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

June 23, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 23 June 2004 Mercredi 23 juin 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE AUXILIARY

HMCS HAIDA

ERIC SILK

CONTROL OF SMOKING

STELCO

FEDERAL ELECTION

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

PUBLIC HEALTH

HEALTH CARE

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MANDATORY GUNSHOT WOUNDS

REPORTING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA DÉCLARATION

OBLIGATOIRE DES BLESSURES

PAR BALLE

GENOCIDE MEMORIAL

WEEK ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA SEMAINE

COMMÉMORATIVE DES GÉNOCIDES

REMOVING A MEMBER

FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 DESTITUANT UN MEMBRE

DE LA COMMISSION DE SERVICES

POLICIERS DE TORONTO

ASIAN HERITAGE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE PATRIMOINE ASIATIQUE

VISITOR

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

TRANSITIONAL PHYSICIAN PAYMENT

REVIEW ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA RÉVISION PROVISOIRE

DES PAIEMENTS D'HONORAIRES

DE MÉDECINS

TRANSITIONAL PHYSICIAN PAYMENT

REVIEW ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA RÉVISION PROVISOIRE

DES PAIEMENTS D'HONORAIRES

DE MÉDECINS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

WATER QUALITY

VISITORS /

VISITEURS

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

WATER QUALITY

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

WATER QUALITY

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

HEALTH CARE

WEST NILE VIRUS

COURT RULING

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ABATTOIRS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

SARS

MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE

LABOUR DISPUTE

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

EDUCATION FUNDING

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

SCHOOL FACILITIES

PROPERTY TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

OPTOMETRISTS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

WATER QUALITY

OHIP OFFICE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE AUXILIARY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Last Friday, June 18, I had the privilege of attending the graduation of the 2004-01 class of the Ontario

Provincial Police Auxiliary, held at the Ontario Education Leadership Centre just east of Orillia.

The Ontario Provincial Police Auxiliary program is the top auxiliary program in our country. There are now over 938 auxiliary officers representing 47

detachments across our province. Collectively they contribute over 250,000 hours of volunteer time to their local OPP detachments each and every year.

To show their appreciation of the OPP auxiliary program, a number of high-ranking officials in the OPP attended the event that saw 68 men and women graduate. In

particular, Commissioner Gwen Boniface and keynote speaker Deputy Commissioner William Currie attended the graduation.

What is extremely important in recognizing the OPP Auxiliary is the close working relationship of the OPPA and the OPP. They are indeed all part of a larger OPP

community. The auxiliary officers assist officers of the OPP detachments at numerous events and patrols through the year. Auxiliary officers come from a wide variety of backgrounds to act as

volunteers, assisting police across our province.

I would like to thank Chief Superintendent Terry Harkins for his 36 years of dedication and leadership to the auxiliary program. The auxiliary program continues

to be the dominant volunteer police program in our country, and much of its success over the past 45 years comes from the leadership of Terry and his predecessors. I appreciate this

opportunity.

HMCS HAIDA

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I rise today to share with all Ontarians an exciting event that's occurring on Friday, June 25, in the city

of Hamilton: the opening of the HMCS Haida National Historic Site and historic naval ship to the public.

You need only visit her Web site to discover that the Haida is the last remaining example of the 27 Tribal class destroyers built for the Royal Canadian Navy,

the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy between 1937 and 1945. The Tribals were oft described as "magnificent in appearance, majestic in movement and menacing in disposition." Technologically,

they represented the most advanced naval architecture, marine propulsion systems and weaponry of their time.

Today the Haida is an irreplaceable historic artefact. Her significance has been formally recognized by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

She's a cultural asset representing a lifestyle, however transient, of more than a generation of Canadians who served in Canada's navy between 1943 and 1963. The

thousands of men who sailed on the Haida represented a total cross-section of Canadian society during that period. She is berthed at the HMCS Star Naval Reserve Unit at pier 9, at the foot of

Catherine Street in the waterfront area of Hamilton. I invite people from across the province to visit the great city of Hamilton and to tour this magnificent ship.

ERIC SILK

Mr Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): I rise in the House today to mark the passing of a man who committed his life, talents and expertise

to the betterment of Ontario, Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Emeritus Eric H. Silk.

Commissioner Silk died on June 8 at the age of 96. Aside from his wife, the late Barbara Silk, and his three children, Robert, Michael and Barbara, you could say

that Ontario was his greatest love. He began his long and proud career in the Ontario public service in 1934 and ended it with his retirement in 1973.

He held many posts during those 39 years, including legislative counsel and assistant Deputy Attorney General, but it was his work as the sixth commissioner of

the Ontario Provincial Police that is probably his greatest accomplishment. Commissioner Silk was the first, and so far the only, civilian to head the OPP. He reorganized the OPP to increase

accountability and recognition for all OPP personnel. He improved training, introduced a cadet program and strove to hire more bilingual recruits. His contributions were so great that he was

honoured with the commissioner emeritus title and the general headquarters library is named after him.

A memorial service will be held at Trinity Anglican Church in Streetsville tomorrow at 2 o'clock. I urge all those who can to attend and honour Eric Silk, a man

who did so much in his life to honour Ontario.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I believe everyone in this House would agree that given the importance of a strong economy, it's

essential that proper research be conducted to ensure that policies will not negatively impact small business as well as the jobs, the livelihood, that go with that.

However, I find it unfortunate that this current Liberal government continues to deny the tourism and hospitality industry the right to be heard on the issue of

designated smoking rooms and ventilation. An independent study recently released for the Fair Air Association of Canada clearly found that the majority of people in Ontario favour ventilation

solutions such as designated smoking rooms rather than an outright ban on smoking in bars and pubs. Further, the survey found that a smoking ban will not stop people from lighting up; they'll

either stay home or they'll go somewhere else.

What's wrong with ventilation? It seems to be the answer in office buildings with respect to the sick building syndrome, with respect to airborne illnesses,

issues like the flu, colds, mould and allergies. There are other solutions, but this government chooses to listen only to the antis. It has turned its back on the tourism and hospitality industry.

I wonder if the antis, the non-smokers, will frequent restaurants and bars to help the hospitality industry recover from lost revenue. Somehow I doubt that.

STELCO

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): We are just about to take a break in a day or two for the summer, and I thought it was important that the

voices of some of my constituents are heard today and that those voices continue to be heard over the summer months.

Many of my constituents are employees, retired employees or recently laid-off employees of Stelco. The level of uncertainty surrounding the future of Stelco is

creating a great deal of anxiety for my constituents, their families and those who rely on Stelco as an economic anchor in our community.

Stelco is currently under court protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. I was quite happy that our Premier took swift action to appoint James

Arnett to closely monitor the situation, and I do know that our government is very concerned about Stelco's economic viability and the impact on the Ontario economy as a whole.

My biggest concern, as the member for Stoney Creek, is for the people: the people who work for and with Stelco, Stelco pensioners, both unionized and salaried,

those who were recently given layoff notices, and the impact that the present uncertainty is having on their personal lives and the lives of their families.

The McGuinty government has brought together all the parties. The labour minister filed a motion to have a conciliator appointed, the Honourable George Adams. I

understand there have been some meaningful and fruitful discussions among all parties at this point. It is my hope that those discussions will continue over the summer months and that we will have

good news come the fall.

FEDERAL ELECTION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On Monday, June 28, Ontario citizens have an important decision to make: choosing a new federal

government. Regardless of what the Liberals would like to you believe, the main issue is trust.

The federal Liberals have won the last three elections on the basis of critical promises they've failed to keep: stopping free trade, cancelling the GST,

implementing national day care and pharmacare programs. The list of broken promises goes on and on.

In Ontario we are experiencing the same approach to government by the McGuinty Liberals as their federal cousins: Say one thing to get elected and then do

something entirely different when you are in office. It's the politics of deceit, and it defines the Liberal Party of Ontario and their federal cohorts.

On Monday, June 28, I urge Ontario voters to send a message to the McGuinty and Martin Liberals that we are sick and tired of their deceit, betrayals and broken

promises, and we are not going to put up with it any more. Out with the rascals.

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): I want to tell you today about the little community that can. Health Minister George Smitherman said, "Our government

will move decisively on primary care renewal by acting on our commitment to create family health teams that will provide comprehensive family health services around the clock."

The community of Harrow and Colchester South, in the town of Essex, is a little community that can, because they're going to take up this challenge. They've been

faced with a doctor shortage. They have a doctor who is 75 years old and one who's maturing, and it services an area of about 10,000 people. So now the people in Harrow and Colchester South have

formed a committee. There are some 18 volunteers, headed up by Brian Gray and others, and Dana Howe, a former person in the city of Windsor who is involved in community services, has joined

them.

The Ontario government, Roy Romanow and I are in complete agreement on the tremendous benefits of community health centres. A community health centre in Harrow

and Colchester South will be great news for all residents. It has my full support. I know the people in Harrow and Colchester very well, and they are the community that can and will.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I would like to take a brief moment to congratulate our government on taking a big step forward

in improving public health for all Ontarians. I know this is something my constituents and many of my colleagues' constituents feel is very important.

Yesterday Minister Smitherman and the chief medical officer of health, Dr Sheela Basrur, announced a new three-year action plan to restore public health in

Ontario. This plan will help us move toward our goal of making Ontarians the healthiest Canadians.

Our government is immediately investing $41.7 million in new funding in public health. This is on top of the $273 million already earmarked for public health for

2004-05. This will grow to $469 million a year beginning in 2007-08, as was announced in our budget.

