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

March 23, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Mar-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 23 March 2004 Mardi 23 mars 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

ST JOSEPH'S HEALTH CENTRE

AIR QUALITY

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

SCHOOL SAFETY

WINCHESTER DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SMALL BUSINESS

HYDRO ONE

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KEEP YOUR PROMISES ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE TENIR LES PROMESSES ÉLECTORALES

USE OF PROPS IN THE HOUSE

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AIR QUALITY

CHILD CARE

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

HIGHWAY 69

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

GANG VIOLENCE

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

TOURISM

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LANDFILL

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

TUITION FEES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

PROPERTY TAXATION

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LANDFILL

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE

OF MEDICARE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'ENGAGEMENT

D'ASSURER L'AVENIR

DE L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): The small and medium-sized business owners in my beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka are deeply

concerned by the recent course of action the Liberal government has been taking. First came the increase in corporate taxation to medium-sized businesses. Second, as of last week, came the removal

of the hard cap on property taxes for businesses in Toronto and 34 municipalities around the province. Both of these are not only two more broken Liberal promises, but they will have detrimental

effects on small and medium-sized businesses everywhere in Ontario.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, small and medium-sized enterprises employ more than half of working Ontarians and create most of

the net new jobs. These businesses are unquestionably key to the overall well-being of our economy. Why, then, are the Liberals breaking promises by increasing the tax burden on them? According to

the CFIB, getting rid of the property tax rate cap increases the need for financing, acts as a barrier to business formation and growth and accelerates business failures in periods of economic

downturn. This is not the message that small and medium-sized business owners, the employers of more than half of this great province's population, want to hear.

Businesses in my constituency are worried that this is part of a trend of backing away from promises and increasing the burden on small and medium-sized

businesses all over the province. It is key that our businesses feel confident that the government is on their side, and right now I can tell you that is not the case.

ST JOSEPH'S HEALTH CENTRE

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): Last month I was thrilled to attend an open house at St Joseph's Health Centre in Guelph to celebrate the

centre's accreditation by the Canadian Council on Health Services Accreditation. St Joseph's was granted a three-year accreditation, the highest standard that can be achieved under the CCHSA

criteria. The surveyors found that residents were well cared for and that residents and families were very pleased with the excellent care they received.

St Joseph's Health Centre offers a unique combination of services. As a hospital it provides complex continuing care and rehabilitation services for Guelph and

Wellington county. One wing is a long-term-care residence. Outpatient services are available to people of all ages.

The centre also offers excellent community programs for adults with an acquired brain injury and for seniors living in the community. Many families rely on St

Joseph's Alzheimer daycare program.

St Joseph's Health Centre is a new facility. It is a tribute to the hard work of their dedicated staff, volunteers and physicians that they have achieved the

highest level of accreditation in such a short time. Congratulations to everyone at St Joseph's.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Ladies and gentlemen of this Legislature, it's true the Liberals have floated yet another trial balloon. Why

have they done this? Because the new McGuinty government wants you and all Ontarians to forget about the Sorbara scandal.

The new McGuinty government must have been up in the wee hours of the morning inflating this latest trial balloon with lots of hot air, because the first any of

us heard of it was early this morning. It certainly wasn't in the Liberal election platform as one of McGuinty's dozens and dozens of promises. This time, the Liberals are talking about phasing out

over four years the Drive Clean emissions testing program for all cars, vans and SUVs.

I want to see Minister Dombrowsky's exit strategy for this program. There are hundreds of garages that have put in about $100,000 each for equipment and training

to be certified as Drive Clean facilities. I want to know if and how they will be compensated for this significant investment.

Secondly, as part of the same trial balloon, the environment minister also announced that tougher standards would be applied to emissions testing for diesel

trucks and buses. Guess what, Minister? You already announced this in a press release dated December 21, 2003.

As a member of the opposition, I must question the motive and timing behind the Drive Clean announcement. Why would a minister who seems so concerned about clean

water not be concerned about clean air, especially since 60% of smog is caused by emissions? Is this the same government that promised to eliminate coal-fired hydro generation by 2007? I think

finance minister Greg Sorbara might have the answer to this very important question.

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I rise in honour of a great Canadian institution, a centre of culture and showcase of the arts. I rise to

celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Royal Ontario Museum, the ROM.

I should like to quote for a moment from the high eloquence of William Thorsell, the director and CEO of the ROM. He said: "The founders of the Royal Ontario

Museum lived a century ago in a relatively small and isolated place called Toronto, Ontario, Canada. But they were men and women of the world. And so they insisted on bringing material evidence of

that wider world into the heart of their society, to broaden its perspectives and to inspire the curiosity of their children and neighbours about the unfamiliar." With the Renaissance ROM program,

this legacy continues.

On behalf of the people of Ontario, I would like to recognize the thousands of individuals who have volunteered their time and creative vision. In particular,

I'd like to recognize the extraordinary contributions of two great Canadians: Mr Michael Lee Chin, whose donation of $30 million will create a magnificent cultural landmark within the ROM itself,

and as well, the long-standing, dedicated contributions of the Weston family, and in particular the Honourable Hilary Weston, the chair of this program and former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario,

whose family recently donated $20 million.

The ROM is the embodiment of the collective spirit of Ontarians, and we wish it and its patrons all success in the next 90 years.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Crumbling walls and ceilings, rotten window frames, lead in the water, leaking pipes, freezing classrooms

and aging, even dangerous, electrical systems: These are the conditions of some of Ontario's public and Catholic schools. Don't take it from me. Take it from the Toronto Star reporter who visited

many of our city's schools and found them in a deplorable state.

I've got a prop here that I won't be able to use, but it's here. There are some interesting pictures in there.

There is a $6-billion backlog of major maintenance, repairs, upgrades and routine maintenance in our schools.

It was so wonderful that the Premier, Mr McGuinty, sent MPPs to visit schools, because I am sure they will all confirm the conclusions of the report in this Star

article that I can't show. Mr Kennedy himself has toured some of these schools and knows the problem, and he estimated the cost to be around $6 billion. I am sure that the money is rolling out,

even as we speak.

Knowing that the Premier, the Minister of Education and all the Liberal MPPs who went out and visited the schools are aware of the crisis, the question I have

is, when can we expect the money?

I have to agree with Mr Kennedy when he said in opposition, "Kids can't wait."

WINCHESTER DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I rise today to speak briefly about hope, determination and the difference we can all make.

On November 26, 2003, I rose in this House to pose a question to Minister Smitherman, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, regarding a rural hospital, the Winchester District Memorial

Hospital, in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

On that day, I asked the minister to meet with community representatives and myself to discuss the previous government's disregard for the Winchester district

hospital's critical care needs. The hospital has not been renovated in years, and the building is dated and inhibits efficiency. The layout and design of the building are at odds with today's

standards, being modelled after traditional acute care service.

I am elated to announce in this House today that the minister did meet with myself and community representatives on March 16 and delivered real, positive change

to the citizens of the community. On March 16, Minister Smitherman announced approval for a planning and design grant of up to $4 million to support our community hospital's redevelopment planning.

This is just the boost this community hospital needed in order to reach their goal for their aptly named Renewing the Vision campaign.

This community should be commended and modelled upon for their extreme effort in fundraising for the redevelopment campaign for the hospital. In a greater

community of 2,500 people, the citizens of Winchester and area have been able to fundraise $13.2 million toward an ultimate goal of $15 million. I praise them and the community's effort. I

certainly know that our ministry appreciates what they have done.

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to discuss an area of great concern to many constituents of my riding. Since the

swearing-in of this government at the end of October last year, they have made a number of decisions that have adversely affected thousands of small businesses across Ontario. Soon after coming to

power they removed the hydro rate cap, and that has caused large increases in the cost of hydro for small business, farmers and individuals alike. Many businesses will have to lay off workers or

close their doors this year because of this devastating change to their bottom line.

Promise number 32 on the great list of your campaign promises says that you will help businesses cut their electricity consumption by 5% before 2007. What they

didn't realize is that you were going to achieve this goal by driving them out of business altogether.

This government has also broken promise number 99. They said repeatedly throughout the campaign that they would not raise small business taxes. The Premier also

said in his television advertisements that he would not raise our taxes. By lifting the hard cap on business taxes in communities across Ontario, you are once again putting into jeopardy thousands

and thousands of jobs. Small businesses across Ontario rely on the government to keep a stable tax environment without surprises. You have let down many families across Ontario with these

decisions, and you are damaging the economic well-being of hundreds of communities all over the province.

HYDRO ONE

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I rise today to discuss something that I read in the paper this morning. the Globe and Mail reports that

Michael Gourley was given a $105,000 untendered contract from Hydro One. Worse, the only thing Mr Gourley produced for the money was one page of e-mail. Not only were the Tories giving away

taxpayers' money to their friends, but they did not even require any work to be done before they cut the cheque.

The Globe this morning also tells us that Paul Rhodes was given over $300,000 to tell Hydro bosses to stroke Mike Harris's ego.

Tom Long was given over a million dollars. What advice did he come up with? That Hydro One should underprice their stock on purpose to make the private sector

happy at the expense of the people of Ontario.

Hydro also gave Leslie Noble a quarter of a million dollars. What did she produce? A memo telling Hydro to give the Tories social invitations; in other words,

waste taxpayers' money.

But there is some good news. Under this government we are going to respect and honour taxpayers' money.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With reference to that last statement, everyone should know that John Duffy, the

most prominent Liberal in Ontario, is actually Leslie Noble's partner.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I rise today to express our ongoing disappointment with this government's continuous lack of

commitment to transparency and accountability.

We all know that in November 2003, the chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, David Brown, sent a letter to this government's Minister of Finance, Greg

Sorbara, asking him to appoint Susan Wolburgh Jenah to serve as vice-chair of the OSC. By the way, Ms Jenah replaces Howard Wetston, who rendered judgment on former Liberal Premier Peterson's

activities as a member of a board of directors. We also know that on February 18, 2004, Ms Jenah's appointment went through cabinet.

