo radar

companies. And it gets worse. We have an e-mail here today originating from your office, Minister, which refers stakeholders who are interested in this event to contact an unregistered lobbyist

who's employed by one of the largest photo radar companies in North America. This lobbyist is not registered on the Ontario lobbyist registry, yet your office actively was supporting their event

and working closely with them.

Minister, this is more than stakeholder relations; this is allowing your office to be used by a company that stands to make a lot of money from your government

if you implement photo radar. How can you justify doing that?

Hon Mr Takhar: My number one concern is to make sure that the roads are safe in Ontario. Anything we can do to promote that we will continue

to do. We will continue to work with our stakeholders to make sure we can provide the right information to drivers and all other stakeholders who will make our roads safer so that we can reduce

fatalities on the roads, and in that respect, this was done.

Just for the record again, the red light camera was in fact introduced by the previous government. We made it permanent after the pilot project finished. We

feel there are real advantages to doing that because it improves safety on the roads. There is nothing in this press release that is anything other than making sure it outlines the advantage of the

red light camera.

Mr Runciman: His number one priority should be ensuring the integrity of his office, and clearly he's not doing that.

You're not answering the question. You're trying to divert attention with respect to this very serious concern. You have no answer to questions about a photo

radar company, in fact one of the largest in North America, one that stands to make millions from your government, should you implement photo radar. I'll keep saying it: Why has it been allowed to

operate through your office, to use your staff and government resources to promote their product? Again, Minister, why do you think it's appropriate for a company that is actively advocating for

yet another tax grab, this time in the guise of photo radar, to be working through your office and using your resources to further their own agenda? Why is that appropriate?

Hon Mr Takhar: Let me just quote from what this member said about photo radar. He said, "Maybe we should take another look at photo radar in

those areas to monitor that sort of thing because police cannot be there 24 hours a day, and that is part of the problem." He was referring to photo radar at that point in time.

I'm not sure what has changed since then that he now thinks photo radar shouldn't be there to promote safety. But in this case alone, there was a press release

that was passed on to my ministry and we just passed it on to the other stakeholders so they would know what was happening on the red light cameras front. That's all we did. There was nothing more

than that. That improves safety on the roads, and I think all should be concerned about safety on the roads.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, before and during the election, you promised you would not

cut health care. After the election, you announced health care cuts to chiropractors, physiotherapists and optometrists. Today 600,000 ordinary Ontarians have sent you a clear message. They oppose

your cuts to chiropractic care. They are sick of the McGuinty government's pay more, get less health care. Will you reverse your health care cuts, or did your promise not to cut health care mean

nothing?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm delighted to take the question. I have some sympathy for the many

Ontarians who attached their names to that petition. It was not an easy decision, I can tell you, for us to have to reduce coverage for areas like chiropractic. But the fact of the matter is that

we've got to make some difficult choices, and we will not shrink from that responsibility. My friend opposite may offer the kind of leadership where you tell people exactly what you think they want

to hear, but we're saying that when it comes to health care in Ontario, we've got to make some difficult decisions, and we have chosen instead to invest in cancer care, cardiac care, hip and knee

replacements and those kinds of things. Those are the kinds of decisions we've made in health care, and we've made them for the right reasons.

Mr Hampton: Talk about someone who tells people what they want to hear, "I won't raise your taxes," and then immediately does otherwise.

Premier, you shouldn't lecture anyone.

I want to refer you to a respected medical journal, the Archives of Internal Medicine, which conducted a study of 1.7 million back-injury patients. The study

concludes that covering the cost of chiropractic care reduces total health care costs by 1.6%. In Ontario, that means if OHIP covers the cost of chiropractic care to the tune of $100 million a

year, it saves $480 million in total health care costs -- one good study. Then there is a study by Deloitte and Touche, a firm that your health minister uses a lot, which says that your cuts to

chiropractic will not save one slender dime.

Premier, you're very good at making promises. Do you have any studies or reports that support your broken promise?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm sure the leader of the NDP would be interested in casting his mind back to their legacy when they had the privilege of

serving in government. I don't recall the NDP making any of these promises, but unfortunately they delivered notwithstanding. They cut hospital funding by $277 million. They cut OHIP funding by

$218 million. They cut funding for Ontario drug benefits by $29.3 million. They cut funding -- if you can believe this -- for mental health by $42.4 million. They cut long-term-care funding in

Ontario -- the only government ever to cut funding to long-term care -- by $6.1 million. They also cut funding for community and public health by a whopping $163.7 million. That speaks to the

record of the member who raises these issues today.

Mr Hampton: If you want to talk about history, you might include that someone named Paul Martin, Liberal finance minister, cut health care

funding by the federal government so much that he put every province in the hole.

But I want to ask about chiropractic care. This is a study by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, just completed.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I'm having difficulty hearing the leader of the third party. I am applying the rules to ask the

government House leader to be a little quieter because I cannot hear the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I don't think the McGuinty government wants to hear about these studies. This is a study by the Workplace Safety and Insurance

Board, just completed. What it shows is that when injured workers with back injuries receive chiropractic care, they miss only, on average, nine days of work. When they receive other forms of

medical treatment, they miss a median of 20 days of work. That is a lot of money out of the pockets of workers and it's a lot of money out of the economy.

Your health care cuts to chiropractic are thoughtless. They hurt workers, they hurt the economy, they hurt the health care system. Will you reverse your cuts,

or is this just, once again, another broken McGuinty promise?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to thank the member from status quo once again for his representation. On behalf of that particular constituency, I

can tell you that, no, we will not reverse that decision. It was a difficult decision, but it was the right decision.

Let me tell you another decision that we made which is the right decision. We've got close to one million Ontarians today who cannot find a family doctor for

their own purposes. The reason we find ourselves in that mess, to a very large extent, is because when the NDP formed the government they reduced the number of medical spaces in our medical

schools. What we are doing -- and I'm proud to say this -- is investing $600 million over the course of the next four years to establish 150 new family health teams to bring primary care closer to

the people of Ontario.

We're making some choices. We will not shrink from our responsibility to make difficult choices. We cannot be all things to all people. We're investing in

those kinds of things which we think warrant greater priority -- like cardiac care, cancer care, hips and knees, family doctors and nurses -- and we're proud to do it.