This new money will help establish a new Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Agency. We will also increase the independence of the chief medical officer of

health. We will also immediately establish a Provincial Infectious Disease Advisory Committee.

Finally, we are increasing the number of medical and scientific personnel to establish new surveillance, communications and IT capability. I would like all my

constituents to know that the McGuinty government is taking immediate action so that the people of Ontario see real improvements to their public health system starting this year, and that Ontarians

can be confident that with each passing year of our plan, the public health system will be stronger.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I'd like to take this opportunity today to discourage the Alberta provincial government from taking further

steps toward the creation of a two-tiered health care system in the province of Alberta.

It's absolutely shameful for Stephen Harper to support such an initiative. In December 2001, Harper encouraged the Alberta government to take aim at the Canada

Health Act. It would seem that this week, Stephen Harper's encouragement has come to fruition. Premier Ralph Klein is proposing health reforms and has admitted they violate the Canada Health Act.

Releasing a portion of their plan, frankly, is not enough. We all know there's a hidden agenda out there. Stephen Harper can run from it, but the people of Canada will know. This would give all

Canadians a full perspective on changes to health care that may take place in Alberta.

In contrast to the Harper-Klein school of health care delivery, our government is taking steps to stabilize and maintain a publicly funded health care system

within the limits of the Canada Health Act. We've introduced measures to strengthen accountability, especially in our long-term-care homes. This accountability is necessary to protect the health

and safety of residents.

The creation of the Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Agency will enhance credibility and transparency by making a distinction between scientific advice

and policy-making within the ministry. We will establish high standards of care within the domain of the Canada Health Act. I challenge Ralph Klein and Stephen Harper to do the same.

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the

fiscal year 2003-04.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the Quebec Minister of Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs and

Native Affairs, the Honourable Benoît Pelletier. Please join me in welcoming our distinguished guest.

We also have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the recipients of the internationally recognized medal of la francophonie, l'ordre de la Pléiade, for

their outstanding contributions to French-speaking communities in the province. Please also join me in welcoming our honoured guests.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated June 23,

2004, of the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 106(e)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MANDATORY GUNSHOT WOUNDS

REPORTING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA DÉCLARATION

OBLIGATOIRE DES BLESSURES

PAR BALLE

Mr Kwinter moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 110,

An Act to require the disclosure of information to police respecting persons being treated for gunshot wounds / Projet de loi 110, Loi exigeant la

divulgation à la police de renseignements en ce qui concerne les personnes traitées pour blessure par balle.

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

Mr Kwinter?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I'll be making a statement during ministerial statements.

GENOCIDE MEMORIAL

WEEK ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA SEMAINE

COMMÉMORATIVE DES GÉNOCIDES

Mr Dunlop moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 111,

An Act to proclaim Genocide Memorial Week in Ontario / Projet de loi 111, Loi proclamant la Semaine commémorative des génocides en

Ontario.

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

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This bill proclaims the week beginning on the fourth Monday in March in each year as Genocide Memorial Week,

and it follows a bill that was introduced previously by Mr Bob Wood, the member for London.

REMOVING A MEMBER

FROM THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 DESTITUANT UN MEMBRE

DE LA COMMISSION DE SERVICES

POLICIERS DE TORONTO

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act respecting the removal of a member from the Toronto Police Services Board / Projet de loi 112, Loi concernant la destitution d'un membre

de la Commission de services policiers de Toronto.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I had indicated in this Legislature that after several attempts to get the government to remove Norm

Gardner from the police services board, they would not do that, so today I've introduced a bill which gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to revoke the appointment of Norman Gardner

to the Toronto Police Services Board, and if this power is exercised, the Lieutenant Governor in Council would be required to appoint a new person to the board. I should be clear that certain

rights would be extinguished on the exercise of this power, but this is a power that the government must be given to remove this gentleman from the board. I've got nothing personal against Norm

Gardner, but given the dysfunctionality of the board and the fact that he was asked to leave and is appealing and refuses to step down, I think it is critical that this bill be passed today so we

can get on with helping the police services board to go forward.

ASIAN HERITAGE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE PATRIMOINE ASIATIQUE

Mr Wong moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 113,

An Act to proclaim the month of May as Asian Heritage Month / Projet de loi 113, Loi proclamant le mois de mai Mois du patrimoine asiatique.

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

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): In Ontario, diversity is our strength, and immigrants from many Asian countries have chosen this great province to

be their home. It is appropriate to recognize and pay tribute to the contributions that Asians have made and continue to make to the development and general welfare of Ontario. The month of May has

been proclaimed to be Asian Heritage Month in the Senate, pursuant to a motion put forward by Senator Vivienne Poy in December 2001, and this follows that.

VISITOR

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to introduce the mother of Olivia Whetung Cole, who is a

page from Guelph-Wellington. We're pleased to welcome her today.

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

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Wednesday, June 23, 2004, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1356 to 1401.

The Speaker: Mr Duncan has moved government notice of motion 149.

All those in favour, please rise to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Sandals, Liz

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jackson, Cameron

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Yakabuski, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 15.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

a member of the official opposition to move second reading of Bill 104, with immediate passage, and then a member of the third party to move third reading of Bill 104, followed by immediate passage

and no further debate.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

TRANSITIONAL PHYSICIAN PAYMENT

REVIEW ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA RÉVISION PROVISOIRE

DES PAIEMENTS D'HONORAIRES

DE MÉDECINS

Mr Runciman, on behalf of Mr Smitherman, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 104,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Ministry of Health Appeal and Review Boards Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 104, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur

l'assurance-santé et la Loi de 1998 sur les commissions d'appel et de révision du ministère de la Santé.

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

TRANSITIONAL PHYSICIAN PAYMENT

REVIEW ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA RÉVISION PROVISOIRE

DES PAIEMENTS D'HONORAIRES

DE MÉDECINS

Mr Kormos, on behalf of Mr Smitherman, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 104,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Ministry of Health Appeal and Review Boards Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 104, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur

l'assurance-santé et la Loi de 1998 sur les commissions d'appel et de révision du ministère de la Santé.

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I rise this afternoon to announce legislation that would, if

passed, make Ontario communities safer. The McGuinty government is committed to delivering the real, positive change that will make Ontario communities safer.

Until now, hospitals have been able to use their own discretion on whether or not to notify police when they treat someone with a gunshot wound. Today, I am

introducing legislation that, if passed, would rectify that situation by making it mandatory for public hospitals and prescribed health care facilities to report to police when they treat a person

with a gunshot wound.

Facilities would be required to report the name of the person being treated, if it is known, and the location of the facility. The disclosure would have to

occur orally as soon as it is reasonably practicable without interfering with the treatment of the patient or disrupting the normal operation of the facility.

This legislation, if passed, would put Ontario at the forefront of legislation in this area. Forty-five American states have some form of similar legislation.

This legislation, if passed, would make Ontario the only province in Canada with legislation that makes the reporting of gunshot wounds mandatory.

In Ontario, it's mandatory for businesses such as auto body shops to report bullet holes in cars. Why would we require the reporting of bullet holes in cars

but not bullet holes in people?

The policy about reporting to police has varied from hospital to hospital, even from doctor to doctor. Emergency medical attendants also have policies in place

relating to notifying police when responding to incidents where a victim has been shot. We're fixing that imbalance today.

Our legislation would minimize the legal and ethical dilemma facing medical staff on whether or not to report such incidents to the police. This legislation

would protect health care facilities from liability so they could give authorized information to the police without worrying about their exposure to liability.

The legislation I'm introducing this afternoon, if passed, would remove any discrepancies and standardize the procedure for reporting across the province.

What is just as important is what the proposed legislation doesn't do. If passed, the legislation would not make it mandatory for family physicians to report

gunshot wound patients to police, thus maintaining the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. Nor would the proposed legislation negatively impact on any reporting procedures already in

place between police and hospitals. The bill would not prevent a facility from disclosing information to the police if the facility is required or permitted to do so under other legislation or by

law.

The policing community supports this legislation. The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the Toronto Police Service have asked for this legislation.

And just last week, the board of directors of the Ontario Medical Association passed a resolution supporting mandatory reporting. The Ontario Association of Police Services Boards recently wrote to

the Premier asking my ministry to work with police stakeholders to examine what could be done to make reporting mandatory.

We're sure the citizens of Ontario will welcome this legislation. By strengthening the communities in which we live, we are providing the people of Ontario

with a quality of life that is second to none.

WATER QUALITY

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): Safe and clean drinking water is essential to protecting the health and quality of life

enjoyed by the people in this great province. People deserve safe, clean and liveable communities to call home. Our government understands this, and we are delivering positive change to improve the

lives of the people of Ontario.

One of these positive changes is a new emphasis on protecting the sources of our drinking water. Progress has been made in treatment, monitoring and reporting,

but source protection has remained the missing link.

Taking the recommendations of Commissioner O'Connor as our guide, we are fulfilling a vision of water protection that provides safeguards from the source to

the tap.

In a few moments I will tell the honourable members about a significant new action we are taking today. First, I want to remind the House of the tremendous

progress being made by our government. We have increased the number of water inspectors in Ontario by 25%. We have imposed a one-year moratorium on new and expanded water-taking permits that remove

water from watersheds. We are proposing tough new rules for water-takings. We have invested $13 million toward the cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes. We have announced an advisory council

on drinking water quality and testing standards. We created an Industrial Pollution Action Team to make recommendations on preventing spills and dangerous emissions. We set tough new training and

certification requirements for water system operators.