What we do not know is why this government continues to avoid public scrutiny of their appointments. The standing committee on government agencies' traditional

mandate is to provide an opportunity to review intended appointments. As a result of the development and the conflict of interest that Minister Sorbara is in, the opposition's right to review the

appointment of Susan Jenah should not have been denied by a Liberal-dominated committee tactic.

Actions like this send a message that the government is trying to avoid public scrutiny of their appointments and raise questions of what we are trying to

hide.

Minister Sorbara put forward Ms Jenah to serve on the OSC while he knew that Royal Group Technologies was under investigation by the OSC.

When is this Liberal government going to live up to the ethical standards of transparency and accountability that the Ontario public expects and deserves?

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KEEP YOUR PROMISES ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'OBLIGATION DE TENIR LES PROMESSES ÉLECTORALES

Mr Wilson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 41,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act and the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 with respect to the election platforms of registered political

parties / Projet de loi 41, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le financement des élections et la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des députés à l'égard des programmes

électoraux des partis politiques inscrits.

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

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): Just an explanation with respect to the bill. The bill requires the leaders of political parties to file their

campaign promises with, first, the chief election officer. Then after the election, the leader of the governing party must file the promises made during the election writ period with the Integrity

Commissioner. The commissioner will include in his annual report a report card on whether or not the government is keeping the promises they made during the election period.

USE OF PROPS IN THE HOUSE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday you made a ruling with respect to a document that the member

for Timmins-James Bay held in his hand. I'm asking you respectfully, given the difficulty that might pose for all of us on both sides of the House -- for example, when the Minister of Finance

stands up to deliver his budget, he has a significant number of documents in front of him.

Mr Speaker, what I'm respectfully requesting from you is some clarification with respect to what you would deem as a prop when we raise questions or issues in

this House. We're looking for direction, explicit direction if that's possible, Mr Speaker.

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

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Let me deal with one point of order at a time.

Mr Kormos: I want to speak to that point of order.

The Speaker: Go ahead.

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: You didn't recognize me, Mr Speaker? Am I to take it off?

I appreciate the point of order made by the member. With respect, I'd ask you not to make a specific ruling in that regard. I would ask you to defer the matter.

This is something, in my view, that House leaders should discuss and perhaps make a joint submission to the Chair before the Chair takes a position that's unattractive to everybody, not just in the

current chamber but in subsequent chambers. So I would ask you to defer making any ruling in that regard. Let House leaders attempt to resolve the issue and offer their advice to you, not binding

you, of course, but their mere advice.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: I think the member for Welland-Thorold

makes very good sense -- and I love that tie. But I do think it's worthy of further discussion by all the House leaders, and I know Mr Runciman and others will have a point of view on that.

In the interim, we have relied historically on the judgment of the Speaker, and we continue to believe that's the right way to go, but perhaps it is time we give

clearer instruction to the Speaker about the views of the House on those matters.

The Speaker: I heard you very clearly. I think that whenever the time comes for the budget to be read and those documents are being prepared

and put forward, I would not regard them as props.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Premier, in April of last year, you said, "Nothing inspires me more than the opportunity to

combat the cynicism that far too many people feel about Ontario politics."

For the past month you have refused to answer the question about whether Mr Sorbara offered his resignation or whether you asked for it. Then apparently,

today, out of the blue at about 1:20 this afternoon, you decided that you would finally, after a month of refusing to answer this question, answer it for the benefit of a Global TV reporter. Can

you explain to me, why the change of heart after a month?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): As a general rule, I like to keep my conversations with my cabinet

ministers and with members of my caucus confidential, and I know the leader of the official opposition can appreciate that. But it became very apparent that somehow some negative inferences were

being drawn from a conversation which never took place. So, no, I did not ask for the minister's resignation, nor did he tender his resignation, because he did nothing wrong. He did nothing wrong,

in my judgment, but if you don't believe me, I say to the leader of the official opposition that I recommend the opinion offered by the Integrity Commissioner.

Mr Eves: This is about your judgment. That's what this whole discussion is about.

On February 18 of this year, as we pointed out yesterday, cabinet approved an order in council appointing Ms Jenah as vice-chair of the Ontario Securities

Commission. She's a very qualified individual indeed. There's no doubt about that. That isn't the point.

The point is that Ms Jenah was recommended by the Minister and Ministry of Finance to you and to your executive council for appointment and that this process

goes through the normal course: The chair of the Ontario Securities Commission wrote to the Minister of Finance back in November recommending her as a candidate, and then, finally, in February it

comes forth and the individual is appointed by the executive council.

Would you not consider it appropriate that the Minister of Finance, under these circumstances, knowing what he knew when this appointment came forward, would

declare a conflict to the secretary of cabinet, if he chose not to declare it to you, and would have that recorded and step aside for the purposes of deciding that particular order in council?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to remind the leader of the official opposition that this individual came to us strongly recommended by the Ontario

Securities Commission. Secondly, this was my appointment, not an appointment put forward by the Minister of Finance. Thirdly, the Integrity Commissioner addressed this issue when he specifically

said, "I see no violation of the Members' Integrity Act, 1994.... I do not think that you were in a position of conflict as a result of not taking the remedial action you took on February 25, 2004,

earlier." This ends the matter.

Mr Eves: With all due respect to the Premier, I have a copy of the Integrity Commissioner's letter here, and at no point in this five-page

letter does the Integrity Commissioner even remotely refer to the appointment of Ms Jenah. The point here is, is there a possible potential for conflict, and why would the Minister of Finance not

do the right thing when there was at least the potential for a conflict somewhere down the road? Knowing that the board of a corporation on which he sat for some period of time was at least under

review by the Ontario Securities Commission, knowing there was a possibility that Ms Jenah and others could be asked to sit in judgment of him and his fellow directors on that board, would not the

appropriate thing to do, would not the appropriate standard be, to declare this potential conflict and step aside?

The Integrity Commissioner does not deal with that in his judgment; he was not asked to. All he is able to do, and what he did, is say that the minister to

date has not contravened any

section of the Members' Integrity Act.

This is about your standards. What are your standards?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I agree it's about my standards. I have made a judgment call on this, and I'm proud of the call I have made. The Minister of

Finance is an individual of impeccable integrity. He has acted responsibly. He has done the right thing in the circumstances.

I want to quote from the Integrity Commissioner's letter once more. He says: "Conduct cannot be assessed in a vacuum. When your conduct is assessed in its

appropriate context, given the narrow range of available alternatives, I do not think that you were in a position of conflict as a result of not taking the remedial action that you took on February

25, 2004, earlier." I agree with the Integrity Commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I want to return to the Premier. Throughout this entire ethical scandal, throughout this entire ethical

mess, you have refused repeated attempts from both the opposition and the media to answer questions directly. Yesterday I asked you directly if the Minister of Finance had made any declarations to

you in your pre-cabinet integrity session that there were any problems in any company or organization that he had been involved with that had fuelled a criminal probe by the RCMP, that had fuelled

an investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission and Revenue Canada. You refused to answer.

So I'm going to ask you again: Did Greg Sorbara make you aware of any potential problems or irregularities that occurred on his watch at Royal Group

Technologies, something that you, as the Premier-designate, would have been entitled to know before you made him your Minister of Finance? The people of Ontario are entitled to know. Will you

answer that question, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The Integrity Commissioner has spoken to this matter at some considerable length, and I want to review a few of the very

simple and brief statements that he has made in his letter.

First of all, he says, "It would have been wrong for you to have taken it upon yourself to disclose, or to cause the disclosure of the OSC/Royal

investigation." He goes on to say, "I see no violation of the Members' Integrity Act," and he concludes by saying, "I do not think that you were in a position of conflict as a result of not taking

the remedial action that you took on February 25, 2004, earlier." This ends the matter.

Mr Baird: Premier, if it was only so easy. Your refusal to answer questions on this scandal is beginning to speak volumes about the ethical

standards of your administration. You see, the Toronto Star reported on February 28 that your man, Sorbara, was a whistle-blower for the problems at Royal Group Technologies. If that's the truth, I

want to know, and the people of Ontario are entitled to know, if Greg Sorbara made you aware of any of those problems at Royal Group Technologies before you named him as the chief custodian of

investor confidence and the czar of securities regulation in Ontario. So I'm going to ask you directly once again, and will do so for the next month, Premier, if that's what it takes to get an

ethical answer: Were you made aware of any problems at Royal Group Technologies before you named Mr Sorbara to cabinet, yes or no?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, I want to commend to the members of the opposition the letter from the Integrity Commissioner, where he treats this

very specifically. He says: "Put bluntly, it would have been manifestly wrong for you to involve yourself or your ministry in any aspect of the OSC's investigation of Royal, or in any OSC

investigation. In particular it would have been wrong for you to have taken it upon yourself to disclose, or to cause the disclosure of the OSC/Royal investigation."

Mr Baird: Let's look at what opinion around the province is saying on this issue. "It's ... a no-brainer that Sorbara should have resigned" --

the Ottawa Sun; "Finance Minister Should Step Aside" -- the Kitchener-Waterloo Record; "In opposition, McGuinty would be the first one screaming for blood" -- the North Bay Nugget; "Sorbara Must

Quit Until Probe Over" -- the Toronto Star. "That the Premier, who routinely demanded the heads of Tory ministers for far less, didn't order Sorbara to resign from cabinet ... at least until the

probe ... is completed, suggests he isn't up to the job" -- the Toronto Sun.

Premier, are you going to do the right thing: Are you going to demand this minister's resignation, or are you going to continue to engage in some sort of

ethical limbo dance where you continue to lower the ethical bar? How low will your ethical bar go, Premier? Will you answer that?

Hon Mr McGuinty: It is becoming -- it has become -- painfully obvious that the members opposite have nothing more and nothing less to offer

than innuendo. The Integrity Commissioner has ruled that Minister Sorbara has done nothing wrong. He says that "it would have been wrong for you to have taken it upon yourself to disclose." He goes

on to say, "I see no violation of the Members' Integrity Act." He goes on further to say, "I do not think that you were in a position of conflict."