CHIROPRACTIC CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, you might want to know that once again it was a federal Liberal government that mandated that

all provinces cut the spaces in medical schools, and it was a federal Liberal government that continued that policy. But I want to ask you about chiropractic care, something you don't want to

answer.

One of the people who is here today is Paul Leblanc. Mr Leblanc suffers from debilitating leg and foot pain. The pain got so bad it left him completely unable

to walk and therefore having to rely on disability allowance. Chiropractic care helped Mr Leblanc put his life back together. Over the last two years, his chiropractic treatments have put him back

on his feet. He can walk again, and he's looking forward to going back to work.

Chiropractic care makes a real difference. Tell Mr Leblanc and hundred of thousands of other Ontarians like him: Why are you depriving them of the hope and

relief that chiropractic care delivers?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Just so we are perfectly clear here, when it comes to workers'

compensation, WSIB covers those health care costs. That changes nothing with respect to chiropractic coverage -- just so we're perfectly clear on that score, because this member opposite would have

us believe something else. WSIB continues to cover health care costs for injured workers.

Mr Hampton: Mr Premier, I'm talking about all the other Ontarians who may not in the particular case have the advantage of WSIB coverage, and

there are hundreds of thousands of them.

I want to refer to another one who is here today, Lucianna Viventi. She's a single mom with two kids. She suffers from a degenerative bone disease that causes

her severe back pain and has done so for 20 years. At one point, the pain got so bad that her surgeon considered disc replacement surgery and spinal fusion surgery. But seeing a chiropractor has

turned things around for Ms Viventi. With regular, affordable chiropractic care, she's been able to avoid these kinds of serious surgeries. Tell her, Premier, and the thousands like her in Ontario:

Why are you depriving them of the hope and relief that chiropractic care delivers?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, so we're clear, the coverage that used to be provided was a total of $150 for a year -- for 12 months. I'm not

minimizing how important that can be. But I can tell you as well that we're investing an additional $2.4 billion in health care this year.

We're investing in high-priority areas. I know chiropractic coverage is important, but I can tell you that cancer care is very important to Ontario families. I

can tell you that cardiac care is very important to Ontario families. Cataract care is very important to Ontario families. Having their sight restored and being able to lead a more productive life

is very important to Ontario families. That's why we made that kind of a decision.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I hear your response, but do you know what? Those are just more McGuinty promises, and we've already had a track record

of broken McGuinty promises.

These are real people. It's interesting you talk about cancer. Dolores Scandura is here today. She is a cancer survivor, and right now she has to rely upon a

disability allowance. In her long fight with this terrible disease, she has undergone gruelling treatments with painful side effects. Chiropractic care has helped her deal with the pain, but now,

if she wants this most important treatment to make the pain much more bearable, she's going to have to find a way to pay out of her pocket. And let me tell you, for her, $150 a year is something

she can't afford.

Experts say you're wrong. Every study I've produced says you're wrong. People across Ontario say you're wrong. Will you reverse your cuts to chiropractic care?

Or is this just another McGuinty broken promise?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We will not embrace, as my colleague opposite so willingly does, the status quo. We're going to transform health care. We're

going to be making some decisions which are going to ensure that over the long term, health care is there not only for our generation, but for the next generation and the one after that. That's why

we're investing $2.4 billion more in health care this year than was invested year. That's why we put in close to $1 billion more for hospitals alone. That's why we're working with hospitals to

balance our budgets as part of a new collaborative process. That's why we're committed to reducing wait times in key areas like cancer care, cardiac care, cataracts, MRIs, CTs, hips and knees and

the like. That's the approach we're bringing to health care. We're making difficult decisions. We will not defend the status quo, because we are committed to ensuring that health care is there for

a long time to come.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): A question for the Premier: You speak about being against multi-tiered medicine. You know that in your Ontario,

if you're hurt in the course of your employment, you get chiropractic coverage. If you're hurt in an automobile accident, you get chiropractic coverage. But the change that you propose to make

discriminates against people who haven't suffered their injuries in that kind of accident. And even worse than that, you discriminate depending on the type of care. When you bring in your amendment

with respect to optometrists, you exempt patients on disability support, you exempt people on the Ontario Works program and seniors.

Premier, how on earth can you justify this type of discrimination in health care in Ontario? There are 600,000 people who signed that petition. When I was in

Windsor this past summer, a blind woman came to me and said she goes to chiropractic care every couple of weeks. It keeps her going; it keep her mobile. Why discriminate against her?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Health.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I appreciate the opportunity to repeat some of the key messages that I think

have been delivered here today. The fact of the matter is, in response to the question from the honourable member, the government is faced with making difficult choices. In a province where our

drug budget, as an example, is under a 15% annualized pressure, costing this year something like $400 million more, it's going to be necessary to make sure that we're focusing the appropriate

amount of resources in priority areas like that.

We have worked through the life of that party's government. They increased the number of communities in Ontario that were underserviced from the standpoint of

having a family physician, to the point that when we came to office, nearly 140 communities were in such a position. We moved forward the priority of bringing new doctors to family practice in

Ontario, addressing that critical priority for Ontarians. These are the choices that we're faced with making. They're difficult choices, as the Premier said, but they're the right ones for the

future of health care in Ontario.

Mr Flaherty: That's certainly no compassion shown for disadvantaged people in Ontario who require chiropractic care. You ought to speak to

your own --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Minister of Community Services, Minister of Trade, order.

Now, where was I? Member for Whitby-Ajax.

Mr Flaherty: We're talking about --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Simcoe-Grey -- that's the reason that I didn't know where I was. The member for Whitby-Ajax.

Mr Flaherty: I was speaking about the lack of compassion for persons suffering from conditions requiring chiropractic care in Ontario. For

some reason, the people opposite seem to think that someone who is disadvantaged is entitled to optometry services but not to chiropractic services, which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of

all the health care needs of the people of Ontario.

Let's talk about consultation. This Premier and this health minister pride themselves on consultation. The fact is, the government never once spoke to

chiropractors or their patients about delisting. The first time the Minister of Health spoke to the Ontario Chiropractic Association was on June 20, more than a month after the announcement here.