Since our government took office in October, we have implemented 23 of the recommendations made by Commissioner O'Connor in his report on the Walkerton

inquiry. I believe it is a remarkable record of accomplishment in a short period of time. It is a testament to this government's determination to see the job through.

Today I am pleased to advise the honourable members that the text of proposed legislation for source protection planning has been placed on the Environmental

Bill of Rights registry for a 60-day public comment period. It deals with the development and approval of source protection plans. The proposed legislation looks at how source protection areas and

regions will be established, as well as roles and responsibilities for those developing the plans. It takes a watershed-based approach to source protection, addressing all sources of drinking

water, inland lakes, rivers, groundwater and the Great Lakes.

We are also working on the implementation aspects of this legislation with the two expert advisory committees that I established this past December. The two

committees will provide guidance on scientific issues, funding mechanisms and implementation tools. Following public comment, the ministry will combine the planning and implementation components

into one comprehensive source protection bill. It is my hope to introduce the final bill later this year.

The people of Ontario rely on well-protected drinking water for their health and well-being. Today the McGuinty government has moved a step closer to

introducing comprehensive source protection legislation that will help protect our water before it enters our drinking water systems.

VISITORS /

VISITEURS

Hon Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to

introduce my dear friend, neighbour and constituent Gisèle Richer, who tonight will receive l'insigne de l'ordre de la Pléiade for her contribution in the francophone community both in

Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): Sur un point d'ordre, monsieur le Président : comment ne peut-on pas prendre l'occasion, avec

cette déclaration, pour dire que M. Philippe Boissonneault, avec sa famille, et M. Sylvain Lacroix aussi, qui vont être conférés avec l'ordre de la Pléiade, sont ici avec

nous aujourd'hui. Merci.

Mr Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to welcome the International Seniors Club of Brampton.

They're sitting up there in the lobby.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I thought I did a wonderful job of introducing those who are getting the awards today, but thank you for

that. That was another point of order.

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise today to be able to make a few comments on the introduction of the bill by the Minister

of Community Safety and Correctional Services. I believe that is the minister's first bill introduced in this House, and at the onset I'll tell you that we will be supporting this piece of

legislation. It follows quite clearly on the fact that our House leader, Mr Runciman, introduced a notice of motion on December 11 that says, "That in the opinion of this House, the government of

Ontario should introduce legislation to require hospitals and physicians to report gunshot wounds and knife injuries to their local police service." He filed that on December 11, 2003.

As the critic for community safety and correctional services, I've met with a number of our stakeholders, some of those mentioned by the minister. Since the

beginning of the year, the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and basically all the stakeholders I've talked to have very much supported this legislation.

It has been led by the fact that here in the province we've had some gun-related crimes this year, more serious than a lot of years, and it has come to the forefront. I think it's time this bill

was passed.

In my opinion, it's unfortunate that we didn't introduce it a little earlier. It would have been nice to see this bill passed into law as soon as possible. The

way we're going now, when we come back for the fall session I don't think we'll see it proclaimed until probably around November 1 at the earliest, which is a full year after this government took

office.

This bill also brings something else to our attention, and that's the fact that following a disastrous budget, following the fact that police officers in this

province were promised by the McGuinty government to have 1,000 new people added to their ranks, the government failed them both in the throne speech and in the recent budget. What's cute about

this and what's kind of warm and cozy is that this bill is introduced two days before the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police annual conference in Windsor, which is next week. The minister has

got to talk about something very positive at that conference. He can't talk about the 1,000 new police officers that you promised, because that doesn't exist, so this bill will be the topic of

conversation. I applaud him for some good political moves in that area.

We will be supporting this bill. It's high time that it was put into legislation. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to this today.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Another day, another slew of ministerial announcements to divert the public's attention from the

fact that as of July 1, working families across Ontario will be digging into their pockets to pay the Liberal health tax. It seems that this government feels it can cushion the blow of this cash

grab, as they hurry out the door for their summer vacation, by filling the airwaves with legislative proposals and feel-good motherhood announcements -- anything to hide the fact that the Liberal

broken-promise budget is about to take a bite out of people's wallets and that health premiums are going to pay for infrastructure, sewers, perhaps water now, despite the government's promise that

it would go to health care.

Take the source water protection proposal. Where are the dollars coming from? The Liberal budget on page 12 indicates that the Ministry of the Environment is

about to see a 12% cut to its operating budget. That's 12% fewer dollars to be spent on environmental initiatives. So I'm interested to hear exactly where this money is coming from. Is it being

transferred from other parts of the ministry? Is it a growing list of items funded through the government's so-called health care premium?

On the water-taking issue, I agree that we simply cannot issue permits with no regard for the future of our watersheds. This government must take into

consideration water conservation, the impact on groundwater, the impact on surface water. We all know how important it is to ascertain the health of our streams and lakes and the habitat that is so

dependent on that health.

However, I must reiterate the fact that as Liberal government moves forward with source water protection, it must ensure that there is a process of partnership

with those it is impacting. We need partnerships. Agricultural groups need to determine the impact that proposed source water protection policies may have on our farmers. Agriculture needs to be

recognized as a key stakeholder. They need to have their ideas and concerns discussed in a professional, science-based and organized manner.

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats look forward to the debate around the bill introduced for first reading today by the Minister

of Community Safety. Clearly, the issue being addressed is the proliferation of guns, especially handguns, illegal guns, that are being used, quite frankly, in no small part by young people

shooting each other, most dramatically here in the city of Toronto but elsewhere in the province as well.

We understand that the police have a very clear interest in connecting the dots when it comes to the illegal use of these firearms, and especially handguns.

That means that the police would have a real interest in discovering people who appeared for treatment after having been attacked with a firearm.

However, there are concerns. It's noted that this would be the first province in Canada to implement this type of procedure. I also note, having read the bill,

that it purports to compel the reporting of these incidents with no consequences for not reporting the incidents. One questions then the enforceability of it. The OMA -- I spoke with them earlier

today -- tells me it supports this legislation. It's easy for the OMA to support the legislation, because it's not doctors who are compelled to report. In fact, physicians are exempted from being

compelled to report if a gunshot victim attends at the physician's office.

Of course, guns aren't the only weapons used. Knives are used in attacks upon people. Indeed, we have to consider the obligation of medical personnel, of

health professionals to report any crime they become aware of.

There is a concern whether or not this type of regime creates a disincentive for people to attend at hospitals for treatment. I'm not going to make

prejudgments about that, but I say this bill has to go to committee. There is a great deal that has to be said about the bill in view of the fact that the bill impacts not just on doctors -- as a

matter of fact, very little on doctors -- but on the broader range of health professionals, who are the ones who are going to be called upon, in hospitals and other similar facilities, to do this

reporting.

At the end of the day, the real issue is the fact that we have not come to grips with the growing number of illegal firearms out there on the streets being

used by criminals. Two billion dollars spent by the federal Liberals on their phony gun registry has done zip to control the proliferation of illegal handguns being used by kids to shoot other

kids.

We've got to make sure that at the end of the day we give the cops the real resources they need -- the staffing they need, the tools they need -- to go out

there to apprehend the people peddling illegal firearms and to apprehend the people using them, and that means resources for police departments. That will be much of the focus of the debate around

this bill as well.

WATER QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): To the Minister of the Environment, this was yet again another diversion announcement to try to get

people's minds off the broken promise on tax increases and off the fact there's going to be a 12% cut in the Ministry of the Environment's operating budget starting next year.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Hey, I started to let you know about that.

But even worse, the minister announced today that she is just going to put a white paper out there for discussion, nothing about implementation and where we go

from here. I want to point out to you several things. Listen carefully.

Today is the day a whole bunch of environmental groups have come forward slamming the government for allowing the King City big pipe to go ahead. They say, "It

flies in the face of the province of Ontario's post-Walkerton promises to pursue source water protection." That's one. Secondly, I've pointed out in this place before that when it comes to water

protection the Liberals are actually lowering standards for drinking water by failing to fix regulation 903 -- remember that? -- to deal with well water. You know what? Another Walkerton could

happen if they don't fix that.

Furthermore, there are things that can be done now if the government were clearly committed to source protection; and I pointed these out before. They could

bring back CURB -- Clean Up Rural Beaches. The program the NDP brought in and the Tories cancelled needs to be brought back to help the small farmers keep their wells from being contaminated.

They should put a moratorium on factory hog farms. I've got a private member's bill I've put forward -- no movement. There's evidence that could be a huge

source of water contamination at the source. There is one in the minister's own riding and she is not dealing with that.

These are the kinds of things the minister and the government need to be looking at right now, if they are truly committed to source protection.

Let me come back to the big pipe. If they allow that to go ahead, they will lose all credibility when it comes to source water protection in this province.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Earlier I had introduced someone in the Speaker's gallery who had not arrived. I would like now to recognize

the Quebec Minister of Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs and Native Affairs, the Honourable Benoît Pelletier. Please join me in giving him a warm welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): In the absence of the Premier, my question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, before the election, your

Premier, Dalton McGuinty, said that he was going to save our health care system, that he was going to provide significant new dollars. Then, after the election, you and your government said that

health care spending was out of control, that costs and expectations had to be reined in, that they were out of control.

On six occasions since May of this year, I have brought to your attention concerns presented by Cancer Care Ontario and proof that your budget constraints had

forced Cancer Care Ontario to stop reimbursement for cancer patients in one drug in particular, and delayed or deferred other life-saving drugs.