Let me be clear about something else: Given the millions of dollars in untendered contracts paid to this gang's top advisers, secret untendered contracts, they

have nothing to offer by way of lessons when it comes to integrity.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Before the election, you wanted people to believe that you were in

favour of clean air. You wanted people to believe that you are the green Premier. Now, after the election, we find that your Minister of the Environment is scrapping the Drive Clean program, the

strategy which forces the most polluting vehicles to clean up and reduce their exhaust emissions. Premier, why are you now, after the election, saying it's OK to drive a vehicle that pollutes the

environment?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Minister of the Environment would like to speak to this.

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very happy to have the opportunity to address the issue, and I'm very proud of this

government's commitment to clean air in the province of Ontario. The Premier has made it clear that all programs in the Ministry of the Environment are under review.

I want to talk about this government's commitment to clean air. We are committed to closing coal-fired plants in Ontario. We are committed to cleaner gasoline.

We are committed to public transit. Just next week, we will have the toughest emission standards for heavy-duty trucks in North America. So I believe this government's commitment to clean air is

very clear to the people of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I think we just heard that in fact Drive Clean is on the way out. As for your commitment to coal plants, let's be clear: For the

last six months you fiddled while coal burned. That's what's happening on that front.

Now, Minister, here's the reality: In places like Hamilton and Toronto, Drive Clean has resulted in a 15% reduction in pollution from car exhaust. When that's

happening, when it has already proven that it is reducing some of the worst air pollutants that come from car exhausts, why would you even be considering reviewing such a program? Why would you

even be considering cutting such a program in Ontario, or is it just the case that it's now after the election and you can break a promise and drop the facade?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: After the election, this government was even more committed to ensuring that the people of Ontario have clean air to

breathe. I think it's interesting, and it strikes me strange, that the leader of the third party can stand in this House after the comments he made last week that coal is very much a part of the

NDP plan on energy, and suggest that we're turning away from clean air in the province of Ontario. They're in fact the people who have abandoned the notion that coal is killing people in Ontario.

We're going to deal with that.

CHILD CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. I remember that when you were in

opposition, you and the Premier used to give long-winded speeches about the value of child care, and you used to give speeches that you were going to commit new money to child care. We've been

talking with municipal child care services in Toronto, Ottawa, Kenora, Sudbury, Stratford, Sioux Lookout, Fort Frances and Peterborough, and there hasn't been what they would call new money for

child care, such that all of them are either considering shutting down some of their municipal child care facilities or cutting places. Can you explain how, before the election, child care was

important and now, after the election, you seem to have the same policy as the Conservatives: flatline the budget and let them close. Can you tell us what's the difference now?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'd like to reassure you that

child care is very much a priority for this government. With respect to comparing us to the former government, let me tell you and remind you that for the first time in 10 years, we transferred

federal money for child care to child care. We are presently reviewing all early childhood programs, including child care, and will be coming forward very soon with an announcement.

Mr Hampton: Just a couple of weeks ago we put forward a proposal before the finance committee that would see you put at least $75 million of

your own new money into child care. Your own members voted it down. You talk about federal money. You put about $19 million of federal money into child care, money that doesn't cost you anything.

What about the $200 million a year that you get from the federal government for child care?

Minister, when you go out and talk to municipalities, they're very clear: They're not getting any more money under your government than they got under the

Conservative government. What that means is that municipality after municipality is having to look at closing their municipal child care centres. They're having to look at telling children on the

street, "No more space for you." Is this, again, another broken promise? It was important before the election --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Mr Hampton: -- but now, it's not nearly so important? Why don't they have the money now? Why are municipalities being forced to look at

closing down their child care --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I'd like to clarify that this money you're talking about from the federal government, this new multilateral framework,

has not come to Ontario yet, but we have committed this money to child care. With respect to my colleague saying no to the $75 million, we did not want to be pigeonholed on one number. We have

not finished the review of what is necessary. It will take a few more months to clean up 10 years of not one penny of investment in child care from the former government.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to my constituent, the Minister of Finance. Before I put my question, I want to caution the

minister that there are children in the audience. Minister, you are very aware, of course, that the company for which you served as chair of the audit committee and as a director is under

investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ontario Securities Commission and Revenue Canada. Has the minister consulted or retained legal counsel with respect to the OSC's

investigation? If so, why; and if not, why not?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I have not retained counsel. The reason why I have not retained counsel is because I am not under

investigation, I am not involved in the matter and it would be foolish to retain counsel for not being involved in that matter in one single respect.

Mr Klees: The reason I ask the question is because I'm concerned about my friend opposite. Being a former director, particularly being the

chair of the audit committee, he would know full well, as any member here would know, that with a serious number of investigations ongoing it won't be long before this investigation comes calling

on the chair of the audit committee. So it would be prudent to retain advice, to retain someone who would give him some guidance. I would suggest, unless the minister can absolutely stand in his

place today and guarantee that those investigations will not end up with a phone call to his office, that he is imminently under investigation. Isn't that as much of an embarrassment to the

government as if he was?

Hon Mr Sorbara: The quality and tone of my friend's remarks is the same kind of slander, defamation and irrelevancy that they have used on

this matter since day one. I want to tell my friend opposite that I am absolutely sure of my conduct whilst I was a member of the board of Royal Group Technologies. I want to tell him as well that

I am absolutely sure that during that period I conducted myself with the very highest standards of fiduciary responsibility as a director. I want to tell my friend that I am absolutely certain that

I am not the subject of any investigation. I want to tell my friend that I am absolutely sure that from day one I did what was required of me and what was correct in all of these matters. And I

want to tell my friend that I am absolutely delighted that that has been confirmed by Mr Justice Coulter Osborne.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a question for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Mental health care issues in my

constituency have become a major issue. I have discussed this problem with many of my constituents who have dropped in to my office in Elliot Lake, or who have made phone calls or written letters.

Can you assure my constituents in the northeastern Ontario area that they will have full access to mental health services?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. This government is

committed to the expansion of community-based services. This is at the heart of our plans for the transformation of our health care system. Regrettably, this is but one more area where when that

party was in power they rejected the opportunity every single year to increase by even one penny the amount of money available at the community level for mental health services.

So the assurance that I can give the honourable member is that we're building on the recommendations of the mental health task force reports and we're working

to ensure that mental health services are not just available, but more available than they are at present in communities all across the province.

Mr Brown: Minister, I have met with Mr David Pope, who's the chair of the East Algoma Mental Health Clinic -- Diana Price is the director --

and a representative, Carol Philbin Jolette, of the Northeast Mental Health Centre. They tell me that they are under significant pressure in the Elliot Lake area, not because of funding cutbacks

but because of increased labour costs that have put the clinic in Elliot Lake in a severe position.

Minister, could you assure me that you can work with the community, work with the clinic, and ensure that my constituents get the mental health care in the

community that they deserve?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I acknowledge that the Northeast Mental Health Centre has been working on plans for the coming year. As our government is

presently working on plans for our budget, I hope to be in a position to give more confidence to that community in the short term.

I make the commitment that the transformation we are working on with respect to health care is to deliver more resources and better results at the

community-based level. After years and years of no funding by that party on the other side, our challenge is made all the greater, but our determination will see us through. I'm pleased to have the

opportunity to work with my honourable friend and other members from northeastern Ontario to ensure that the mental health services that those communities are in need of are there for them.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Our government increased health care funding from $17.6 billion to

Interjections.

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

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier. Given your refusal to answer some specific questions regarding the

discussion surrounding an appointment of the vice-chair of the Ontario Securities Commission in cabinet, I would like to ask you today what the process is with your government with respect to

Premier's appointments.

You're suggesting, I gather, that there's no consultation with the minister responsible for the particular agency, board or commission. If it's a new chair of

the lottery corporation, if it's a new chair for the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services or if it's a new chair for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, are you suggesting that there's no

consultation, no advice sought from the minister responsible for that agency? Is that your process? You simply do this in isolation, without any consultation or advice asked for or provided?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): What the member opposite is interested in, of course, is the Integrity

Commissioner's response, and I'm delighted to provide it to him once again. He says that he saw no violation of the Members' Integrity Act. He said, "I do not think" -- we're making reference to

the Minister of Finance -- "that you were in a position of conflict as a result of not taking the remedial action you took on February 25, 2004, earlier."

Mr Runciman: The Premier is insulting the intelligence of each and every Ontarian who might be watching these proceedings. I asked him a

specific question related to his appointment process, with respect to Premier's appointments, and the terms of consultation with ministers who were responsible for those agencies. He refused to

respond to that question. He has been given direction by the backroom boys with respect to how to respond to these issues.

I served in cabinet under three different Premiers for nine years. I never saw a Premier's appointment go through cabinet without some kind of consultation,

advice asked for and provided by the minister responsible. Once again I am asking the Premier a direct question with respect to this issue, the appointment of a vice-chair of the securities

commission, any other Premier's appointment: Do you or do you not ask for advice and input from the minister responsible? Do you or do you not?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I understand that the member has a keen interest in something that has already been dealt with by the Integrity Commissioner,

but I can tell you that there are some very real questions on the minds of Ontarians today that have to do with untendered secret contracts. It's passing strange that the member opposite has no

particular interest in any transparency with respect to that.

A gentleman by the name of Paul Rhodes received contracts totalling over $1 million. Tom Long received contracts, either directly or through his company, of

over $2 million. One Leslie Noble: total so far, over $300,000. Michael Gourley: total so far, over $4 million. Grand total so far: $9,209,739.79 of taxpayer money to benefit the friends of this

former government.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the last year we have seen

the lives of many women taken at the hands of estranged husbands and significant others. The city of London is still mourning such a tragedy. All this reveals the need to do more about the issue of

violence against women. The Premier responded, and he appointed his parliamentary assistant, Laurel Broten, to develop a package of reforms that will ultimately lead to a reduction in domestic

violence and the protection of the victims. My question is: What is the status of Ms Broten's consultations, and when will she be presenting her report?