What about the people of the province of Ontario? The patients are the ones who matter here. Would you at least do the fundamental minimum thing, Minister, or would you at least, Premier, tell the

minister to do the fundamental thing and consult with chiropractic patients in Ontario?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The honourable member's assertion that I didn't have a conversation with the chiropractors is as absurd as the assertions

he made in the other two parts of his question.

The first is to have the audacity, as that member did, sitting as they are, two seatmates together, both of them proponents for two-tier medicine in the

province of Ontario, talking about that. And then to pile on with the audacity to talk about compassion, a man, a front-bencher in a government, who threatened to jail the homeless; a man who

thought that the appropriate resolution to assisting people on welfare was to drug-test them; a man who was part of a government that arbitrarily reduced welfare rates for those most in need in our

province; a man who was part of a government that eliminated the nutritional supplement for pregnant women; a man who was part of a government that stood by and did not increase --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order, member from Whitby-Ajax.

Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could I ask the members to address themselves in a manner that we can respect each other. Respect the person who is asking

the question and respect the person who is answering. The heckling that goes on like this is not appropriate. I'm sure you can conduct yourselves in that manner. I am confident that you can.

I would like to proceed with question period. I think it's a new question. The member for Toronto-Danforth.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I have a question about water quality and

contamination. Last week the city of Orillia started work on rehabilitating a toxic brownfield. They are planning to construct a big, new recreational centre. The people of Orillia want new

infrastructure for recreation in their community and they want brownfields to be cleaned up and put to better use, and so do we. But citizens are very worried, and so am I, about this

situation.

Contaminants far exceeding ministry standards have been found at the site. Excavation work started suddenly last week, before you had a chance to review

requests to investigate this further, which you promised you would do. You were scheduled to release your decision on November 23, yet you allowed the work to start before you released that

decision. Minister, I ask you, given all this information you have about the contaminants on the site, why have you let work already begin?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): This is a very important issue. Rehabilitating brownfields is good for the environment.

The honourable member has indicated that contaminants on the site exceed normal values. That's why it's a brownfield. That's why it needs to be rehabilitated. That is why the Ministry of the

Environment is working with the municipality to ensure that as the site is remediated, all appropriate safeguards are taken to ensure that the community is protected and that the groundwater is

protected.

Ms Churley: Minister, you've made me even more worried, given that answer. The toxic soil from this former iron foundry site is filled with

high levels of carcinogens and other chemicals. Some 40,000 tonnes of it are going into the regular -- regular, not hazardous waste -- municipal landfill right next to Lake Simcoe. It's a water

quality issue. Preliminary soil tests found levels of vinyl chloride and other chemicals up to 80,000 times MOE limits. That's what this question is all about: where you're putting them.

Your spokesperson, despite that, was quoted today in the Orillia press saying you are "confident that the plan that's in place" will protect "the environment

and health of the community."

Minister, given those high levels of toxic waste and the fact that you haven't seen a full assessment, why in heaven's name are you letting this go ahead so

close to a water source?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm very happy to speak to the member's question around what the Ministry of the Environment is doing to ensure that the

environment is protected. Yes, there are very high levels of contaminants, not considered hazardous waste yet. If they were, they would be disposed of in a hazardous waste facility. However, the

material that is removed from the site is being placed in separate windrows in the landfill facility. They are being tested every 30 metres for the levels of contaminants, and those levels of

contaminants will be posted on the city of Orillia Web site so the public will have access to those results as soon as they are available from the testing labs, which is five days from the time the

tests are taken.

I'm confident that all measures are being undertaken to ensure that the safety of the environment is protected in the community of Orillia and Lake Simcoe.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): My question today is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Yesterday, the government proudly

launched the first ever Consumer Awareness Week dedicated to raising consumers' awareness about their rights and responsibilities in the marketplace. This is increasingly important, as Ontario

consumers spend about $125 billion each year.

Minister, would you please highlight how the government of Ontario is protecting Ontario consumers and how this new proposed law will affect both consumers and

businesses alike?

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I want to thank the honourable member for Hamilton West for her question. I was

very proud yesterday, on behalf of the Premier and our government, to launch the first ever Consumer Awareness Week at the Eaton Centre. On Monday we talked about rights and responsibilities of

consumers in Ontario in the 21st century. Today I was joined by the Ontario Real Estate Association, talking about how we can help consumers who are buying or selling their homes in Ontario.

Tomorrow we are going to be dealing with Internet scams and how individuals can protect themselves, and on Thursday with how we can help individuals who are traveling with the travel agency

industry in this province.

We are very proud of the work we're doing. I want to thank the partners that have come together from the private sector, the public sector and our government

ministries. We're showing leadership in terms of making sure that consumers are well educated and well armed to protect themselves against unscrupulous business people. I very much appreciate the

interest and the work that the member for Hamilton West has done on behalf of her constituents.

Ms Marsales: In recent weeks, some media reports, particularly a five-part series initiated by the Hamilton Spectator, have surfaced regarding

potential scams from unscrupulous fitness club operators. The upcoming holiday season is traditionally an important shopping season for consumer goods and services. In fact, the majority of gym

memberships are purchased in the late fall and early winter. Minister, would you please explain how the current and proposed consumer protection legislation will help to eliminate these scams and

help the people of Hamilton and the citizens of Ontario?

Hon Mr Watson: The member is quite correct. The current law, quite frankly, does not give that kind of protection to individuals who get

ripped off by certain fitness clubs from time to time. This Bill 70 that is before the House will allow consumers to cancel arrangements with fitness clubs within 10 days and will double the fines

to $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for corporations that break the law. It will also allow our ministry to post convictions of those fly-by-night operators who are ripping off the public.

For the life of me, I don't understand why the NDP is supporting unscrupulous fitness clubs. I don't know why the NDP is turning its back on the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the building and construction trades council, who want greater safety in the workplace. Why does the third party stand by and support those unscrupulous,

door-to-door representatives who are ripping off senior citizens?

SHELTER SERVICES

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. Today, we read in the Toronto Star that the city of Toronto paid $850,000 for

empty rooms that should have been shelters for people who needed them. Eighty per cent of that $850,000 was transferred to the city of Toronto by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and

a good deal of that money comes from the regions in the greater Toronto area through pooling, $80 million from York region alone.