On June 16, I raised in this House the case of Mr Doug Henderson, a cancer patient. He's with us in the House. He appeared in this morning's Sun. He considers

himself very fortunate that he can afford the $50,000 for the Rituximab treatments that he received in Indianapolis. Doug Henderson wants to know, why is it, Minister, that you have chosen cancer

treatment in this province and its advocate, Cancer Care Ontario, as your battleground for containing your health care budget and its costs?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I ask the member opposite, why is it that you continue to be involved in the

campaign to mislead and misinform the people of the province on this issue? Let's be very --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I would ask you to withdraw that. It's unparliamentary.

Hon Mr Smitherman: Yes, I will. I want to be very clear. Cancer Care Ontario continues to operate in exactly the way that it has since 1995.

That works like this: They make the decisions on the basis of which drugs should be covered, and they base that on the scientific evidence.

What is new is that this year we have already indicated to Cancer Care Ontario that we will make an investment of at least 25% more for the cancer drugs that

they deem necessary to provide the utmost of care for the people of Ontario who are struggling with cancer.

On this point, the honourable member has been active in a campaign designed to make it look like there's political decision-making with respect to which drugs

are available to people at a time. This is not the case. This is the role of scientists, and this is the role of scientists who are operating on behalf of Cancer Care Ontario.

With respect to the honourable member's assertion that we're involved in some campaign about health care, he's right. It's a campaign that adds 7% to the

budget of health care in the province of Ontario, for a total investment of $2.2 billion in new dollars.

Mr Jackson: Minister, you were warned, and your staff were warned, rather, back in February -- and I provided proof to your Premier -- that a

drug had essentially been delisted for the first time in our province. The fact is, you have not been doing your homework, and you have not been doing your job as the minister. Cancer Care Ontario

has cut a specific treatment access to stay within your ministry's rigid budget guidelines. More and more Ontarians are now going to the US for treatment -- not just your constituent Mr Henderson,

but many, many more.

In the House today is Mr Chris Kuzik. He's aged 59. He sold his home in Oshawa. He moved to Peterborough, where it was more affordable, to prepare for the last

years of his life, to pay for his Rituximab treatments in Rochester. The tumours in his neck were so large that he could barely shave. Yet, after the treatments that he's received, they have shrunk

and nearly disappeared. He wants me to ask you today why you have failed to listen to Cancer Care Ontario's recommendations to give treatment to all Ontario residents. This request was given to you

months ago.

Hon Mr Smitherman: What is incredibly important to note is that the member will well know that I can't address individual cases, that it's

inappropriate for the Minister of Health to do so.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Shame on you.

Hon Mr Smitherman: What? For following the rules?

The role of Cancer Care Ontario remains entirely unaffected by any decisions that this government has taken. What's clear is that we've indicated to Cancer

Care Ontario that they have our full support, and we have the full expectation that their drug budget will grow by at least 25% this year. We've indicated to them, and I've indicated to this member

in the House on multiple occasions, that the government of Ontario stands by the people of Ontario who need cancer support. What that means on the issue of drugs is that this government has

indicated very, very clearly to Cancer Care Ontario that if they believe there's a product that Ontarians need, they should list it and they should use it, and we will work with them to foot the

bill.

Let me be very clear on the issue of the bill. We have a full expectation that that will be at least 25% larger than it was last year.

Mr Jackson: Your budget year as Minister of Health is almost one quarter over, and you have not responded. You have not flowed the dollars.

You are sitting on this money, and cancer patients are increasingly going to the United States.

The review team -- the oncology site team, the haematology site review team -- approved this drug months ago. Cancer Care Ontario approved it with their policy

department months ago. You are sitting on the money and you are not flowing it to these people. Antonella Artuso of the Toronto Sun confirmed what I raised in this House last week, that Cancer Care

Ontario was forced to remove up to $4 million in discretionary funding that was previously flowing to cancer treatment centres across our province.

Your Liberal government must assure the people who are dying of cancer in this province that you will free Cancer Care Ontario's budget so that they can

provide the care and save the lives of Ontarians. Instead of your agenda of capping and controlling health care costs in cancer, let them save lives.

Hon Mr Smitherman: My agenda, with all due respect, is the agenda of our government, and our agenda is clear. It is to make Ontarians the

healthiest Canadians.

We've been very, very clear on the issue of cancer drugs. We fully expect, and we have fully indicated to the board of Cancer Care Ontario and to the people

who run Cancer Care Ontario, that this government is prepared to stand by them and to back them up on any scientific decision they make about what product, what drug, should be made available to

people in the province of Ontario who are struggling with the challenges of cancer. That means, as a bare minimum, that we are prepared as a government to increase their drug budget by 25%.

But let me go further. We've indicated to them that if they don't find that to be sufficient, they should let us know. The fact of the matter is that the board

of Cancer Care Ontario and the decisions around which products will be listed, provided and made available is exactly the same process it has been in this province since 1995.

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Attorney General. We are all aware of the recent funding reannouncements of

our government's initiatives that were made by your government to fight child pornography. First of all, it was the $700,000 that was announced to help the Toronto Police Service track sex

offenders. That was something you were shamed into. Of course, there was $1 million announced for the OPP to strengthen their ability to fight child pornography as well.

You are sitting on a surplus of at least $40 million in the victims' justice fund. This money could be used to help municipal police services combat child

pornography. Tell us now, which police services have received money from this fund as a result of your decisions, not those made by this party when we were in government?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): It is true we

have made a number of announcements with respect to the provision of funds under the victims' justice fund. We inherited a significant surplus under the victims' justice fund. We want to make sure

the money goes to victims, of course. We want to make sure that it's done in a way that makes sense.

We also want to make sure, and I know the member will agree with this, that we have geographic equality so that no matter where you live in the province of

Ontario, a victim is going to get services provided by this government that will not only ensure they are not revictimized, but will ensure that the services they need to get on with their lives

are provided. I look forward to providing more information to the member on that, perhaps in the supplementary.

Mr Dunlop: There are a number of municipal police services outside of Toronto that are anxiously awaiting approval for funding from the

victims' justice fund to fight child pornography. I think you know about that. It's my understanding that they are tired of waiting for this money; they're tired of your ministry dragging their

heels on this. Can you please name the municipal police services that have already been denied funding from your ministry's victims' justice fund to combat child pornography?

Hon Mr Bryant: None, I say to the member. We're working with these police services. We're working with them to determine the best way to spend

the money. I know that they've been extremely co-operative. I just want to take this opportunity to thank those police services for the work they are doing and for working with our ministry so that

we make sure we get this done right. I know that will have the support of this member as well.

Mr Dunlop: The minister should know that I'm aware of at least one municipal police service outside Toronto that has already been flatly

denied funding from the victims' justice fund to fight child pornography. I've been told that the unit that deals with child pornography in the Toronto Police Service is the third-best in the

world. Our government had provided $2 million over two years for this unit, but its funding runs out at the end of this year. This again is money from the victims' justice fund. Minister, are you

going to leave the Toronto Police Service on pins and needles until the last minute, or will you stand in this House right now and tell us exactly when their funding to fight child pornography will

be renewed?

Hon Mr Bryant: The member is wrong. In fact, we are working with these police services. As you said, there are some pilot projects that run

out at the end of the year. Obviously we want to give them plenty of notice. They should probably expect to get some final word within the next couple of weeks. We've got plenty of time. We're

working with the police services, and it is actually working extremely well, I'm happy to report. Really, it's a period of collaboration and co-operation. We're doing some things a little bit new,

but more on that to come. Of course the victims' justice fund has got to be used in a way that serves victims, prevents revictimization, and that's what we're going to do.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, your Premier keeps trying to claim that he is the

champion of health care, but every claim he makes turns out to be false. First, he said he would never impose health care premiums on working families because they're regressive and unfair; then he

did just that. Then he tried to pretend that your $2-billion tax grab from working families is progressive, but a single-parent mom with an income of $25,000 a year will see her provincial income

tax go up by 24%. He said that every penny of your regressive and unfair tax grab would be spent on health care services. We now know much of it will go for sewer pipe. He said the health tax would

fund a vaccination program for children, but then we discovered that was false as well. The federal government's paying for the vaccination program.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr Hampton: Minister, given all your Premier's broken promises on health care, why should anyone believe any promise Liberals make on health

care?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member perhaps doesn't want to take it from me. Just let me talk

about the issue of public health from yesterday.

Here's what Dr David Walker said about our initiatives with respect to public health: "Operation Health Protection comprehensively addresses the

recommendations of the expert panel on SARS. I commend the minister for his response to our work. Implementation of this plan should restore public health and the confidence of the public."

Dr David Naylor said, "These are very important steps forward in renewing public health in Ontario. The plan unquestionably covers several important areas that

needed urgent attention."

Doris Grinspun said, "The report is good news for Ontarians and a great step forward to recognize the vital role of nurses in public health in this

province."

I think what's really going on here is very clear: The honourable member has taken such a healthy dose of cynicism that he remains unable to separate his

fiction from the fact of the matter, and the fact of the matter is that all across Ontario community organizations related to long-term care, home care, primary care reform, mental health supports

and public health renewal are celebrating elements of our government's budget.

Mr Hampton: I recognize that you and your Premier are very good at making speeches and boastful announcements and getting a day of headlines,

but then later it turns out it's all false.