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Thank you so much to the member

opposite for the question in an area that is of great concern to all Liberals and, I think, all MPPs in this House. I think the member opposite will be happy to learn that I am chairing an

interministerial task force made up of several cabinet ministers, because the issue of domestic violence, and how we address what government's role can be in the resolution of it, does have more to

do with several ministries, not just one. We, as an interministerial task force, have already met. We have received a report by the Premier's PA which has outlined for us a series of

recommendations based on a number of consultations that have been made in the first quarter of this year.

I hope that in very short order we're going to be in a position to make some announcements about some action, as we move forward between today and this coming

fall, for a rollout of a plan to cover this entire term, where several of us, as ministers, will be taking this task seriously, to make some very concrete solutions for people who are very anxious

and who, frankly, really need our help.

Mrs Van Bommel: Minister, currently there is a lockout of workers at the Yellow Brick House women's shelter in Aurora. As this is one of your

agencies, can you tell me what the government's position is on this lockout?

Hon Ms Pupatello: As you know, the ministers wouldn't get involved in negotiations between management and their staff. We have kept a very

keen eye on this particular situation at the Yellow Brick House, specifically because we have to be certain that the individuals involved, the women and their children, are safe. We check on that

every day. We are guaranteed that the people who've been involved as clients of the facility have been safe through all this.

I'm very happy to tell you as well that tomorrow, both sides are going back to the bargaining table. I am wishing both sides well and I am also hoping for a

very speedy resolution to their negotiations so that we'll have some very good news in the near future.

HIGHWAY 69

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The Liberal election platform said,

"Highways are a critical part of the northern infrastructure. Good highways are vital. They are sometimes literally lifelines."

You promised that the four-laning of northern highways would be funded by the government through a northern Ontario highway strategy. You yourself specifically

promised that Highway 69 would be four-laned from the same strategy. But your Premier recently told Sudbury media that the four-laning of Highway 69 may be funded by tolls. This would clearly break

your election promise. Minister, will you guarantee today that Highway 69 will not be a toll road?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): There is absolutely no question that we have committed to a northern Ontario

highway strategy, because we believe that it is extremely important that the highways in northern Ontario are not only safe but provide opportunities for economic development.

When I look back at what the previous two governments did with regard to highways, I see that in your election platform of 1990, the member from Nickel Belt

might be reminded that she said that her party was going to four-lane highways. Not one bit of four-laning of highways in northern Ontario took place under that government.

I must tell the member from Nickel Belt that we have a commitment to a highway strategy in northern Ontario, and we will live up to that commitment for a

northern Ontario highway system.

Ms Martel: The minister knows that the information he just provided to the House was completely inaccurate, but the question was about tolls

-- specifically, tolls on Highway 69 -- because your promise during the election was very clear. It was the government that was going to fund the four-laning of Highway 69, not through tolls but

through government funding.

You know that there is no close alternative route between Sudbury and Toronto. You know that imposing tolls will put northern businesses and northern truckers

who rely on this highway at an extreme disadvantage. You know that tolls are going to undermine our community's tourism strategy, and you know that tolls will force our residents to pay twice for

an essential highway corridor between Sudbury and Toronto.

Minister, the four-laning of Highway 69 cannot be done on the backs of northerners. I ask again, will you confirm today that Highway 69 will not be a toll

road?

Hon Mr Bartolucci: Let me reinforce the message that our government believes that a northern Ontario highway strategy is extremely important.

But let me also reinforce the message that our Premier at no time indicated that Highway 69 would be a toll road. He suggested that the Minister of Transportation would be deciding on what roads

would be tolled.

Let me tell you that my job as Minister of Northern Development and Mines is to ensure that the other ministers in cabinet realize the concerns of northerners

when it comes to northern roads, when it comes to the upgrading of northern roads, when it comes to the four-laning of northern roads. We will not adopt the NDP platform that said, "If the only

case for four-laning Highway 69" --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday you said the finance minister is not the subject of an investigation.

We know that there are three investigations ongoing. We know from the press release of the company involved, Royal Group Technologies Ltd, that the investigation relates to $32 million of goods and

services over the course of the past five years. We know also that Mr Sorbara was a director and the chair of the audit committee of the company for parts of that time.

Premier, you know as a lawyer yourself that corporations do not act on their own; indeed, they act through their directors, and their directors stand in a

fiduciary duty to shareholders and others in the corporation. Is it your intention to continue to hide behind the corporate veil, or will you now acknowledge that in his capacity as a director of

Royal Group Technologies Ltd, Mr Sorbara is indeed a subject of these ongoing investigations?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can appreciate that the member opposite has his own idiosyncratic

perspective on this, but I rely on the Integrity Commissioner. One of the things that he said is as follows: "Removing yourself from OSC affairs would have resulted in frenzied speculation about

the reason for your decision. This speculation would indirectly have led to the disclosure of OSC's Royal investigation and to undeserved speculation about other companies with which you were

formerly associated."

I know that the members opposite have, for their very own personal reasons, an interest in continuing to ask about this, and we will continue to respond to

those questions. But for our purposes, the matter has been settled in a final manner by the Integrity Commissioner.

Mr Flaherty: It would have been quicker for the Premier to simply say, "Yes, I'm going to hide with my minister behind the corporate

veil."

But let's look at the substance of the difficulty here. The substance isn't what is referred to by the Integrity Commissioner. He's dealing with the last short

period of time. The substance of the investigations is not the last short period of time; it's a period of five years and $32 million. For most of that time, Mr Sorbara was a director of the

company. The Integrity Commissioner cannot pass judgment on that. With respect, despite your comments yesterday that the minister acted responsibly and appropriately, you're in no position to pass

judgment on that. That's the whole point.

The point is that while these investigations are ongoing, it would be inappropriate in Ontario for a Minister of Finance to present a budget which affects the

capital markets and so on in the province. That's the point. You're not in a position to judge. Mr Sorbara is not in a position to judge. Will you now ask for the resignation of Mr Sorbara until

the investigations are over, or are you still not up to the job?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I say to the member opposite, no, I will not be asking for the minister's resignation. If he is privy to information in

connection with any particular investigation that he would like to share with the members of this House, then we'd be delighted to receive that. But if he does not, then this amounts to nothing

more and nothing less than innuendo. I suggest that we should focus on the people's business, like health care, education and the like.

GANG VIOLENCE

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. Scarborough has always been my home. It's where I grew up; it's

where I'm raising my own family. Our community has always been and remains a safe community. However, over the last number of months, gang activity has taken the lives of a number of our young

people right across Toronto -- actually, even across the greater Toronto area.

The people in my community are looking for answers and they're looking for leadership from all levels of government. My question to the Attorney General is,

what is our government doing to combat gang violence?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I and the

Minister of Community Safety have announced a special anti-gang and anti-gun unit. The purpose of it is to try to tackle gang violence in a way that was never done before. We are assigning

specialized, experienced crown prosecutors to the Toronto gun squad to work with the police from day one in the investigation. That is going to permit us to try to get those special wire taps, get

those special warrants that are necessary to become more organized than the organized crime. We have received a very positive response from Chief Fantino on this. We are engaging in this extremely

aggressive gangbuster approach to give people more confidence.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Bryant: People of your community, I say to the member, and across Toronto and Ontario should know that we're doing everything we can,

we're doing it in different ways and we're going to make a real, concrete difference with this new approach.

Mr Duguid: Addressing the gang problem is essential if we're going to keep our communities safe. As the minister mentioned, gun-related crimes

are tied to the problem. Last year, all but a few of the fatal shootings in Toronto involved gang activity. Minister, what is the government doing to ensure that gun-related crimes are prosecuted

to the full extent of the law and that our justice system is not simply a revolving door?

Hon Mr Bryant: I thank the member, and I really do welcome this question, because I think it's important for everybody to understand that

crown prosecutors do not and will not plead down or dismiss or do anything other than pursue gun crimes as aggressively as possible. That is the policy of crown prosecutors, and that is the

practice of crown prosecutors. I have said, as we review the crown policy manual, that if there is more we can do, we will do that. But let me be clear that we are trying to do things differently

than the previous government. For example, we're going to be putting together an unprecedented sentencing package with expert evidence provided so that judges can understand the impact of gun

violence and gang violence on the streets. This, we feel, may make a real, concrete difference in getting stiffer sentences. I know the previous government isn't happy about it, because they wish

they did it, but the reality is that McGuinty is governing.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Premier. There is a story rolling around about Royal Group Technologies and the involvement of

Finance Minister Sorbara. It just seems to get more entangled each day, Premier.

We've established that your finance minister did not disclose his involvement. He was somewhat unclear about his involvement on the OSC appointment. Your

finance minister was indeed, as has been mentioned, the chair of the audit committee, which would be charged with ensuring accountability of corporate audits and procedures. Now the Royal Group is

connected in the Caribbean casino -- over $30 million in question. The shareholders are questioning that. Now, we hear, with a report from TVOntario, you're aware of the recent Ontario labour

relations decision on one of Royal Group's submissions, of trying to organize Baron Metal. I'm looking at the transcript. This was a organizing drive by the United Steelworkers --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr O'Toole: -- and it was a contentious drive, where threats of death occurred.

Premier, do you acknowledge these transactions or transgressions, and do you respond that your finance minister is inappropriately involved and should step

aside?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): If the member opposite is privy to certain kinds of information that he

thinks would be of interest to any investigation, then I would strongly encourage that he provide that to the authorities. He did raise the issue again of the minister's refusal to disclose the

information that he had, and I want to quote again from the Integrity Commissioner's letter. I'll have to keep doing this, because apparently they're still not getting it over there.

It says: "Put bluntly, it would have been manifestly wrong for you to involve yourself or your ministry in any aspect of the OSC's investigation of Royal, or

in any OSC investigation. In particular it would have been wrong for you to have taken it upon yourself to disclose, or to cause the disclosure of the OSC/Royal investigation."