Premier, I would like to ask you this question because the director of shelter services for the city of Toronto simply shrugged this off by saying this was a

good deal. Do you believe it's a good deal and, if you don't, what steps will you take to ensure this never happens again?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Minister of Community and Social Services would like to speak

to this.

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Let me assure this member that the

city of Toronto is well aware, through an audit done on these programs, which is what identified this problem in the first place, dating back to the years 2001 through 2003. When this new mayor

took office after the last mayoralty election, he stopped the practice. He looked at the audit that the city itself had called to determine that they need to know they are spending every single

cent appropriately. When it was uncovered, it was clearly stopped immediately.

The mayor of Toronto, the Premier of Ontario, all of us share the concern. If we have one dollar that we're going to spend to help people most in need, it will

be spent well.

Mr Klees: The chair of the region of York said this today: "We have our own social issues in York region and cannot adequately address our own

residents' needs when our second-largest operating budget line item, behind policing costs, is pooling."

The minister indicates clearly that she's now satisfied and she'll trust the city of Toronto to do what's right. The chairman of the region of York is not

prepared to give Toronto that same benefit of the doubt. Will the minister take the initiative to ensure that pooling --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Mr Klees: -- will be reviewed so that --

The Speaker: Order. Maybe I should let it be known that when I stand up and you continue to speak, you are not on TV and your voice is not

being heard. I would like you to sit down when I stand up. In the meantime, I was trying my best to make sure that the government side, which was heckling, remained quiet so you could ask your

question. I'm going to ask you now to put your question in 30 seconds.

Mr Klees: Can I have an undertaking from the minister that she will ensure that the entire issue of pooling is reviewed so that the regions in

the GTA not only are required to transfer millions of dollars to the city of Toronto, but they also have a say in how that money is spent so that there's accountability to the regions for the funds

they transfer?

Hon Ms Pupatello: Let me just be clear. One of the largest costs in social services that is pooled and that municipalities pay for is the IT

system your government built, which was so wildly expensive, which far exceeds any costs that were anticipated, and you actually shared 50% of the costs with municipalities.

Let me suggest to this member that he was a minister at the cabinet table when they were reviewing social assistance, when that government created workfare.

They actually created a system that prevents people from getting a job. That's what people wanted when --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. The member from Oak Ridges.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It seems to me that the only way I can --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. You were not able to finish that question, no. The only way I can get some order is to maybe start naming some members. I

will start warning them, and naming them.

A new question.

AUTISM SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The Provincial Auditor's report shows that

your autism program is in complete chaos. Some 1,200 kids were on a waiting list at the end of March. Children who got some IBI service were regularly shortchanged the hours they were promised.

Some $16.7 million that was budgeted for the program was never spent, some of that money under your government. The auditor also said your ministry does not have adequate oversight procedures in

place to ensure that providers are spending funds to assist children and their families. Today we learned that an internal review that you ordered some six months ago has not been delivered and no

one seems to have any idea when it will be completed.

I ask you, Minister, can you explain to families with autistic children why it is that you have no idea what is going on in this program and why they are not

getting the IBI treatment they need?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I would like to thank the member

for the question. I'd like to thank the Provincial Auditor for his report, and we will look at the recommendations very seriously.

Our government supported the Provincial Auditor going in because we knew there were problems with this program. We knew that kids were waiting. We knew that

children with autism were on waiting lists, and languishing on waiting lists that did not qualify for IBI. We have made changes even before the Provincial Auditor's report. The member opposite

knows very well that I supported the Provincial Auditor going in. I was asking simple questions and not getting any answers. I was just as appalled as the member opposite.

But we didn't wait for this report. We have already gotten started in fixing the problems. We have already standardized the reporting procedures so that the

wait lists will be standardized across the province. We are reaching 20% more children with autism under the age of six with a new investment of $10 million for IBI therapy. We've hired 40 more to

date. We have also doubled the number of transition coordinators, from 13 to 26, to help children move smoothly from preschool programs into schools.

We supported the Provincial Auditor coming in. We support transparency.

Ms Martel: What the auditor made clear was that after a year in government this minister has no idea what is going on with this program in her

ministry. That's the reality. For example, the Provincial Auditor reported that there were 1,200 children on a waiting list at the end of March, double the number of children actually getting

service. Yet one of your staff members told the media today that it's not 1,200, that it's hundreds more than that.

The Provincial Auditor made some very important recommendations. Instead of implementing those recommendations, you have announced that you are going to have

another review, the end of which we might see some time next spring.

Here is a report from the Ombudsman that was released in June. Here is the report from the Provincial Auditor that was released last week. Instead of ordering

another review, instead of stalling and delaying even more, why don't you implement the recommendations from these two people and actually change the system so children can get the IBI service they

need?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: It's very interesting how this member is misinterpreting everything I have said. She asked for me to support this and I

wholeheartedly supported the Provincial Auditor going in. This review was in place when we announced the new strategy.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member for Nickel Belt.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: This review is not a response to this Provincial Auditor's report. Everything I'm doing in this new ministry has an

evaluation component to it. For the member opposite --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member from Nickel Belt, I'm going to warn you.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: For the member opposite to insinuate that the review is in response to a report that was just tabled last week,

Speaker, is disingenuous at the most.

This evaluation component has been in place for some months. The member knows very well that these evaluations take time. In the meantime, I'm going to take a

look at the Provincial Auditor's report and implement the recommendations and take them very seriously.

The member knows very, very well that this government supports transparency. That's why we sent the Provincial Auditor in, and we'll do it again for any

program that we are suspicious of having been mismanaged in the past.

The Speaker: Member for Peterborough.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Peterborough.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Nickel Belt. I'm naming the member for Nickel Belt. Order.

Ms Martel was escorted from the chamber.

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): My question today is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I'm concerned that there is some

misunderstanding regarding the Ontario disaster relief assistance program and how it applies to Peterborough.

An

article in the Peterborough Examiner of November 16, 2004, appears to be unclear on the process of how flood relief cheques will be issued by the province

to the flood committee.

Minister, you will remember the Peterborough Examiner editorial of July 21 which stated that home and business owners can be covered for 90% of the eligible

costs under the ODRAP program. Can you please inform my constituents how the program works?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Yes, I would be very pleased to set the

record straight.