I heard and saw your boastful announcement yesterday that you are showing smart leadership on public health, but then I discover a letter from you to the

medical officers of health across the province where you tell them that you're going to cut their budget for fighting West Nile virus by 22%. Behold another boastful announcement. You spin it for

the media and then, while everyone's looking at the announcement, you send out a letter saying, "Oh, by the way, we're going to cut your budget to fight West Nile by 22%."

Tell me, Minister, is cutting the budget to fight a virus like West Nile by 22% smart public health policy?

Hon Mr Smitherman: What I think is incredibly smart public health policy in this province is, at the end of a year, to gather around the

scientists, the people in our public health branch and the people in the public health units across Ontario to evaluate the program we've had in place with respect to West Nile and to make changes

that people agree are necessary.

So what you see in our West Nile plan are alterations from 2003. Let me give you --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Finished?

Hon Mr Smitherman: No. There are two points that I think are incredibly important to note. The first is with respect to the changes we've

made: more mosquito testing, not less, and secondly, because we know that the campaigns that have been run on television have had the effect of giving more information to people over time, we have

been able to have a reduction in the amount of money we're spending.

Mr Hampton: We have a new Liberal vocabulary for a cut. It's called an alteration.

Here is the truth, Minister. You're telling municipalities that are already out there engaged in the fight against West Nile that halfway through the fiscal

year you're cutting their budgets by 22%. For the city of Toronto, for example, that's a $700,000 cut, and the only way they can find that is to go out and cut other programs drastically. Minister,

maybe you are not aware of this, but people can die from the West Nile virus. People can become very seriously ill from it. So while you claim to show enlightened leadership on public health

policy, why are you slashing the budget for this dangerous virus?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The honourable member, in such a flurry of hyperbole, misses a few points. Firstly, we're nowhere near halfway through a

fiscal year, which began on April 1. In fact, West Nile virus surveillance in this province only began on May 12. So I don't know where the honourable member gets his information.

The fact of the matter is very, very clear. At the end of a year, we get involved with the people who deliver the program and we make changes to the program,

no doubt, to reflect the best information we have. I don't apologize for this; I champion it. I say it seems appropriate that when there is a health risk that changes or is altered or where we find

new information about the way to fight it, of course we should make appropriate changes.

I'm pleased to say that one of the other things that has resulted in a reduction of spending on this file is that we have been able to not move forward, to

save money for the hiring of seven additional people in the Ministry of Health.

The Speaker: New question.

WEST NILE VIRUS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The minister illustrates he is not really aware of what is going on. The municipal budgets begin

January 1. They're halfway through their fiscal year, and you're telling them to cut 22% from their budgets to fight a serious virus.

Eighty-nine people in southern Ontario became ill from the West Nile virus last year. You say it's not serious. According to your own ministry Web site,

"Symptoms of West Nile virus can vary from illness such as West Nile fever to serious neurological illness such as encephalitis." That's what your own Web site says.

But apparently, in all your boasting, this is not a priority for you. You'd rather give speeches and hold press conferences. But when it comes to fighting West

Nile virus, you quietly try to cut the budget. Are you going to retract this 22% cut, or is your word as good as your Premier's?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm not going to retract it, but what the honourable member ought to do is

retract the stream of misinformation he just presented. The fact of the matter is that he makes it seem like the lion's share of the expenditure we make related to West Nile virus is done at the

municipal level. It is a partnership. Most of the reductions came from the savings to be found at the ministry end, like a reduction in television advertising from $7.2 million to $4 million.

If public health officials in the land are so riled up by this, then why was it that yesterday the associate chief medical officer of health in York region

said this: "This action plan marks an important turning point for public health in Ontario. I am pleased to support this plan and look forward to working with the provincial and municipal partners

to strengthen public health across the province"? Why is that? Because he knows we just put $25 million additional into public health units in the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Well, I can hardly wait until that medical officer of health sees this letter, because the letter is very interesting. You're

going to cut the budget by 22%. In the summer, when we should be focused on West Nile, when the mosquitoes are becoming a serious health hazard, you're going to cut the budget. But you also say

this: If they contracted out their West Nile effort, then they keep the money. It's OK if you privatize it; you won't get cut. But if you are doing it in-house, as a public service, then you want

to cut the budget by 22%. This also breaks your government's promise that there wasn't going to be more downloading on to municipalities, because municipalities will have to go elsewhere to find

the money. That's downloading.

Are you going to retract this? Or is your promise on public health about as good as your Premier's promises -- not worth anything?

Hon Mr Smitherman: There goes the honourable member talking about his party's record on auto insurance again. The fact of the matter remains

incredibly clear to the people involved in this on the front lines. Because of the paramountcy of protecting the public interest, we have enhanced our capacity to do surveillance and more mosquito

testing. That is clearly noted in our initiative this year. This program has been re-profiled this year because public health units and the public health officials that represent the government of

Ontario have determined that there is a more appropriate way to run the program. The honourable member --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Hon Mr Smitherman: Please give the member from Nickel Belt a question.

The fact of the matter remains very, very clear. We have a program in this province with respect to West Nile. When combined with the additional resources that

we are today delivering to public health units across this province, it enhances -- does not diminish, but dramatically enhances -- our capacity to protect the health of the people of the province

of Ontario and --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Hampton: I want the people of Ontario to know this: While people can die of West Nile; while people can become debilitated, lifelong, from

West Nile; while people who are frail and elderly are especially vulnerable to West Nile, what does this minister talk about? He talks about "re-profiling." He says, "We're slightly going to amend

the budget."

Why don't you have the courage to stand up and say what it is? You're cutting the budgets of medical officers of health by 22% in their fight against West

Nile. Why don't you have the honesty to stand up and say what you're really doing instead of pretending it's something else?

Hon Mr Smitherman: Why don't you have the honesty to present the facts as they are? The fact of the matter is that there's no truth whatsoever

to your allegation about a 22% cut. Your blacked-out letter is a bunch of BS --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could I have the minister respond, please.

Hon Mr Smitherman: The member is attempting to distort the facts to back up his argument. It is an unsettling situation. For the member's

The Speaker: Order. Could I have a new question, please.

COURT RULING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Attorney General. It deals with the recent acquittal of former child actor

Tyson Talbot on charges related to the death of Christopher Shelton, a 23-year-old pre-law student. I think it's fair to say that the acquittal has outraged the victim's family and many Ontarians.

As you know, the trial judge refused to let the jury know of Mr Talbot's relevant criminal history, that at the time of his trial he was also facing a charge of attempted murder in another attack

and that he had a significant number of previous convictions for violent crimes such as assault, assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

Minister, will you assure Christopher Shelton's family today that this blot on our justice system will be challenged and that you will direct the crown to

appeal this verdict?

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

member for raising these concerns and these facts. You will appreciate that the matter is still in a period in which we have to exercise some independent discretion here. I can tell the member that

we are looking at this very closely, and that as soon as we have some information I'll undertake to provide it to him. But, for now, it is something that we have to look at closely before we

announce any decision on it.

Mr Runciman: I appreciate that the clock is ticking, as the Attorney General knows. This is an all-too-familiar incident for those of us who

can recall the Alison Parrott murder as well: the practice of a judge not allowing the person charged to be cross-examined on their relevant criminal history. In effect, the jury is denied the

truth. Too often, the exercise of judicial discretion allows a distorted and inaccurate picture to be presented to a jury.

Minister, I understand your situation with respect to announcing an appeal, but will you today commit to raising this issue at the next

federal-provincial-territorial justice ministers' conference to put a stop to this judicial practice and ensure that those charged can be cross-examined on their relevant criminal history?

Hon Mr Bryant: I know you appreciate the situation here, and I don't want to say more than I have said, because we are talking about a

specific matter that is before the court. I hear you, I do. I would appreciate any suggestions that the member may have with respect to this particular matter and whether reforms are needed. I will

pursue that. You've asked me about a case, and you know I can't speak to it. But I'd appreciate any information you may have on this, so that if it's something that can be taken to the justice

ministers' conference in the fall, I will.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Last Friday, I held a press conference with the Sudbury and

District Chiropractic Society and three patients. All three make extensive use of chiropractic coverage and none has any private insurance. The Tucker family, for example, paid $250 last year out

of their own pocket to access chiropractic care. With no OHIP coverage, they would now pay $750 to get the same level of care. Leeann Tucker says there's no way her family can afford that cost, not

to mention the new cost the family will be forced to pay with your new health tax.

Minister, chiropractic care is essential for Leeann Tucker, her husband and two children. Will you do the right thing now and reverse your decision to delist

chiropractic services?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I've had many opportunities to make the point about the priorities that we've

chosen to support in our government's most recent budget. As would be well known to many in Sudbury, but apparently not to the honourable member, Sudbury is a very significant beneficiary of our

government's direction. The fact is that as a result of the priorities we've chosen, we're moving forward on significant primary care reform to help a community like Sudbury, 30,000 people from

which, as a result of that party while they were in government and that party when they were in government, don't have the benefit of a doctor.

In addition, we are significantly supporting the Northern Ontario Medical School, and I was pleased to announce recently that our government is moving forward

with a strong commitment to the Sudbury Regional Hospital to make sure that it's there to provide that vital role for health services for the people of northeastern Ontario.

Ms Martel: The question was about chiropractic care and people in my community who are now going to have to pay out of their own pockets for

that. You see, before the election, Minister, your government said you would not cut health care services. Your Premier said you would never bring in a new health tax, and you also said that you

would stop two-tier health in Ontario.