Mr O'Toole: It's clear you're obfuscating the information that is available to all of us. The report you keep referring to certainly doesn't

substantiate that there isn't an involvement of any sort.

Given the issues, not just around the casino, I think more importantly it's the integrity issue that's being raised here. The substantive part of the question

is the integrity of your finance minister. I'm only speaking on behalf of my constituents and the people of Ontario.

Do you believe, given all the swirling around this issue -- what is proven and not proven isn't the issue -- it would be appropriate, in fact dignified, to

step aside? I don't know if he is the proper person to present the budget to the people of Ontario. In fact, my question to you is, are you going to present to us the Integrity Commissioner's

report or are you going to present the Royal Group budget report?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I know the Minister of Finance is interested in speaking to this.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I don't want to get involved in a lecture on integrity. I just want to say to my friend that as a

member of the opposition he has the freedom, if you like, to make spurious allegations about individuals and corporate entities. As a minister of the crown, it would be entirely inappropriate for

me to comment on any public company, or private company, for that matter. That would be a breach of integrity. No matter what they engage in over there, that will not happen on this side. We know

what integrity is and what our responsibility is, and I reject that question categorically.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. At my constituency office we are being

absolutely flooded with requests for birth certificates. I have one employee who is working full-time, initiating tracking and administering emergency requests for birth certificates. Currently, my

office alone is dealing with over 200 requests. Could you tell me what steps you are taking to address this backlog?

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I want to thank the honourable member from Huron-Bruce, and in particular her

staff and also the staff of all MPPs, for the work they are doing as the office of the Registrar General faces some very difficult circumstances.

This is a situation that I and my government do not find acceptable. It's a situation we inherited from the previous government, where the office of the

Registrar General was systematically underfunded for years. Certainly I am concerned about not simply pointing the finger of blame but taking concrete action.

Therefore, I was pleased to travel to Thunder Bay on behalf of the Premier and this government to announce a $2.6-million investment in the office of the

Registrar General, so that we can properly staff the office and ensure that the level of service is one that is acceptable. We have hired 87 full- and part-time staff, we've moved to two production

shifts and we've decreased our waiting time on the 1-800 number by 37%.

I know it's a sensitive point with the opposition. I do want to assure the honourable members opposite that we're also working on death certificates and we'll

get one over to the PC Party as soon as possible.

Mrs Mitchell: I commend the Minister of Consumer and Business Services for all the measures your ministry has taken to speed up to the process

and tackle the backlog. It certainly is appreciated.

I also want to have some assurances that security is being taken into account. People in my riding want to know if they are being protected from identity

theft, or worse. What steps will your office take to ensure that birth certificates are received in a timely manner and also to ensure high levels of security?

Hon Mr Watson: Security of a foundation document like the birth certificate is paramount, obviously. We want to ensure that when the

application is submitted, the information on the actual application matches with the birth registry information both in Thunder Bay and in Toronto. We want to ensure that the integrity of the

system is in place. I have great confidence in the staff. I do want to commend the staff who have been overworked in Thunder Bay and in Toronto dealing with this huge backlog that we find ourselves

with, that we've inherited from the previous government. As I said, we're committed not only to security but to improving the level of service, something that I believe all members appreciate, as

well as the citizens who are waiting for a birth certificate in Ontario.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is for the Premier. I'd like to know why you changed responsibility for the Ontario Securities

Commission to the Chair of the Management Board?

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): It's time for the third party to ask their question.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm glad to know that I can still count. My question is for Minister of

Northern Development and Mines.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Could I recognize you? Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Bisson: You did. You recognized me as a member from the third party. Thank you, Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Prior to the provincial election, your leader in North Bay promised the community and workers

at the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission that should he form the government, not one job would be lost at the ONTC. Now, after the election, your government announces that the size of the

workforce at the ONTC is going to be reduced from 600 to 400 jobs by way of early retirement, and hardly any of those jobs are going to be replaced with new workers.

My question is this: Why did your government break your promise to the community of North Bay and to the workers at the ONTC?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'm very, very proud that this was another promise kept by Dalton McGuinty

and the Ontario Liberals. The Tories' plan to privatize the ONTC was a failure. We made a commitment to end that privatization plan, and we delivered on that promise. We are very proud of what we

have been able to accomplish in this short time in office. What we've allowed to happen -- because we believed in the people of North Bay, we believed in the people along the Highway 11 corridor,

we believed that the ONTC should not have been privatized. People believed it and that's why they voted they way they voted, and we lived up to that commitment.

Mr Bisson: Minister, you have a funny way of keeping your commitments and your promises. Yes, the promise you made was that you would not

privatize; fine. But you also promised, and I quote the Premier when he was touring through North Bay -- boy, I need glasses these days -- "We've got a declining population here in North Bay. You

take away those 600 jobs or a percentage of them and the spinoff jobs that will be lost is just not the right thing to do. That's the kind of things that we as Liberals fight against." Two hundred

jobs are going to be lost in North Bay under your watch, Minister. My question, simply put, is this -- and please answer: Why did you break your promise to the workers and to the community of North

Bay?

Hon Mr Bartolucci: It's amazing how only the NDP can try to turn a good-news story into something bad. We lived up to the commitment to end

the privatization plan with the ONTC, as planned by the Tories. We did that because we trusted the people of North Bay to come up with the solution. We appreciate the ideas that they came back to

us with. And so, on March 4, I was very happy to announce a strategic alliance between ON Telcom and Telus. I was pleased to announce that there would be a voluntary -- voluntary -- retirement

package offered to the employees at the ONTC. I was pleased to announce that we directed the ONTC board to ensure that there was a long-term strategy attached so that we'll never have the

uncertainty that was present over the course of the last eight years along the Highway 11 corridor.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Premier. You have said repeatedly that, "To the best of my knowledge," your finance

minister "isn't under investigation." How is it that you know that, sir?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm not sure that I understand the member's question, but I'll try to be

as clear as I can. No information of any kind has been brought to my attention which would indicate that the minister is the subject of an investigation.

Mr Baird: I want to follow up a question that I asked the Premier yesterday. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the investigations branch at

the OSC and Revenue Canada aren't in the habit of issuing press releases when individuals or corporations become the subject of investigations. I say directly to the Premier a very specific

question: Would you have any objection to contacting Mr Justice Coulter Osborne and asking him to make inquiries with the RCMP, with the OSC and with Revenue Canada as to whether or not your

finance minister is, was or could be the subject of an investigation, or whether any of his actions could be? Would you have Justice Osborne make those inquiries, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: First of all, the member is very much aware that he himself could make that kind of request of our Integrity Commissioner.

From my perspective, what the member is really asking us to prove here is that one of us is not under investigation. I don't know for sure if any of us in this chamber might not be the subject of

some kind of an investigation which has not been brought to our attention.

We think the responsible approach is the one that has been taken by the Minister of Finance. That is the judgment that I have made in this matter, but just as

important, and perhaps more important, it is the judgment that has been rendered by the Integrity Commissioner himself.

TOURISM

Mr David Orazietti (Sault Ste Marie): My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The citizens of my riding recognize the

tremendous importance of tourism to our local economy. Over the past several months we have seen our government invest in a number of tourism initiatives and advertising campaigns intended to lure

tourists to our province, and they have been great investments.

Minister, what action have you taken to ensure that tourists and potential visitors to this province are informed about the exciting tourism opportunities in

northern Ontario and consider northern Ontario as a tourist destination?

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I thank the member for the question. I want to tell him that I consider northern

Ontario to be a wonderful place for people to visit.

My ministry has taken steps to establish a partnership with industry partners in northern Ontario, such as Destination North, the Northern Ontario Native

Tourism Association and Ontario's North Tours. You would know that, as an organization which deals with cities and attractions in all of northern Ontario.

In total, almost $3 million has been committed to marketing programs, partnerships and product development initiatives to date in the north. In addition,

agreements have been finalized with each of the six northern Ontario tourism associations to receive $100,000 in financial support for 2003-04. Furthermore, a meeting has been established for April

1, 2004, to discuss and negotiate agreements with each NOTAP for the 2004-05 year.

This ministry will continue to work with our northern stakeholders to build upon the many tourism experiences that already exist in northern Ontario so that

the area remains a tourist destination for many years to come.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I would ask all members to join me in welcoming this second group of legislative pages serving the 38th

Parliament.

We have Devin Ballantyne from Elgin-Middlesex-London; Mason Brooks, London North Centre; Lucia Chaplin, Davenport; Tracy Chen, Toronto Centre-Rosedale; Valerie

Christie, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex; Sarah Cipkar, Essex; Michael Da Silva, York South-Weston; Sara Dookhoo, Etobicoke North; Austine Ha, Willowdale; Lauren Haberer, Huron-Bruce; Mark Hammett,

Brampton Centre; Jordan Kiss, Prince Edward-Hastings; Alyssa Moore, Leeds-Grenville; Michael Murray, Simcoe North; Victor Ngai, Scarborough-Rouge River -- great place; Andrew Pawluch, Sudbury;

Nikita Ramdahani, Whitby-Ajax -- let me pronounce that better for Nikita Ramdahani; Brendon Smith, Kitchener Centre; Mary Vaccaro, Niagara Falls; and Sarah Wilkinson, Oak Ridges.

We all welcome them in the good old-fashioned way. Thank you for serving us.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government was elected after promising in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program

for seniors but are now considering delisting drugs and imposing" more "user fees on seniors; and

"Whereas prescription drugs are not covered under the Canada Health Act unless dispensed in a hospital; and

"Whereas the federal Liberal government refuses to acknowledge this as a necessary health service despite the Romanow report's strong support for a national

drug program;

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

"To immediately and unequivocally commit to end plans for the delisting of drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit program;

"To immediately commit to ending plans to implement higher user fees for seniors and to improve the Ontario drug benefit plan so they can obtain necessary

medications; and

"To instruct Premier Dalton McGuinty to demand more health care funding from Ottawa instead of demanding more" health care "funding from seniors."