As the member knows, to date we have provided $8.5 million to the city of Peterborough and the county, and the three adjacent municipalities. These advance

payments are for municipal emergency cleanup, infrastructure repairs and early assistance to the victims of recent floods.

The ODRAP program has been around since 1965. It provides financial assistance to residents, farmers and small business owners who have sustained losses as a

result of an occurrence like the flood this past summer. Under the program, the province will contribute up to $2 for every dollar raised, to an amount necessary to settle all the eligible claims

-- up to 90% of all eligible uninsured private costs. I know that the relief committee has raised $3.2 million so far. So all of the victims will be receiving the maximum amount that's available

under the program.

Mr Leal: Thank you so much for setting the record straight. It certainly supports Mayor Sutherland's comment that, "the province has been

phenomenal.... We've had our issues with the province in the past, but this is not one of those times." Mayor Sutherland understands that when the people of Peterborough and the surrounding area

needed the province to respond quickly, the McGuinty government stood up to the plate -- not a johnny-come-lately.

Minister, please inform my constituents how the McGuinty government and the Peterborough area flood relief committee have worked together to assist those

members of my community to recover from this disaster.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: I'm very pleased to say that immediate action was taken. As a matter of fact, within three hours of the occurrence happening

last July, Minister Kwinter and Dr James Young, the commissioner of emergency management, arrived on the scene in Peterborough. On the same day that the disaster relief was applied for by the

municipality, I was personally on hand to give them the down payment cheque of $5 million.

To date, over $2 million has been sent to something like 3,100 households, farms and small businesses. The Peterborough area flood relief committee has now

adjusted all the claims, which are $9.4 million, and as of November 18 will have completed its fundraising efforts, estimated to be a total of $3.2 million. As a result of the committee's efforts,

final cheques will be issued to all eligible victims by the end of November.

PIT BULLS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier, if I can break in on his conversation. As the Premier

around the cabinet table, you have ultimate responsibility for any legislation that you bring forward and table in this House. As such, I think you have the responsibility to respond to questions.

You tend to refer them on a frequent basis, even if a minister has not done a good job.

I have a question dealing with a public safety issue, which the Premier has declined to respond to up to this point in time, and that's the need for real and

meaningful dangerous dog legislation in Ontario, not the meaningless fluff put forward by the Attorney General to get him face time on the television networks. Premier, will you stand up today and

indicate to this House that you will withdraw this terrible piece of legislation, this flawed piece of legislation, and introduce real, meaningful, effective dangerous dog legislation in

Ontario?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Attorney General will be very pleased to take that

question.

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): "A weight has

been lifted from my shoulders knowing that this legislation will reduce the chances of someone else being viciously attacked by a pit bull, as I have.... I commend" -- the government -- "for taking

action and banning this particularly menacing breed of animal across Ontario," said Darlene Wagner, a letter carrier in Chatham who lost her right ear and broke both wrists as a result of an attack

by two pit bulls. That's why we're doing that: to prevent further incidents like this.

Mr Runciman: We know how phoney this minister is. We saw it on CityTV when they asked him to point out a pit bull. He pointed to one that he

had been trained to point to, and CityTV had changed the face. So he didn't know, and that's a fact. He doesn't know because he didn't consult, he didn't talk to anybody. He didn't talk to experts.

He has no idea --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I'm going to warn the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Public Infrastructure

Renewal. I need order in this House.

Mr Runciman: Their main criterion is what looks good on the nightly news, not what makes sense, what really works. That's the case in point

here. I ask the minister to stand up, pull back from this, talk to all of the organizations, all of the experts in this area who are opposed to this and say it's bad legislation. What happens if we

have a spate of Doberman or Rottweiler attacks? He is not dealing with dangerous dogs. That's what we're concerned about -- dangerous owners. He's not dealing with how you fund this, how you

enforce this. I ask the minister to pull back --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Bryant: We have consulted with all those groups, and we've heard from them. I understand the member seems to be getting some

opposition. The legislation the government "is proposing makes our playgrounds, sidewalks and neighbourhoods safer.... It is clearly in the best interest of public safety and it will help to

protect our officers who face these vicious animals when carrying out their duties." Who said that? Chief Julian Fantino.

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question again is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yesterday, I asked you what I

thought was a very simple question, so I'm going to try it again today. On October 21, you assured this House that you would review the Chenier case for a sales tax rebate on the new van to

transport their disabled child. My executive assistant has been in constant contact with your special assistant Dave Momotiuk on the following dates: October 13, October 18, October 21, October 28,

November 2 and again today. In fact, I wrote to you directly on October 28 to reinforce what was being said. You have yet to respond. You have yet to live up to the word you gave this House. I am

asking you today. Instead, your office has sent Mr Chenier back to the March of Dimes. This is not what you promised to do on the 21st. It's not what you agreed to do in this House. I'm asking you

again, are you prepared to review this issue yourself and make a decision on behalf of this family?

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm very happy to once again

address this issue. What we did was improve the home and vehicle modification program to actually expand the program to include, for the first time in Ontario, assisting families with children with

disabilities. That's very important, because we need to expand services to all Ontarians who are vulnerable and need help.

When this particular member asked a question in the House, the reason his office has been in such contact with my special assistant is because our office keeps

calling this member for more information that apparently he doesn't want to divulge. So we went through our eastern MPP, our own Jean-Marc Lalonde, to actually get the name of the family. My

eastern office for the region actually called the family directly. What we understand is that the family was told not to call the March of Dimes, in fact, to try to make this a political issue,

which is really a shame, because what I see again in this House is that we want to help people. We need to understand pieces of information. They may actually still qualify for the tax rebate.

That's why information is so important.

Mr Prue: Madam Minister, I don't need a lecture from you, but I think maybe you need to give a lecture to Mr Momotiuk to actually do the job

that you've hired him to do.

But I want to ask you another question, because I heard the Minister of Consumer and Business Affairs today talking about the new complaints system. I want to

send this complaint to Mr Chenier and I want you to tell him whether he should answer the following questions:

Who has given false information on the Web site that he relied on? That's question number 4. I think maybe, you know, the government has some

responsibility.

Question number 9: "Briefly describe your concerns about the business." They advertised a product that was not available.