After the election, you're the government that's cutting services from OHIP, you're the government that's brought in an unfair, regressive health tax, and

you're the government that's reinforcing two-tier health, where, if you have the money you can buy quality care, and if you don't, you just do without.

Minister, cutting chiropractic services will cost the health care system more, because people in pain will end up in the emergency ward. That will cost a whole

lot more than a visit to the local chiropractor. Your cuts to health care hurt patients and they're not going to save a dime. Why don't you do the right thing now and reverse your decision:

Continue to cover chiropractic care through OHIP?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I'm pleased to acknowledge that there were tough decisions associated with this. The decisions we've been able to make do

give us the chance in this province to transform the health care system by driving resources to the community level where they haven't been seen in quite some time. Northerners will be the

beneficiaries of a strategy that enhances, as an example, our capacity to deliver long-term care.

The fact of the matter remains that the budget contained choices, and it reflected clear priorities on our part. As a result of the initiatives we've taken,

the people of Sudbury will have the benefit of dramatically expanded health care services in a wide variety of ways, as has been outlined by our government. While I recognize that these choices are

difficult, we very much stand behind them.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): My question today is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Since my election to the Legislature

last October, I've been inundated by people in my riding of Niagara Falls who are on a waiting list for an excessive period of time for affordable housing. In fact, people who are considered as

homeless have had to wait for up to a year before housing becomes available, and others who are on the list sometimes wait for two to three years. This situation has caused a severe problem in my

riding, but also throughout the Niagara region and probably across Ontario. Minister Caplan, what is our government doing to ensure that affordable housing is available to Ontarians who need

it?

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I want to thank the member for the opportunity to inform the House about our

government's commitment to delivering real, positive change when it comes to affordable housing. I'm pleased that our budget contained $85 million to build affordable housing. This commitment

signals a significant increase in funding, which will actually get spent to build affordable housing. The previous government spent some $6.3 million on affordable housing last year, yet they

budgeted $121.6 million mainly federal dollars in the fictitious Magna budget.

We're going to turn that around, and we already have. I am very proud that since we took office, we have unlocked millions of those dollars. To date, 2,389

units for 41 projects across 13 communities in Ontario have been announced, resulting in a total commitment of $56 million. Through our investments in affordable housing, our government is

committed to supporting stronger communities in Ontario.

Mr Craitor: Minister, these plans are necessary to eliminate the unacceptable waiting lists for people in Niagara and across Ontario who need

affordable housing. How do you plan on meeting the government's commitment to provide 20,000 new units of affordable housing?

Hon Mr Caplan: The Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal is developing a comprehensive, new affordable housing strategy that will meet the

challenge head-on. We are undertaking and have engaged extensively with stakeholders across this province. We are redesigning the affordable housing project. We are improving the tendering and

project selection process. We are creating an innovative merit-based application process. We also intend to match the federal contribution over the life of our government to create more housing in

those areas of need, and we will do so in a fiscally responsible manner.

In the meantime, we have extended the existing pilot project. We will continue to take applications from both high-needs areas and from other communities that

have expressed an interest so that we can build on the momentum we have already created. I'm pleased to say that we will have some very exciting announcements of innovative new projects in the

days, weeks and months ahead.

ABATTOIRS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Minister, last Wednesday you finally made the announcement

that $7 million from the mature animal abattoir fund would go to four abattoirs in the province. Front-line farmers still reeling from the effects of the closed border went without funding so you

could invest in the slaughter capacity for the surplus mature animal. At the time, at least one of the four abattoirs awarded the funding was licensed to slaughter animals for export and thus could

not process mature animals. Minister, were you aware at the time of the announcement that the money you awarded was going to a facility that didn't qualify, or did your staff just keep you in the

dark about that fact?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I find it very interesting coming from a member who is quoted on March 5 of this year in

the Tillsonburg News that if we had enough capacity, the border being closed to the US market wouldn't be such a hardship. This process we developed was developed in consultation with the farmers

in Ontario: the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, along with many others. What we wanted to do was to try to increase capacity.

We have a backlog of 60,000 animals in the province. We had a competitive process; 33 bids were reviewed by ministry staff. We're very aware of the situation

that exists with one of the abattoirs and that they're going to be making an investment to create a dedicated line to deal with culled animals.

I think you should be standing up and supporting this, because this is an initiative that is genuinely going to help farmers. This is a long-term, good news

initiative for farmers.

Mr Hardeman: From what I understand, your ministry knew this facility could not slaughter mature animals and continue to export beef. As a

matter of fact, when I spoke to a representative of the abattoir after the announcement, the facility didn't even want the contract because they could lose the licence they presently have to ship

their slaughtered animals for export. Yet your news release said you had signed agreements with four abattoirs valued at just under $5 million. Surely you wouldn't give taxpayers' money to a

facility not qualified to fulfill the contract.

So, Minister, did you give a bogus award to an unqualified facility, or was it a partisan decision that needs to have detailed specs to truly qualify?

Hon Mr Peters: I think it's very important -- and this government recognizes, and I would hope the honourable member would, as the former

Minister of Agriculture -- that we need to do everything we can to help the agricultural industry in this province. We need to make investments in agriculture -- something you refused to do.

We could have just followed through with the federal cow cull program, provided our 40% share and put some dollars into a farmer's pocket that would have

quickly flowed through that farmer's pocket. But in consultation with the industry, the decision was made that we need to find long-term solutions. We have made investments in four facilities right

now. We have approximately $2 million left to make further investments in facilities. As well, we've allocated $3 million to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association to help create new markets for this

product.

I think the member should recognize as well that of that $7 million that has been allocated to create new capacity, 25% is repayable. Those are dollars that

are going to be coming back and reinvested to support further marketing in this province.

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): A question to the Acting Premier: You're paying a company $11 million to administer compensation

claims for the people of Walkerton. This company is scraping huge fees off the top while less than half the compensation claims -- less than half -- have been settled four years after the

tragedy.

John Al, whose wife died, said this: "It annoys the hell out of me. While people who lost loved ones have to beg for compensation, they are divvying up all

this money. They got theirs but no one cares what happens to us." Mr Al still has not been compensated.

Acting Premier, why are you paying this company so much when the people of Walkerton are still suffering?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the Attorney General.

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

member, as she knows, the compensation plan is a court-approved plan whereby the people of Walkerton said they did not want government administering the plan; they wanted the court to supervise and

administer the plan. That was their choice. That was not our choice. They wanted government to be at arm's length. In March 2001, then-Chief Justice LeSage approved the settlement, calling it fair,

reasonable and in the best interests of the class. It is something the people of Walkerton want administered by the court. If there is information we should be bringing to the court's attention, of

course the government will do that.

In this case, I think the court's fully aware of what you're talking about and the amounts we're talking about. I know the court has powers of audit and

otherwise to revisit that. So it is in the hands of the court, and it's not just what it said in the court order; that's what the people of Walkerton wanted, and we respect that wish.

Ms Churley: Minister, that is a shocking response. Your Premier said back in February, when this issue was raised, that he would try to fix it

then. Your Premier went to Walkerton about eight months ago and tearfully told the people of Walkerton that he would do everything he could to help them.

Your Premier and your government are quick to take credit for what you perceive as good action, but you don't take responsibility for your failures, and this

is a failure. You've been in government for eight months and these people are still suffering.

This company is being paid $8 million to administer costs alone, and people are still waiting to get their compensation. I'm going to ask you again. You are

the government. You are responsible to these people. Do something about it. No more excuses.

Hon Mr Bryant: The member is raising a couple of issues. One is the recent disclosure of information around costs involving the adjuster. The

other issue was one where, yes, indeed, the Premier and the Minister of the Environment heard concerns from the people of Walkerton. We listened to those concerns, and we brought the people's

concerns to the court.

The court made an order on February 27th of this year, and released supplementary directions to that order. I won't have time in my answer to go through what

Justice Winkler ordered, but that was a circumstance where we received information from the people, we brought it to the court's attention, and then the court exercised its discretion and acted. In

this particular case, if the member has any information that she believes we should be bringing to the court's attention, I would encourage her to send it over our way. We will bring it to the

court's attention. They have responsibility for administering it. That's what the people of Walkerton wanted, and we respect that. We will continue to listen to the people of Walkerton and bring

their concerns to the court where appropriate.

SARS

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, I don't have to tell you that last year SARS

hit Toronto very hard. Since then, there have been reports from the Ontario expert panel on SARS and infectious disease control and Commissioner Archie Campbell on the investigation into the

outbreak.

Residents of Toronto need to know that our government is taking action on this important public health issue. I know you came out with a plan yesterday, and

I'm wondering whether you can inform this House how this plan will move our province forward on the fight against SARS, amongst other public health crises.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I did have the privilege yesterday of participating in the launch of Operation

Health Protection. This was a comprehensive response to the work of Dr David Naylor, Dr David Walker and also the good work of Justice Archie Campbell, who have given our province an extraordinary

advantage based on their quality of work.

What we moved forward yesterday, with respect, were significant enhancements on our public health. Renewal of the public health system is at the heart of it.

The Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Agency will be launched and built by 2006-07. We're expanding the capacities of the ministry's health and emergency management unit and creating a

provincial infectious disease advisory committee.

Because I think it's incredibly important to say so, the Ontario Public Health Association, which is the organization that represents public health officials

in the province of Ontario, had the following quote to offer: "This plan shows the commitment of the government to strengthen Ontario's public health system and the understanding that public health

is a crucial service in need of support."