LANDFILL

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

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

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

landfill at site 41; and

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

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on water source protection, which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented under Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of site 41 and the nearby water sources."

I'll sign my name to this.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I would like to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontario's seniors have worked long and hard to build the outstanding quality of life achieved in our province; and

"Whereas seniors' drug benefits enable older persons to live healthier lives and avoid more extensive care in hospitals and nursing homes; and

"Whereas, in addition to their taxes, many seniors already contribute toward their prescription drugs through deductibles and dispensing fees; and

"Whereas many seniors on fixed pensions already face higher costs through property taxes and electricity charges;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not eliminate or reduce the provincial drug benefits provided to seniors" in Ontario.

I'm pleased to sign and support this petition.

TUITION FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition from the students of George Brown College. They've been sending in petitions almost every

week. Hundreds of them have signed this petition. I will read it, because it is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Freeze Tuition Fees

"Whereas average tuition fees in Ontario are the second-highest in Canada;" -- imagine -- "and

"Whereas average undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have more than doubled in the past 10 years; and

"Whereas tuition fees for deregulated programs have, in certain cases, doubled and tripled; and

"Whereas Statistics Canada has documented a link between increasing tuition fees and diminishing access to post-secondary education; and

"Whereas four other provincial governments have taken a leadership role by freezing and reducing tuition fees;

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

"Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels; and

"Take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs, post-diploma programs and professional programs for which tuition fees have been deregulated

since 1998."

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

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of my constituents:

"Whereas the Liberal government has said in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program for seniors and are

now considering delisting drugs and imposing user fees on seniors;

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

"To halt the consideration of imposing an income test, delisting drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit plan or putting in place user fees for

seniors, and to maintain the present drug benefit plan for seniors to cover medication."

I proudly sign this petition. I believe this is what the government should be doing.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to join my colleagues in presenting a petition to protect seniors from higher drug costs, signed by

constituents from the Black Creek Leisure Homes in the Fort Erie-Stevensville area. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the election campaign the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

Beneath my friends' Mike Frenette and Tom and Judy Lowe, I affix my signature in support.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals by no means campaigned on raising the rates associated with the Ontario drug benefit program; and

"Whereas the majority of seniors, many of which live on fixed incomes, cannot meet the expense of higher costs for essential medication; and

"Whereas seniors in Simcoe-Grey and across Ontario should never have to make a choice between eating and filling a prescription;

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

"To cancel any plans to raise the costs for prescription drugs for our seniors and to embark on making vital medication more affordable for Ontarians."

It's signed by several hundred people in my riding. I agree with the petition, I thank the people who have signed it and I affix my name to it.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the previous government did not commit the necessary resources to provide birth certificates in an efficient manner;

"We, the undersigned, applaud this government for improving the process dramatically."

It's signed by six wonderful residents of Ontario.

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the residents of Waterloo-Wellington need and deserve excellent roads and highways for their safe travel; and

"Whereas good transportation links are vital to the strength of our local economy, supporting job creation through the efficient delivery of our products to

the North American marketplace; and

"Whereas transit services are essential to managing the future growth of our urban communities and have a relatively minimal impact on our natural environment;

and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott asked all municipalities in Waterloo-Wellington to provide him with their top transportation priorities for the

next five years and beyond, all of them responded and their recommendations form the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan; and

"Whereas" the former Minister of Transportation "Frank Klees responded quickly to MPP Ted Arnott's request for a meeting with the councillors and staff of

Waterloo-Wellington's municipalities, and listened to their recommendations; and

"Whereas the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan contains over 40 recommendations provided to MPP Ted Arnott by municipalities, and there is

recurrent support for implementing the corridor study of Highway 7/8 between Kitchener and Stratford, a new four-lane Highway 7 from Kitchener to Guelph, assistance for Wellington county to rebuild

Highway 24 from Guelph to Cambridge, a repaired and upgraded Highway 6 from Fergus to Mount Forest, Waterloo region's light rail transit initiative, OSTAR funding for transportation-related

projects and other projects;

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

"That the provincial government support Ted Arnott's Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan, and initiate the necessary studies and/or construction of

the projects in it."

It is signed by a significant number of my constituents.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition from the residents of Davenport, specifically Rusholme Road, Delaware Avenue and Dovercourt

Road. It's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned property owners and tenants, strongly oppose the current value assessment system in Ontario. The 2003 current value assessment system is

too high and we will show strong resistance. There may be a tax revolt.

"We believe the municipal tax system should reflect the following principles:

(1) Ability to pay should be a consideration; (2) property taxes should be

related to services 100%; (3) homeowners should not be penalized for improving their properties; (4) dependence on the residential property tax to raise provincial and municipal revenues should be

reduced; (5) the assessment system should be stable over a long period of time -- 10 years; (6) the assessment system should be objective, accurate, consistent, correct, equitable and easily

understood -- house sf class price; lot sf class price, garage sf class price should also be considered; and (7) owner authorization should be approved through this assessment procedure."

I'm delighted to have presented this petition to you.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka to the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario.

"Whereas the community of Yearley, Ontario, within the electoral district of Parry Sound-Muskoka experiences frequent and prolonged power outages; and

"Whereas the power outages have become a health and safety issue to the residents of the community and the students who visit the outdoor education centre;

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

"That the Minister of Energy instruct Hydro One to conduct an investigation of the distribution and feeder lines that serve Yearley, and take the necessary

steps to ensure reliable energy to ongoing forestry maintenance and required line improvements."

I agree with this petition, and I sign my name to it.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

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

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals by no means campaigned on raising the rates associated with the Ontario drug benefit program; and

"Whereas the majority of seniors, many of which live on a fixed income, cannot meet the expense of higher costs for essential medication; and

"Whereas seniors in Simcoe-Grey and across Ontario should never have to make the choice between eating and filling a prescription;

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

"To cancel any plans to raise costs for prescription drugs for our seniors and to embark on making vital medication more affordable for Ontarians."

I have affixed my signature to it.

LANDFILL

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

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

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

landfill at site 41; and

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

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on source water protection, which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented under Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of Site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will definitely affect the design of Site 41 and the nearby water sources."

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of seniors from Portal Village in Port Colborne concerning higher

drug costs. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas during the election campaign, the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program, but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate, and increased the price of hydro;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

I'm pleased to affix my signature beneath those of Joan Metler, Dorothy Tucker and Mary Parsons, among others.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

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

the answer to his question given by the Premier concerning whether the Minister of Finance offered his resignation. The matter will be discussed at 6 pm.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE

OF MEDICARE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'ENGAGEMENT

D'ASSURER L'AVENIR

DE L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Mr Smitherman moved second reading of the following bill:

des services de santé, édictant une nouvelle loi relative à l'accessibilité aux services de santé et abrogeant la

Loi sur l'accessibilité aux services de santé,

prévoyant l'imputabilité du secteur des services de santé et modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm privileged today to have the opportunity to share my time with the members

from Nipissing, Don Valley West and Etobicoke North, and if I don't speak fast enough, Ralph Goodale.

I'm honoured to rise in the House today to be the leadoff speaker on behalf of our government for the second reading of Bill 8, the Commitment to the Future of

Medicare Act. This bill reflects the values of a new government, a new government that's prepared to do its part to build on one of our nation's great successes. I have said on many points and

occasions that medicare is the best expression of Canadian values. It is the intention of this government to renew and transform medicare to make it sustainable for future generations.

I do very much want to acknowledge and personally thank my legislative colleagues on the standing committee on justice and social policy, those from all

parties in the House, but I particularly would like to recognize the Chair, Kevin Flynn; the committee Vice-Chair, Jim Brownell; and my parliamentary assistant, the member from North Bay.

No one has spoken as passionately and as persuasively on the future of medicare as Roy Romanow. His extraordinary report provides the playbook for transforming

public health care. Mr Romanow laid out the challenge for all of us, and he laid it out this way: "Canada's journey to nationhood has been a gradual, evolutionary process, a triumph of compassion,

collaboration and accommodation, and the result of many steps, both simple and bold.... That next step is to build on this proud legacy and transform medicare into a system that is more responsive,

comprehensive and accountable to all Canadians."

That is what the future is, and that is what Bill 8, the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, is all about.

A review of Bill 8 and a read of the

preamble is to see a core statement of our values, the values of medicare. It speaks to health care that is

consumer-centred, it reflects a system that is accountable to the people who own it -- each and every Ontarian. It calls for a system focused on outcomes and committed to quality. Bill 8 confirms

the undeniable need for co-operation in health care between providers and government, individuals and communities, and it underscores the responsibility that we all have to build a strong,

sustainable public health care system.

I want to talk today about our game plan for transforming medicare in the province of Ontario, and I want to talk about Bill 8, a key part of our

transformation strategy.

The government that has been elected in Ontario, the McGuinty government, has brought a greater determination to the goal of transformation in our health care

system. Some people say, in response to our plans, that it has been heard before. That is because it is an echo of the vision of Roy Romanow, but it is one that brings with it the determination of

a new government in Ontario.

The stakes on this task are high and the cost of failure great; in fact, immeasurable. But we are confident that a better future of medicare lays within our

grasp. It is within the leadership of the province of Ontario to demonstrate to the country that the future of medicare is indeed strong, that we can transform our medicare system to one that is of

higher quality, that is patient-centred and delivers on principles of sustainability.

Our goal, to make it simple, is to say that we want to make Ontarians the healthiest Canadians. When we are successful at doing that, we will have contributed

greatly to ensuring that the medicare system that we pass on to future generations is a sustainable medicare system.

The challenges are great. Those that we confront are great, because against many measures, the health of our population is not in the greatest shape.

Historically, I have not been in the greatest shape either, so I try to stand as a role model and encourage Ontarians to take one extra step, to eliminate one extra cigarette, to lose a little

weight, climb a few stairs and make that individual personal contribution that all of us must make if we are to restore our belief that medicare is the way to go, if we are to enhance the quality

of the system that we have.

The challenges are great as well because we have an aging and growing population; demand caused by access to new technology; and we have some culture in our

health care system, like running annual deficits in budgets of our hospitals.