Number 10: What do they want the government to do, or the business to do? "Honour your commitment as advertised" -- I'm going to suggest he write that.

If this is good enough for the businesses, it should be good enough for your government, and you should do the right thing. You should apologize to him and you

should take the action that you expect business to do.

Hon Ms Pupatello: What's really critical when we're trying to deal with a tax credit program is that there's some basic information we need to

have, basic information like family income. That's why we were asking this MPP to give us information to allow us to contact the family, which we eventually did on our own anyway. What we do know

is that this family may well qualify not just for the program of tax credits that still exists to some extent, but also through the March of Dimes. This ministry is there to help people in need.

What we need is information -- contact information, income information etc -- that we repeatedly asked for. I'm not going to play games and drag a family through this House, because we want to get

to the bottom of whether they would actually qualify for help. That's what we've done and we will continue to do, regardless of where they come from.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): That brings us to the end of oral questions.

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Today in the Hamilton Spectator I have one quote

Interjections.

Hon Mr Watson: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. Howard said, however --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Again, I rule on points of order, not you.

First, I couldn't hear the member.

Interjections.

The Speaker: What you raised wasn't a point of order. Are you asking for unanimous consent about -- would you state it, please?

Hon Mr Watson: Given what I just read, I'd seek unanimous consent that Bill 70 be discharged from the standing committee, with third reading

this afternoon and a final vote at 6 pm this evening. Clearly the NDP indicated they were not being obstructionist, so I'd like to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

I think what I heard is that you're asking that Bill 70 be discharged from committee. I didn't hear anything else. Is that what you're asking for?

Hon Mr Watson: That it be discharged from standing committee, with third reading this afternoon and the final vote at 6 pm this evening. This

is the same motion the NDP claimed they were not trying to obstruct.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Are you speaking to the same motion?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

The Speaker: I have a point of order I'm dealing with now. I am dealing with a point of order, please.

I think, when you asked for unanimous consent, I heard a no.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Do you have a point of order? Okay. It's time for --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could we get some order here, please.

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Does Hansard record that it was the NDP who

said no to the unanimous consent motion?

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. You should know better than that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to go to petitions, and I'll recognize the first person who will stand up, not who is standing.

PETITIONS

PIT BULLS

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

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

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

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

breeds,

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

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

I affix my signature to this.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

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

"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."

This has been signed by over 300 residents of Ontario, and I affix my signature as well.

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

services in the Ontario health insurance plan.

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I send this to you by page Savannah.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have about 500 names from the Markdale Chiropractic Centre 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."

I've also signed this.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a mere few hundred of the literally hundreds of thousands of petitions that have come in on this

subject, and you're hearing some of them today. It reads:

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario

"Re: support for chiropractic services in Ontario health insurance plan:

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I will sign this petition because I fully support it.

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have an interesting petition. I know that you too will agree with this one. It's to this assembly and to the

Minister of the Environment.

"Whereas we find lots of pop cans and beer bottles in our parks and children's playgrounds;

"Whereas it is, therefore, unsafe for our children to play in these parks and playgrounds;

"Whereas many of these bottles and cans are broken and mangled, therefore causing harm and danger to our children;

"Whereas Ontarians are dumping about a billion aluminum cans worth $27 million into landfill" sites "every year instead of recycling them;

"Whereas the undersigned want to see legislation passed to have deposits paid on cans and bottles, which would be returnable and therefore not found littering

our parks and streets;

"Whereas the province of Quebec already has legislation obligating the vendors to accept the refund on all pop drinks, whether bottles or cans;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, strongly urge and demand that the Ontario government institutes a collection program that will include all pop drinks, bottles

of beer, wine, Tetra Pak juices and can containers to be refundable in order to reduce littering and protect our environment."

Since I wholeheartedly agree with this petition, I will certainly sign it.

LANDFILL

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): These people are appealing to the Liberal government to halt Toronto garbage coming to Haldimand

county.

"Whereas the new Adams Mine Lake Act -- as of June 17, 2004 -- amends the Environmental Protection Act to prohibit waste in a lake; and

"Whereas in the act, `lake' results from human activities, and directly influences or is directly influenced by groundwater; and

"Whereas Edwards landfill is to be 15 acres excavated 29 feet in a wetland/slough forest;

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

"Halt the Edwards landfill site excavation."

I agree with the 1,500 people who have signed these petitions, and I sign my name.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a couple of hundred names attached to this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I support this petition and I will sign my name to it.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to read the following petition:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore

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

An Act to protect anaphylactic

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

I'm pleased to fix my signature to this petition.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition given to me by David Anderson, who is a councillor in the town of Minto. I want to

thank him for circulating this, and it reads:

"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."

It's signed by a significant number of my constituents. I, of course, have signed it as well.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have the following petition:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Re: support for chiropractic services in Ontario health insurance plan:

"Whereas,

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

need;

"Whereas 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; and

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

million in other health care costs; and

"Whereas 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."

It's signed by approximately 150 people, mostly from the Barrie area. I am in agreement and I affix my signature thereto.

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it's 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."

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I have a petition from 2,601 individuals in the riding of Lanark-Carleton regarding chiropractic

services in the Ontario health insurance plan.

This petition is similar to others we've heard. It talks about 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic service and now will no longer be able to get it.

Those with reduced ability to pay, including seniors, will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family physician offices. It talks about the costs to the government overall being over

$200 million, and the fact that there was no consultation with regard to it.

They ask the Legislative Assembly to reverse this decision announced on May 18 in the provincial budget, and to maintain OHIP coverage for chiropractic

services.

I have signed that petition.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Simcoe North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with

the answer to his question given by the Minister of Transportation concerning photo radar lobbies. This matter will be debated at 6 pm.

OPPOSITION DAY

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I move that the Legislative Assembly call upon the government,

To fulfill the promises made by Liberal Party leader Dalton McGuinty during the 2003 election, according to the original cost estimates as provided by the

Liberal Party of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Runciman has moved opposition day number 3.

Mr Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in what I think is a very timely debate, given the fact that the Canadian Taxpayers

Federation has taken the government to court. Those proceedings began this week in terms of the violation of the signed pledges made by the Liberal Party of Ontario and, more specifically, the

leader of the Liberal Party, Mr McGuinty, during last fall's campaign. Mr Speaker, I'm sure you recall that event. You may even have attended. I'm not sure. I think I saw your face in one of those

pictures, although you may not want to have it publicly acknowledged at this point. If that's the case, I apologize.