Ms Broten: I'm sure that the people of Ontario find comfort in the fact that we are taking action to protect the public from threats to our

health. One common thread and theme that was reported during last year's SARS crisis was the perceived lack of independence from the chief medical officer of health during that crisis. How will

Operation Health Protection improve this situation?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I think one of the critical elements that people were concerned about during our challenges with SARS was the idea that

Ontario's chief public health officer had the capacity to speak freely. The fact is that, as a result of the direction that we were provided in the interim report by Justice Campbell, we've moved

forward with an approach which follows exactly, to the T, the recommendation that we've been given by Justice Archie Campbell.

I think responding to the direction given by Justice Archie Campbell, an esteemed judge who has been asked to provide advice to the government, is entirely

appropriate. What that means is that we will institute legislative changes to dramatically increase the independence of the chief medical officer of health, to give the Legislature the opportunity

to be playing a role in helping to nominate future chief medical officers of health, and to make sure that the chief medical officer of health in this province enjoys the legislative protection and

power to be able to offer up all of the necessary information to Ontarians on the state of public health and to highlight any risks that the chief medical officer of health feels are necessary.

One last point: The chief medical officer of health will be presenting an annual report to the Legislature of Ontario on the state of public health in the

province of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question today is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. You'll know that on

Easter weekend, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services announced the closure of the Pembroke jail. Since that time we've been trying to get answers from the minister. We have

had many communications with him and we're hoping that we're going to get some answers in that regard fairly soon.

Since that closure, the conditions that these prisoners are being held in while they're awaiting bail hearings or trial are quite deplorable. I want to get

that in there because it goes to my next point, which is that there is another issue in Pembroke, and that is the courthouse renovations. They've been renovating the government services building to

accommodate temporary courthouses so that the permanent work on the courthouse can proceed --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The question is?

Mr Yakabuski: -- and nothing has happened for weeks. It's at a standstill. What I'm asking the minister is this: Has there been a stop-work

order issued? If so, when will it be lifted, when will that work begin again, and why does your government place a lower priority on justice --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I want to thank the member for the question. I think it highlights a significant

problem that we have in this province. Because of the actions of the previous government, quite frankly, you have left us with an enormous infrastructure deficit. It is going to take us

considerable time to dig ourselves out of the hole that your government has left us in, whether it's in the justice sector, in the transportation sector, in health care, in colleges and

universities or in public secondary education.

It is, as the finance minister indicated in the budget, our intention to put together, for the first time ever, a 10-year capital infrastructure plan for

Ontario. We are working not only with our ministry partners but with all regions across this province to make sure we are meeting the legitimate needs of Ontarians to be able to improve the public

services through the infrastructure investments that we're making. I know that I'll be able to count on this member's support in developing that plan going forward.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): No, supplementary.

The freeze in the infrastructure seems to hit all ministries. In my riding, the province has already invested $12 million in the building of a new hospital,

and now the hospital board is waiting to get the green light from you to send the project to tender. They have stated publicly that they feel the facility may have fallen off the minister's radar

screen and are concerned that they may not have final approval in place to have shovels in the ground this year. I've asked your colleague Minister Smitherman about this and have had no answer.

I ask you, Minister, can the Woodstock General Hospital board expect to hear from this government soon on the approval to go to tender, or should they consider

themselves part of the infrastructure freeze?

Hon Mr Caplan: The member opposite is sadly misinformed; in fact, there is no freeze on capital. The budget we introduced on May 18 saw a 17%

increase in capital and infrastructure spending in the province, one of the most significant increases in our budget. It is a very good news item, although I must admit that the magnitude of the

deficit, as far as infrastructure and capital left by your government, is astounding. It is going to take some significant work on behalf of this minister and on behalf of this government.

It is fully our intention to bring innovative tools like the Canada-Ontario municipal rural infrastructure fund, like the Ontario Strategic Infrastructure

Financing Authority and innovative infrastructure renewal bonds. We have some truly creative and innovative ways that we are bringing forward to meet some of the challenges that, unfortunately,

that member, when he was in government, didn't have the ability or the wherewithal to make happen. Thank God, we have a new government in Ontario today.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a question to the Minister of Children and Youth Service. Minister, 145 youth workers at the Syl Apps

Youth Centre have been out on a picket line since April 15. Syl Apps, as you know, is in Oakville. It's an 80-bed government-funded secure-custody detention and treatment facility that houses

severely disturbed adolescents whose crimes include the most heinous, murder among them.

Their employer, Kinark, has shown no interest in bringing this labour dispute to an end. From the outset, Kinark has shown contempt for the bargaining process

and, in fact, has refused to bargain.

This program is still being fully funded by your government even though they're down to 40 inmates. What are you going to do to get Kinark to the bargaining

table so this labour dispute can end?

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

his question. I'm extremely concerned about the situation there. As you know, I can't get involved in the negotiations between the employer and the union. I can say that my ministry is monitoring

the situation, however, because the safety of the youth and the adults there is very important to us. We hope they come to the table very soon.

Mr Kormos: To the minister: The community of Oakville has become a far less secure place, because as you know scabs are doing the work of

these trained professional youth workers. The employer has shown no interest in bargaining in good faith. The employer offers zero increase and demands concessions, even though it just gave its

executive director a $37,600-a-year salary increase. The lives of children in the community are at risk. You are funding this program, all 80 beds of it, even though 40 are all that are being

occupied. Surely you can express your concerns and the concerns of the community to Kinark around the risk that community is being exposed to, and call upon them to start bargaining at the

bargaining table.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I'm extremely concerned about the youth and the adults in that facility. I have to say that the child advocate has also

committed to visiting the facility on a regular basis. The only thing I will say about that situation is that whatever monies are saved now, as a result of this disruption, will be applied to the

new contract.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): It's a question addressed to the Honourable Sandra Pupatello, the Minister of Community and Social

Services. Today your ministry delivered on a significant budget commitment to help up to 1,000 more Ontarians with disabilities. How? By helping them to pay for home and vehicle modifications that

let them live safer and more independent lives. This is great news, an encouraging initiative for the many families with children, because this is the first time the program will be extended to

include children with disabilities, another sign of the betterment of Ontario under a McGuinty government. Can you please tell the House what else your announcement today means for Ontario's

families?

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I appreciate the question very

much. Minister Bountrogianni and I were very happy to make an announcement today that added $10 million to the home and vehicle modification program. The wonderful news about this program is that,

as this member rightly mentions, we have expanded access to the program. It was a program that was launched in 1999, and at that time was used exclusively by adults. For example, you needed to be

the owner of the car in order to benefit from a sales tax rebate. That's what it was. We've now rolled this into a home and vehicle modification program to have much better access for parents, for

children and for adults.

Mr Qaadri: My constituents in Etobicoke North and the people of Ontario appreciate your considered reply and your efforts to create a more

just society. Previous to the May 18 budget announcement, the Ministry of Finance provided families with a rebate of retail sales tax paid on motor vehicles to transport persons with permanent

physical disabilities. Has this program changed in today's announcements, and what will that actually mean for Ontario's families?

Hon Ms Pupatello: The program that was used for vehicles was a rebate program. That program has been rolled into this home and vehicle

modification program, and then we've enhanced the funding for the program. So over $7 million that used to be prescribed through this tax rebate has been rolled in, along with $3 million more to

the existing program that was $2.62 million. So it is a significantly larger program.

We are using the Ontario March of Dimes, which has done a tremendous job for us, to deliver this program across the province. It is a much broader program.

We're very happy to see that.

The parents we brought to Queen's Park today brought their son Tyler, and we were able to show Tyler a van that had been modified so he could roll his

wheelchair right into the van. We're very pleased to see that it is an across-Ontario program now, and we encourage people to call the Ontario March of Dimes to see if they in fact can be helped by

this.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Minister, in the next couple of days you're asking

members of the assembly to vote on Bill 27, the greenbelt legislation. As you know full well, especially if you were there at the public hearings in St Catharines a couple of weeks ago, the farmers

in the affected area are angry about their loss in equity, they're worried about encumbrances on their ability to do business and they're concerned about restrictions on value-added operations. Ray

Duc, chair of the Grape Growers of Ontario, said, "An injection of support will be required from the provincial and federal government."

Before this bill is called for a final vote, can the minister guarantee to the House today that there will be appropriate compensation -- directly, for

infrastructure, for marketing -- for farmers in the affected area?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I'd like to thank the member for the

question because today we're starting the debate on third reading of the proposed Greenbelt Protection Act, which is a very positive act for the people of Ontario. What we can definitely guarantee

to the people of Ontario is that they're going to get the best greenbelt protection that we, the people of Ontario, want: to make sure that farmland is going to be protected; to make sure that

environmentally sensitive land is going to be protected; and to make sure that that part of Ontario made up of the Niagara Escarpment, the Oak Ridges moraine and the greenbelt that connects them is

going to be safe and protected for generations to come.

Mr Hudak: Minister, you've been using the same lines the past nine months. Farmers in the affected area are tired of these platitudes. They

want answers. They want detailed answers. Minister, you set the tone. You call the shots. You can direct the funding. So today, let's set that tone. Can you guarantee for the House today, before

you call this bill for a vote, that you'll put aside funds, put aside the dollars, to make sure that there's compensation appropriate for farmers in the affected area, whether for infrastructure,

whether for marketing, whether directly? Set the tone. Show some leadership. Show you care. Will you make that guarantee right here and right now?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: This government is showing leadership in greenbelt protection, and complete confidence as well in making sure that this

greenbelt protection gets passed. It's interesting to note that, from a Hansard that appeared not so long ago, one of his own members stated -- and listen to this -- "because we had an incapable,

incompetent minister handling it in Minister Hudak. He shouldn't have been the minister. He was the minister, and that's unfortunate." We are trying to correct the errors that were made by that

government, by making sure that the people of Ontario have the best greenbelt protection possible for future generations to come.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): A question to the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I'd just like to recognize, after he has waited so patiently, the member from Trinity-Spadina. We can

start the clock now.