There are forces chipping away at medicare. In fact, some of them are the head of new political parties in the House of Commons. Those people want to erode its

principles. They want to narrow its reach, water down its protections and lower the quality of care that it delivers, all in the name of offering some alternative parallel system for those who have

money.

It's time to leave behind the status quo, where we spend billions upon billions of dollars on health care but have no reliable means of measuring the outcomes

gained from these precious dollars. We're all in this together, and together we owe it to the Ontario public to show them how good it can be when we all work together.

This is, to some great extent, about change versus the status quo. There are people -- I see them and I hear them in our midst -- who resist the change that is

in Bill 8 because it's not the way we've always done it. But on October 2 of last year, the people of Ontario said to the people of this party and to Dalton McGuinty, who is now our Premier, that

change is absolutely required.

Let me be blunt about this: At $28 billion and growing, the public health care system is crowding out other government priorities like education and the

environment. We know that we can't continue to do this. But to have a situation where we're crowding out other government priorities yet not delivering to the expectation level of Ontarians, even

though we're spending 46% of program dollars, is I think a message that we must transform the medicare system in our province, transform it to sustainability, where sustainability is measured not

only on our basis to be able to pay the bills, but measured on the quality of the care that we can provide.

I'm talking about the sustainability from the vantage point of the average Ontarian. Their question is: Will medicare be there for me when I need it? We have

created a bill that enables us to take on these challenges head-on and restore the very best of health care, to answer, "Yes," to that question. Medicare in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario has a very,

very bright future.

Applause.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Minister, just one moment. I remind guests in the galleries that we appreciate your attendance, but we

would also appreciate it if you would not clap when the members do. Thank you.

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): It's hard not to.

Hon Mr Smitherman: That was going to be my line.

Review after review, study after study, have only served to reinforce the notion that universal, single-payer, publicly funded health care continues to be the

right way forward for Ontario and for Canada. But they also concluded that, within that framework, major reform is required. Major reform we will bring, because this is a government of action,

action on the most cherished public program of Canadians. Roy Romanow clearly concluded that we need to renovate our concept of medicare to adapt to today's realities.

The Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act represents an important signal to Ontarians -- that the significant changes to come rest on a strong foundation of

familiar values. While others of us might suggest that the only way forward is to abandon these principles and to throw up our hands and surrender, we will prove that health care reform can and

must be consistent with these values. That is why Bill 8 builds on the principle of accountability. Romanow reaffirmed that health care is there for, and answerable to, its owners -- 12 million

Ontarians -- and that we all share a responsibility to protect it.

For those of us who have the honour of serving in health care, and the particular honour of serving Ontarians, of representing them, we are the province that

must, to our nation, show the way forward for medicare. The reforms that we're undertaking here to transform our medicare system, to make it more patient-focused and more accountable, to deliver a

higher-quality result -- Ontario must lead the way, because Ontario has always led the way.

I had the opportunity on February 24 to outline for the people of the province of Ontario our government's transformation plan for health care. We faced the

challenge, and we have the plan of making our health care system into one unified whole system driven by quality and centred on the consumer. I have taken to saying in the days since I was

appointed minister that the more I look for a system, the less of a system I see. The fact of the matter is that, on a whole range of points, dollars have been sent from the government at Queen's

Park to different and diverse pieces of our health care system, but they have not bought a system with those dollars because the strategic responsibility of the government of Ontario was not there.

As a result, we have a fragmentation across electronic health records, as one example. We have created a mentality, a culture, in the health care system in our province that is silo after silo. I

engage all of you, all members of this house and Ontarians, to be involved in the very necessary exercise of toppling those silos so that the patient, the consumer, can make their way in a more

seamless fashion across our health care system.

At the heart of our transformation plan is a recognition that our hospitals have been asked to do more than they are best built to do. Our government's

challenge and our government's priority will be to ask our hospitals to hold stable while we give them predictable funding -- albeit at lower rates of growth than they've seen over the last five

years when their budgets went up by 10% -- so we can make those precious and desperately necessary investments in those complementary, community-based services, like providing a doctor in the

neighbourhoods where people need them; like making sure that community and mental health and addiction services that have not seen a penny of increase in their base budget since before Bob Rae's

hair turned white, that they once again understand that we recognize, that the Dalton McGuinty government recognizes, their importance and the role that they play, the contribution that they make;

that we make the necessary investments so that home care can provide, not only to keep our people independent and keep them in their homes as long as possible, but to support them in those very

critical days following acute care stays.

This is the challenge that we face, but we will make those investments in those community-based services. Because of the work of my colleague from North Bay,

and because of the commitment of this government, we will transform the long-term-care system in this province in a fashion that restores confidence that those 67,500 beds, each of them providing

such a vital lifeline for an Ontarian -- that we restore the sense of quality in those; that our most vulnerable citizens who are residing in long-term-care facilities will know that this

government sees the critical importance of a properly functioning system of long-term care, one that gives us confidence. This is what we'll deliver upon.

First, we will bring that sustainability and renewed accountability to hospitals, because they are the anchor of our health care system. For our part, we

acknowledge that for all of the talk that has come from previous governments about delivering sustainable and predictable funding to hospitals, it is not being delivered upon. We will not only do

that, but we will tie that funding to results that matter to Ontarians: reduced wait times, better-quality care and human resources strategies that recognize that hospitals are bricks and mortar

and that technology, while it matters, is not nearly as important to the health care delivery that comes from people. At the end of the day, health care is about people delivering services to

people, and that's reflected in the fact that 80 cents on the dollar is spent on people, but our strategies around human resources have so far not properly reflected the incredible role that human

beings are playing in making our medicare system so important to Canadians.

We ask hospitals to work with us and to work with each other, to connect with other parts of the system, like I mentioned earlier -- home care, long-term care,

family health care -- and to take full advantage, to take greater advantage than we have so far, of the tremendous economies of scale to improve the way they manage their resources. On this point,

I pause to say that those people who are threatened by the idea that hospitals that band together to buy bandages cheaper are somehow a threat to public health care are people whom I think are

stuck in the status quo, and those people need to change. Because I'm not interested any longer in being part of a government that talks about a health care system but doesn't have a system that

means that we can take advantage of the spending power of $11 billion worth of hospitals.

Later on, I'll give you an example of how we can get a better bang for our buck, about some of the advantages that can flow from standardization. These are the

benefits of a system; this is the medicare advantage. Yet for all of our huge spending power, we have failed time and time again to take advantage of those opportunities. But this government will

not fail, because those precious dollars that can be saved from procurement policies that bring about, that take into consideration those economies of scale, that purchasing power, those dollars

saved, those precious dollars saved will be driven back into the kind of health care that Ontarians need. A dollar saved on a bandage will be a dollar dedicated to reducing a wait time for cancer,

for cardiac care, for hip and knee, for cataracts, and those dollars, those precious dollars, will be used to enhance those community supports that I just spoke about.

I want to recognize that government must change its behaviour toward hospitals as well. In the past, in the absence of stable, predictable funding, it has been

more difficult for our hospitals to plan effectively, and sometimes that contributed to the deficit trap. Having clear rules for how hospitals are funded is an essential part of ensuring that they

are given the resources to actually deliver the results expected of them. Hospitals have been working with government through the joint policy and planning committee on a new, more predictable

method of funding hospitals that enables longer-term planning and links funding to quality results. This government will be the government that moves those discussions from the committee room or

from the board room table, and puts them into practical application in hospitals across this province, because it is time to get on with it.

It is time to get on with delivering to Ontarians a sense that there is a government that wants to build a health care system that is integrated and of a

higher quality. But accountability and predictability of funding must go hand in hand. Bill 8's accountability agreements clarify expectations in order to secure mutual benefits for both health

providers and the Ontarians they serve. The accountability agreements are about a new mature relationship with our health care providers, a relationship that for the very first time ties funding to

results, rewards good performance and has real consequences for poor performance. No part of the system can stand alone any longer. No one

part can determine on its own what services it will

provide, what outcomes it will achieve. The needs of the consumer, of the client, of the patient, should be the only determining factor.

Let me take a moment to talk about how accountability agreements will work. The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the insurer, will negotiate an

accountability agreement with the boards of health care institutions to ensure that health care dollars are used to achieve quality outcomes for patients and the public. Outcomes will be

patient-centred: wait times for a life-saving procedure, like cardiac care and cancer care. The agreements would reward those providers who deliver excellent quality, and there would be real

consequences for people who fail to meet their commitments.

It's funny how it seems that this is such a radical concept: the idea that, in exchange for a secure allotment of resources for which you've said you will

deliver services, if you fail to do what you said you would do in a contractual obligation, there will be consequences for that. Some people have said that's radical. What I think is radical is

that here in the province of Ontario, across the breadth of a $28-billion system, the radical

part is that this has not been done before, that we haven't tied expenditures to specific outcomes. We

will, because we must.

There has been a fair bit of talk about what the former Minister of Health, the member from the Kitchener-Waterloo area, likes to refer to as my new sweeping

powers. The expansion in ministerial powers in Bill 8 is an expansion of power so far below those that already exist, it's hard to understand what that member's getting at. Perhaps it's because she

understands that the appointment of supervisors by her government was like a reflex action. Seven times out of nine since 1981, that government, the former minister from Waterloo and the former

minister from Brampton, exercised the powers of appointing a supervisor.

Let's understand what that means. If you appoint a supervisor in an Ontario hospital today, it means that in one fell swoop you have eliminated the board and

the CEO. They, in opposition to what we plan, have suggested that being able to seek accountability for performance is a radical concept. We need to move to a position where we drive the care down

to the community.

I want to go back to a theme that I touched on earlier. Our hospitals have been put in an untenable position. They've been forced to pick up the pieces of the

health care safety net that others weren't able to deliver effectively. They've been asked to do more than they were built to do or are best suited to do, but if we make those investments, as we

fully intend to, in the complementary community pieces, we'll finally be getting to the point where we ask hospitals only to provide services that they're built to provide, because we know that

hospitals are the most expensive places to deliver patient care. So we'll move on family health care, high-quality, accessible, around-the-clock, front-line care where people need care, as close to

home as possible from an interdisciplinary team of health care providers. That's family health teams, and we're going to move on those.