Given what's happened with respect to the failure to meet those signed commitments, those signed pledges, I think we've heard in the House, for some months

now, the Premier and his ministers stand in their place and defend breaking these signature promises, these signature pledges, pointing to the fact they were facing a financial situation that was

unexpected. We can debate that until the cows come home.

We believe strongly on this side of the House that we would have balanced the budget. The Liberals took office and spent like Liberals. They increased spending

by over $4 billion in the six months they governed during the last fiscal year.

But in any event, that's an excuse they continue to use, and they've gained some mileage. The media have accepted it as the gospel, even though it is not a

fact. The real fact is that the Conservative Party, if we'd retained power, would have had another balanced budget.

The other element of the signed pledge which Mr McGuinty and his cabinet colleagues and other members of the Liberal Party refuse to talk about, refuse to

acknowledge, refuse to respond to questions in this House -- and we saw another example of that today when I asked the Premier a specific question about the second element of that signed pledge,

and that was the commitment that if indeed the government concluded that for whatever reasons they had to raise taxes, they would go to the people, they would explicitly request the support of the

people of Ontario for any tax change, any tax increase. They can talk about the unexpected challenges they faced, and you can accept that or not accept that. But if you look at the other element of

that signed commitment, that signed pledge to hold a referendum, they have no excuse. They have no justification for not fulfilling that promise.

Why did they not call a referendum? Why did they not keep that promise? Why did they not give the voters of Ontario an opportunity to have input, have views

expressed on that very critical issue? They talk about democratic reform. They get up on their high horses day after day: "We believe in democratic reform. We believe in MPPs having the ability to

speak out." But we see the lie put to that every day by their own MPPs getting up and speaking the government line, not defending cuts in health care to hospitals in their own ridings; getting up

again and spewing the government line, not standing up acting as independents; following the so-called direction, which proves to be not much direction at all with respect to having freedom to

operate and freedom to represent your own constituents within the Liberal Party. That's just not happening.

I want to talk about this issue because I think it's very important. The Liberal government has imposed this very significant tax hike on Ontario citizens,

breaking a signature promise. A record tax increase in the province of Ontario, yet they failed miserably to consult, and breaking another very important promise. The lawyers who are representing

the government in this lawsuit process are government lawyers. I'm not sure what they're paid. We know they both are paid well over $100,000 a year. We know there are other government lawyers

supporting them. I think the average is around $195 an hour for them to defend the Liberal Party. The taxpayers are footing the bill for the Liberal Party to defend breaking two signature promises,

two key promises, that got them elected to government. That's shameful.

The ministers and the Premier and his lackeys in the back rows all laugh at these kinds of issues, while the Premier sits up in Rosedale in a $750,000 home

paid for, supposedly, by the Liberal Party of Ontario. The reality is, we know those are donations to the Liberal Party of Ontario, and people who make those donations get tax receipts, tax rebates

for up to 75% of the money contributed to the Liberal Party of Ontario. So I think we can make a very valid argument -- certainly the Liberals did it when they were on this side of the House --

that the people of Ontario and taxpayers you're imposing this tax on paid for those posh quarters in Rosedale that the Premier of Ontario now inhabits. Is that right? Is that right? No, it's not

right.

The Premier of Ontario, who imposes this heavy, heavy tax on Ontario citizens without giving them the right he promised them to vote on it, also goes to the

barber and spends $50 for a haircut. This is not a Premier. This is a president. He thinks he's a president. He's behaving in a presidential manner. That's wrong and the people of Ontario know it's

wrong.

He said he was going to support working men and women, working families in this province. He is not supporting working men and families. He's imposing a heavy

tax burden on them and throwing out a solemn commitment he made to consult them, to get their advice and to get their input.

This government and this Premier do not believe in democratic reform. What they believe in is surface politics. We see it in this pit bull bill. This is a joke

-- a sad, sick joke, especially on the families who have suffered attacks from vicious dogs -- a very sick joke. This minister should be resigning over this legislation. We should be dealing with

dangerous dog attacks, not responding to what's going to look good on the nightly news. The Attorney General is renowned for caring about what looks good on the nightly news, not meaningful public

safety legislation.

We saw it in the "bring your own booze" legislation where the consumer minister, gets up -- and they both issued press releases -- saying, "MADD supports us.

All of these organizations support us." In reality, they didn't even consult them. They did not consult them. They didn't talk to them at all. They told them, "This is it. It's a fait accompli, but

we're going to put in a press release that you support it."

The Attorney General did the same thing with pit bulls. Now we hear organization after organization, humane societies, veterinarians, totally disagree with

this. They think it's wrong-headed. That's the growing trademark of this Liberal government, seat-of-the-pants operations. They're totally incompetent. The Premier doesn't have the guts, the

intestinal fortitude, to stand up and get rid of a minister like that.

Withdraw that terrible legislation and do the right thing.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's a pleasure to debate the motion brought forward by Mr Runciman. I can tell you that we in the third

party were shocked as well with regard to the performance of this government, with regard to its broken promises and its weak leadership that we've seen so far in Ontario. We see it every day here

in the Legislature. Certainly this motion is one that's well timed in terms of the kinds of things we have to deal with on a regular basis.

I want to make a couple of initial statements in regard to some quotes my leader has made in this Legislature with respect to this issue. One speaks directly

to the way people in Ontario are receiving this government's performance. "During the last 12 months, ordinary Ontarians who chose change have learned the hard way that when it comes to weak

leadership, excuses and broken promises, Dalton McGuinty takes the cake," NDP leader Howard Hampton said. "During the election, he promised a better deal for ordinary Ontarians, better services and

no new taxes. He said we could have our cake and eat it, too. But now all he's got to say to all those Ontarians who voted for change is, `Let them eat cake.'" That's what Howard Hampton said.

Quite frankly, that in a nutshell really speaks to the problems the people of Ontario -- the people of Hamilton East -- are telling me they have with this government. The bottom line is, 231

election promises broken is just not enough.

Not to raise taxes? We know that one went out the door right away. We know that, in one short year, the McGuinty Liberals broke faith with Ontario voters.