Mr Marchese: The question is to the Minister of Education. Tonight the Toronto board of education meets to consider an exclusive, $6-million,

five-year contract with Pepsi-Cola at its secondary schools. Despite its reservations about selling what amounts to liquid candy in our schools, the board feels it has no choice but to approve the

contract because of your government's refusal to provide adequate financial resources to our schools.

Day after day, members of your government stand up in this House to talk about the social determinants of health. Here's something very concrete that you can

do about the social determinants of health. You can get on the phone, call the Toronto District School Board and commit to them the $5.8 million they need to say no to this terrible contract.

Gerard, are you going to do that?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I hate to say to the member opposite, we have all watched and strained with him to get this

question up here today, and we wanted it to be about something that mattered in the public interest.

In fact, the companies that are dealing with the school board today are not putting junk food in schools. They're abiding by the ban we put in place, finally,

to protect kids in this province. There will be no junk food put in any elementary schools.

As for the school board and its financial condition, this is the selfsame board that declared an $8-million surplus this year for the first time in six, seven

or eight years, including many under the previous NDP government's jurisdiction.

The students in Toronto, for the first time in a number of years, can look forward to a stronger future, can look forward to a future with a board back in

charge of its affairs but, more importantly, with funding for those affairs so they get the same chance at an education as every other student in the province.

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

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

they need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

It is signed by some 200 people. I am in agreement and affix my signature thereto.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): "Whereas the parents and residents of Summerside Community Association in London, Ontario, are concerned,

due to the number of children attending schools outside the Summerside subdivision; and

"Whereas the number of children projected to be residing in the Summerside community is approximately 1,400 children under the age of 19 by 2009 (as backed by

Census 2001), therefore request the support of building a public elementary school, a separate elementary school and a high school;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature as follows:

"To build a public elementary school on the proposed public school site fronting on Meadowgate Boulevard ... city of London;

"To build a separate elementary school on the proposed Catholic school site fronting Chelton Road...;

"To build a high school on the proposed high school site on the north side of future Evans Boulevard between future Meadowgate Boulevard and Jackson

Road...."

I support this petition and affix my name to it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): "Whereas property reassessment occurs now on an annual basis; and

"Whereas higher housing markets increase assessment, leading to higher property taxes; and

"Whereas property values are not related to the cost of municipal services, nor to the ability of taxpayers to pay; and

"Whereas the assessment system is a provincial responsibility;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to initiate a review of Ontario's property assessment system that would lead to

reforms that will protect homeowners from excess increases in assessments due to hot housing markets."

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): "To Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

they need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and affix my signature thereon.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here.

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

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

they need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

It has thousands of signatures. I add mine to the list, as I totally agree with it.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "Whereas the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario will be considering a private member's

bill that aims to amend the Optometry Act to give optometrists the authority to prescribe therapeutic pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of certain eye diseases; and

"Whereas optometrists are highly trained and equipped with the knowledge and specialized instrumentation needed to effectively diagnose and treat certain eye

problems; and

"Whereas extending the authority to prescribe TPAs to optometrists will help relieve the demands on ophthalmologists and physicians who currently have the

exclusive domain for prescribing TPAs to optometry patients; and

"Whereas the bill introduced by New Democrat Peter Kormos (MPP -- Niagara Centre) will ensure that patients receive prompt, timely, one-stop care where

appropriate;

"Therefore, I do support the bill proposing an amendment to the Optometry Act to give optometrists the authority to prescribe therapeutic pharmaceutical agents

for the treatment of certain eye diseases and I urge the government of Ontario to ensure speedy passage of the bill."

I support the petition.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I've been asked by constituents in my Niagara Falls riding to submit the following petition:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced" on May 18 "and maintain OHIP coverage for chiropractic

services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system...."

I'm pleased to submit this petition on their behalf.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My petition concerns water testing in a rural community.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the riding of Simcoe North is made up of many small communities; and

"Whereas not all citizens live in large cities such as Toronto, where access to municipal water service is taken for granted; and

"Whereas smaller communities have little, if any, access to municipal water services; and

"Whereas Ontario's smaller villages and hamlets are home to many community buildings such as churches, community halls and arenas; and

"Whereas those responsible for halls, churches, arenas and other community facilities take pride in ensuring these buildings have access to the highest quality

potable water;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the implementation of regulation 170/03 as it relates to community halls and similar facilities be delayed; and

"That the province of Ontario ensure that the halls, churches, arenas and other public facilities on private wells comply with water standards that are

reasonable and appropriate."

I'm very pleased to sign my name on behalf of these 300 names.

OHIP OFFICE

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "Whereas more than 800,000 people live in the downtown core; and

"Whereas the only OHIP offices in the entire GTA that service non-homeless clients are at 47 Sheppard Avenue East, 4400 Dufferin Street, 2063 Lawrence Avenue

East, or 3300 Bloor Street West; and

"Whereas OHIP is an essential service to all the people of this province; and

"Whereas taking more than one day off work to stand in long lineups at OHIP offices located in distant parts of the city is detrimental to a worker's

productivity and the economy as a whole;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately locate a suitable building for an OHIP office in the downtown core

and have the office ready to receive clients by the end of 2004."

I support the petition.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

they need; and

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I am pleased to present this to the page Samuel, who will deliver it to you immediately.

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): This petition has been signed by literally thousands of people in my riding and, I presume,

millions across the province of Ontario. It's unbelievable how many people were upset about and will continue to be upset about this decision.

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

"Whereas elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic" services "will no longer be able to access the

health care they need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

other health care costs; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

they need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

other health care costs; and

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

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

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

This is signed by 1,757 residents from the greater city of Sudbury. It was sent to me by a chiropractic assistant. I agree, of course, with the petitioners and

I affix my signature to it.

GO TRANSIT SERVICE

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from a group of social services workers in

Mississauga, and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Meadowvale, Streetsville and Erindale GO train stations;

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

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

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

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

As one of those residents, I am pleased to affix my signature and to have Logan carry it down for me.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I've been asked by my constituents in London-Fanshawe to read this petition:

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

they need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

Therefore, I submit this petition on behalf of my constituents of London-Fanshawe.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe I have unanimous consent to move a

motion to be decided without debate or amendment respecting this afternoon's debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 27.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Duncan: I move that debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 27,

An Act to establish a greenbelt study area and to amend the Oak

Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, be apportioned equally among the recognized parties and that, at 5:55 pm, the Speaker shall put the question on the motion without further debate or

amendment.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Just on that point, I thought we had decided that we would defer the vote --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: OK, I misunderstood.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Duncan has moved that debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 27,

An Act to establish a greenbelt study area and

to amend the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, be apportioned equally among the recognized parties and that, at 5:55 pm, the Speaker shall put the question on the motion without further

debate or amendment. Agreed? Agreed.

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

Mr Gerretsen moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to establish a greenbelt study area and to amend the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 / Projet de loi 27, Loi établissant

une zone d'étude de la ceinture de verdure et modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur la conservation de la moraine d'Oak Ridges.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Gerretsen?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I am very pleased today to commence, and I

guess finalize today as well, the third reading of this very significant bill. Perhaps to give the people who may be watching, and certainly those of us here today, a better understanding as to

what this is all about, I will commence by reading the

preamble of the bill, which I think sets out the purpose of the act and what the government is trying to accomplish here. It states:

"The government of Ontario recognizes that in order to protect environmentally sensitive land and farmland and contain urban sprawl, there is an immediate need

to study an area in the part of Ontario known as the Golden Horseshoe.

"The government recognizes that clear limits must be set on development in order to protect this valuable resource as a greenbelt for the long term.

"The government recognizes that good planning for environmental and agricultural protection and sustainable development will result in economic benefits to the

residents of the Golden Horseshoe area.

"The government recognizes the environmental and agricultural significance of this area and its importance as a source of food, water, natural heritage

systems, green space and recreation, resulting in an enhanced quality of life.

"The government recognizes that it is important to continue to protect the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges moraine and to protect a broader greenbelt

area."

Therefore, the government wishes to enact a bill that we know as Bill 27,

An Act to establish a greenbelt study area and to amend the Oak Ridges Moraine

Conservation Act, 2001.

Speaker, in the 40 minutes or so that we have left, I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, Maria Van Bommel, the member from

Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, who has shepherded this bill through committee and who has attended the various public meetings that have been held by the legislative committee and some of the public

meetings that we've held on the greenbelt as well.

By containing sprawl, encouraging growth management and creating a permanent greenbelt, our government will enhance our quality of life. The lands on the outer

ridge of the developed areas of the Golden Horseshoe are the most threatened in Ontario today. This proposed Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004, is a significant step in the right direction and is

real, positive change. This act would provide for a time out for the discussion of important issues and factors that must be taken into account when proposing greenbelt protection.

Some of the most pressing issues concern agriculture in the Golden Horseshoe. We need to ensure that truly key rural and agricultural lands are protected. We

need the help of our f