Home care: We have real recognition that we need to do more on home care. As a result, in part measure, of the health accord of last year, we have some

resources to do that, and we will. We're working on long-term-care facilities and on consumer-based mental health and addiction services, as I mentioned earlier.

Let me talk for a moment about integration. I talked a little bit before about silos. Other people talk about them as well as the predominant culture of our

health care system, that if you only need to see a family practitioner and you have an established relationship, chances are your level of support, your confidence level for the health care system

is very high, but at the very moment you need to move from there to see a specialist, chances are that you butt up against the silo, another piece of the health care system. We need to topple the

silos and make it easier for the patient to make the seamless transition along a continuum of care. We need to tear down those walls that stand between the patients and the care they need.

Information technology is an essential enabler, because it allows health care providers to speak in the same language and share information. It will

revolutionize our ability to measure system performance. Bill 8, therefore, will foster integration.

One of the measures of quality for which providers and governments will be judged is how effectively we collaborate, how well we mobilize our collective

resources for the common cause of quality, consumer-centred patient care. I've seen many examples of innovation and integration as I've travelled the province, and I want to speak briefly just

about two of them.

On a gorgeous but crisp Friday afternoon on the northern reaches of Lake Superior, I went to visit the community of Terrace Bay. In Terrace Bay I heard about

the Lake Nipigon regional health forum, an ad hoc network of five hospitals formed out of necessity 15 years ago, where hospitals have found, in the ability to work together, the capacity to offer

much greater, expansive programs to the people of their very small community. They recognize that services, the cost of which could not be borne on one budget alone, could be borne by five

hospitals working together. They innovate and share resources. They share physiotherapists and occupational therapists, as well as human resource management and administrative resources.

In the town of Windsor, from where my seatmate hails, two hospitals, which had a long history of working against one another, have in the last three years made

extraordinary strides to work better together to integrate the care they provide and to share resources where it's practical, to save costs so those dollars can be driven into the provision of

clinical services.

Last week I had the opportunity to meet with Jack Kitts, the CEO of the Ottawa Hospital, Ontario's largest hospital. Six different facilities have come

together in a very challenging amalgamation. They got the orthopaedic surgeons together. At that point, they were using eight different devices for hips and knees. They narrowed the list to two.

The result is that those enhanced volumes saved $1.8 million in the purchase of artificial joints. That $1.8 million bought 200 more surgeries for the Ottawa community.

Accountability matters because, as Roy Romanow says, it's a principle that was missing, and because the precious resources we have must be well spent. Shared

accountability of government and providers to the Ontarians we serve is the message associated with accountability. It's very much a two-way street, and it's a two-way street because we must focus

on continuous improvement. I am tired of the idea too many people develop that all of sudden the expectation is that people will wake up one morning and say, as if by magic, "Health care is

better." The challenge for all of us is to demonstrate to Ontarians that health care is in a state of continuous improvement. We cannot measure the state of health care, because at the moment we do

not have a measuring stick, we do not have the tools. But in Bill 8 we have the tool: the Ontario Health Quality Council. It will report to Ontarians on an annual basis about the state of health

care and about the state of their health.

Ontarians have never before had way of knowing how our health care system was performing. Ontarians are smart people and deserve to know the facts. They have a

right to know what is happening with wait lists and about the state of our health care and about the state of our individual health. The Ontario Health Quality Council gives people this

opportunity.

The council will provide Ontarians with meaningful information so they can measure our government's performance and hold us to account. The Ontario Health

Quality Council exists to serve the broad and diverse interests of Ontarians by measuring across a broad array of indicators how our health care system is performing. We will, for once, finally

have an annual, at-a-glimpse opportunity to measure how we're doing to mark the continuous improvement that we're involved in.

It will have strong representation brought by people from our communities, 12 of them, people of independence. I am, on this point, saddened that the former

minister, the member from Waterloo, without even seeing names associated with this body, has already decided that those 12 individual Ontarians will not be capable of producing a report that is

independent, balanced and provides Ontarians with the information they know. I believe that cynicism has no place if we are to be properly dedicated to the task at hand, because the task at hand is

one where no failure is allowed, because the task at hand is our involvement with the most cherished program of Canadians.

Healthier Ontarians: Each of us has a role to play in this debate. I had the opportunity two weeks ago to speak to a grade 6 and 7 class in Markham. I said to

those kids, "Start a revolution. Take back your health." I went in there and said that it was my 40th anniversary speech, having just celebrated my 40th birthday -- which I have been getting quite

a lot of mileage out of. I talked to those kids and said that I looked at some numbers from when I was their age and compared them to the numbers now: five times the rate of childhood obesity.

I talked to those kids about personal responsibility. I said, "Society so far is not getting the job done for you." But we need all Ontarians to be more

involved in the recognition that one of the greatest pressures that we have on our health care today is the pressure that is brought by the decisions that we made yesterday. So all of us have the

opportunity today to begin to reinforce and develop better habits, and I take the motto of continuous improvement upon myself as well. I encourage people to take a look for those opportunities

inside your daily habits to make things just a little bit better.

Not everybody can quit smoking, but everybody can quit smoking some of what they smoke. Not everybody can get their weight under control, but most people can

make a difference about it. Not everybody will become an athlete overnight, because not everybody has a former Canadian Olympian as their parliamentary assistant. But everyone can look for the

opportunity to walk up one more set of stairs or to walk one extra block, because we must work together to tackle the high-cost, high-burden and preventable health issues: smoking and childhood

obesity caused by inactivity and unhealthy eating habits.

I am so proud that our government is going to work on this with the kind of zeal that Ontarians have been waiting for, because we have a responsibility, an

obligation, an opportunity, and we will live up to the challenge that the health and safety of our kids have for us to do. We will show that leadership. I am so pleased to have the opportunity to

work with someone like Gerard Kennedy and my colleague Marie Bountrogianni as we seek in this province to create a healthier environment for our kids. Why? Not just because of course we wish that

everyone would have the best health possible, but because 29% of $28 billion -- 29% of $28 billion -- goes toward treating diabetes, cancer, cardiac care and other preventable diseases.

It's time for all of us to come together and take back our health. Each and every one of us can take real action to make Ontarians healthier. We want to fuel

an excitement and a sense of personal mission about health. A healthy revolution is what is required in our province.

I'm proud of Bill 8, I'm proud of the McGuinty government and I'm proud to acknowledge that our government takes a different way of operating. That's what we

bring to leadership in Ontario. I took responsibility when I brought the bill to committee. I took responsibility because the first draft didn't set the tone right, and in response, yesterday the

former Premier was derisive because the bill had amendments. I say to the relics in that party: wouldn't it have been nice in their day if they had had the courage to take any bill to a legislative

committee for the meaningful input of Ontarians and the meaningful debate among other parliamentarians.

We have worked hard to make sure that the tone matches the bill's purpose to inject new spirit and new life into medicare in Ontario.

Let me just tell you something of the key amendments approved by the standing committee on justice and social policy. The bill now clearly states that all

health care decisions must be made in the public interest, something of great concern, especially to our friends at the Montfort hospital. We've made it explicit in the bill that trade unions,

individual doctors and groups of doctors are not subject to accountability agreements. I witnessed through this debate the most curious of campaigns by CUPE, not satisfied with the fact that the

bill, as originally written, didn't do anything about opening up contracts or forcing accountability agreements upon them.

In a meeting months and months ago, I said to Sid Ryan, "Listen, I'm happy to offer an amendment that will make it explicit on this point, just to satisfy

you." For three or four months, Sid Ryan pretended that no such commitment had been made and revved and riled up the workers of CUPE all across this province in the most artificial campaign against

the bill that I have ever seen, creating the illusion of threat where no threat existed. That has been the involvement of that organization on this bill.

This bill clearly defines the four providers that must enter into accountability agreements: hospitals, long-term-care facilities, community care access

centres and independent health facilities. The bill states that accountability agreements will be negotiated between boards and the minister, that they're a shared contract. I'm also proud to say

that the amended legislation clearly explains the steps available to health providers if we cannot reach an agreement together.

In contrast to the hammer used by the last government under the Public Hospitals Act of sending in supervisors to take over hospital boards and fire CEOs, Bill

8 takes a measured and fair approach to remedies designed to change behaviours. We ensured that bill 8 is consistent with Bill 31, the Health Information Protection Act, for the collection, use and

disclosure of personal health information. I'm pleased to say to all members and to all Ontarians that our door continues to be open. We'll work, we'll listen to the debate and to the dialogue and

look for opportunities consistent with our values to enhance the quality of that bill.

In the same spirit of openness, we've committed to 60 days of consultations with the public about regulations. I again want to thank Kevin Flynn and the rest

of the committee for the great work they did. I want to repeat that we all have a responsibility not just to sustain medicare but to drive new life into it. I believe that we have that

responsibility to Ontarians, and I am certainly encouraged by the work that Roy Romanow did that guides us in our transformation of medicare. We must pull together and move in the same direction.

We in Ontario must show the way for the rest of the country, and in order to do so we must finally create a health care system in this province because Ontarians want results. They want progress

and real, positive change in health care. They want a health care system that's public, universal and accessible, and they want a health care system that is accountable.

Just over four decades ago, courageous men and women created Canada's most cherished and defining social program. The torch has been passed on to us. All of us

in this Legislature have a crucial responsibility to sustain and protect medicare. Ontario is leading the way in the transformation of health care in Canada. I challenge and encourage all of you to

join with us as we reach out, take up that charge and demonstrate that medicare is not something about yesterday, it is not simply about today, but has a bright, long future for tomorrow in Ontario

and in Canada. Thank you very much.

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I am pleased to rise today in support of our government's Bill 8, our commitment to the future of medicare.

Before I begin