That's all we can call it: they broke faith. They broke faith on very many levels, not only in terms of particular policy areas they had promised they were going to go in, but then also major

promises, major commitments that they made around the whole system of taxation and whether or not regular ordinary Ontarians would be seeing an increase in taxes.

Many of these issues came to light for me probably right after the election took place in October. But if you go through the list, which I don't happen to have

in front of me, but hope to within the next little while, it starts off very clearly with the reversal, the rollback of the decision on the Oak Ridges moraine.

I come from a community that's now looking at current legislation. Granted, there are many good pieces to that that are coming forward, but really when the

first step on an environmental issue is a misstep, it gets people in communities across the province worried about the real commitment this government has to environmental issues. When thousands of

houses are given the green light on the Oak Ridges moraine, people just shake their heads in wonderment, trying to figure out what exactly the government meant when, only a few short months prior

to that, they were promising to halt development on the Oak Ridges moraine.

What about tolls on the 407? That was another key promise that was broken.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to discharge

section 1 of Bill 70

from committee and to vote on it immediately so that in Hamilton, the consumers can be protected. We can make it the law right now if we could have unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? No.

Interjections.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask for unanimous consent for the Legislature not to sit

tonight, in view of the fact that you, Speaker, are holding a dinner for all female members of the Legislature. I'm on duty in here tonight; one of my bills is up and I have the lead on it. I think

that this is important to women, and I would ask for unanimous consent so that all women in this chamber are free to attend.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

I heard a no.

Interjection.

Ms Horwath: I just wanted to continue my --

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to give another opportunity to the member

for Hamilton East, that we bring Bill 70 back from committee, that it be debated at third reading and the vote be held at 6 o'clock this evening. I think that's a fair suggestion.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker: No.

Order. It seems to me this matter is --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The minister has raised it and many people have raised that same matter. Maybe I'll ask the House leaders to get together

and work out some agreement so we can settle it, rather than disrupting the House from time to time on these matters.

May I then ask the member from Hamilton East to continue her debate.

Ms Horwath: Nonetheless, back to the matter at hand, which is the issue of the many broken promises of the Liberal government and the motion

that was brought forward today, on opposition day, to deal with some of the issues the opposition thinks are important. Of course, one of those is all the broken promises of the Liberal

government.

I was starting to say, before I was interrupted by the various points of order that came forward, that one of the next key election promises that was broken by

the Liberal government was the promise they had made on the 407 tolls. Quite frankly, that is still an extremely frustrating and sore issue for people. There have basically been no real efforts, no

real attempt, no real action in regard to making sure that that promise had been kept; in fact, it's a complete reversal in regard to whether or not the government was actually going to be able to

implement any kind of real control over the rapidly rising tolls on the 407.

Of course, the list is massive, and I'm just going to continue to bring up various issues that have arisen, affecting my community and others. One of them is

the issue of the hydro rate cap, and that's another one that came up very quickly, almost immediately after the election. The government didn't make good on that promise and still hasn't made good

on that promise. In fact, right now, in Hamilton East, we have calls coming to my constituency office on a regular basis in regard to people's inability to pay the rising costs of hydro. Rather

than actually address the substantive concern that people have with this issue, the minister continues to go down the path of privatization of this sector, continues to increase the amount of money

that regular Ontarians are paying for hydro and, in fact, not deal with the reality that there needs to be some real examination and review of the Ontario Energy Board's ability to make regulations

that require hydro corporations to deal fairly with people who are in low-income situations and are unable to keep up with their bills, and who are then slapped with a thousand different charges,

fines, reconnection fees and security deposits. So they're not only having their initial difficulty in terms of not being able to pay the presenting bill, but then all of a sudden they have

enormous amounts of extra charges heaped on their account. It really becomes absolutely impossible for people to make those payments and to dig themselves out of the hole.

Yes, certainly at the beginning people might have some problems with paying their bills, and that's something that is regrettable. But to then further penalize

people, to further dig them into a hole, to further push them into a corner, is just unacceptable. It's just not an appropriate way to deal with a very difficult situation, when we know that

particularly people who are most vulnerable, people who are most challenged in terms of their ability to pay, are the ones who are getting stuck with the greatest amount of charges and the greatest

number of requests for security deposits. That's the case with hydro and that's certainly the case with gas. Quite frankly, it's something that needs to be addressed by this government.

But that's not all when it comes to broken promises, as we all know. We know that there was also a promise made around insurance rates. I believe that was a

promise that people really did expect some action on. Unfortunately, it's yet another promise that was broken. I know that as a result of just the fact that there's been inaction by the government

on this particular issue, the rates are up; they're up everywhere. The government will continue to come into this House and claim that there are all kinds of people who have reductions in their

insurance rates. I'll tell you that I haven't met a single one. I have not met a single person, personally, who has come to me and said, "My auto insurance rates are down. What a great thing the

government has been doing on auto insurance rates." Quite frankly, if there's a list of Ontarians whose auto insurance has gone down significantly with this government's inaction, I think it will

be a very big surprise to the vast majority of members of this Legislature. Nonetheless, that's just another broken promise and another thing that has not been accomplished by the government.

We can talk more and more about the various pledges that this government has broken. How about the one that we talked about earlier, that we've talked about

several times, in fact, and that we've seen petition upon petition on: "We're going to improve the health care system"? We heard from our leader today during question period that injured workers

are now making significant comments around the fact that their ability to obtain the health care services they need to deal with injuries that are workplace-related cannot be afforded in the same

way it could be afforded before. Why is that? Because, with no consultation, with no discussion, with no opportunity for the communities across this province to have any say on the matter,

arbitrarily, the government just decided they were going to delist chiropractic services. That was done, from my perspective, on the backs of people who are not able to pay for those services, on

the backs of people who are trying to take proactive health care measures in their own personal lives, proactive health care measures like chiropractic and physiotherapy. These things are

problematic. That's yet another broken promise that this government has made.

There are many, many more. I don't have the list in front of me, but I think about the P3 hospitals, which is another one. There's quite a lot of evidence that

the people of Ontario are extremely disappointed and unhappy with the way things are happening in the province and with the number of broken promises this government has continued to make. It's

extremel