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

October 18, 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 Transcript 2004-Oct-18 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 18 October 2004 Lundi 18 octobre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MÉTIS NATION OF ONTARIO

KNIGHTS' TABLE

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

LONG-TERM CARE

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

(LICENCE COMMITTEE), 2004

PHYSICAL FITNESS DAY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE L'APTITUDE PHYSIQUE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PERSONS DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

SMALL BUSINESS

WOODSTOCK GENERAL HOSPITAL

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

RURAL EDUCATION FUNDING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

LANDFILL

TEACHING ASSISTANTS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

GASOLINE PRICES

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

EVENING SCHOOL BUS SERVICE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MÉTIS NATION OF ONTARIO

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): On October 14, the Métis Nation of Ontario gathered on the French River for a ceremonial gathering and special hunt. This gathering marking only one of the contributions that the Métis Nation of Ontario makes to the diverse cultural heritage to our province.

Unfortunately, the MNO has become a victim of this government's record of promise-breaking. On July 7, the Métis Nation of Ontario thought they had entered into an agreement about hunting and fishing rights with the Minister of Natural Resources. The agreement was consistent with the Supreme Court Powley ruling respecting Métis hunting and fishing rights.

Without notification, the Minister of Natural Resources broke the agreement he had made with the Métis Nation of Ontario. Instead of notifying the Métis Nation of Ontario of his decision to withdraw from the agreement, the Minister of Natural Resources sent out a media release on the eve of the hunt.

What we see demonstrated by the Minister of Natural Resources is something that is becoming all too familiar in this province. What the Métis Nation of Ontario has experienced is a complete lack of respect for their traditions and, worse still, a complete disregard for the commitment made to them by the Minister of Natural Resources.

First they broke their promise to taxpayers and introduced a regressive and punitive health tax. Now they are breaking their commitment to the Métis Nation of Ontario. Who knows where that will end?

KNIGHTS' TABLE

Mr Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): I rise today to call attention to a very important institution that is being forced out of their location in my riding of Brampton West-Mississauga. The Knights' Table has been serving over 250 meals a day to the less fortunate for over 14 years in downtown Brampton. They serve a wide spectrum of clientele from all different ages and demographics.

Nilda Patey, the executive director of the Knights' Table, stresses correctly that it isn't just single homeless men who use the Knights' Table. Increasingly in our affluent community, we find that it is working people with families and single mothers with children who frequent the Knights' Table. A few weeks ago, I visited the Knights' Table and met with the youngest client of the kitchen: a one-month-old baby.

Lower-income families are struggling to make ends meet in Peel region. Over the past 10 years, homelessness has increasingly become a problem. Places such as the Knights' Table are vital in providing a warm, comforting meal and environment to the most vulnerable members of our community.

I have been actively working with the Knights' Table and local business owners in finding a location near the Brampton downtown core. We have also been working in providing more stable operating funding from various government grant programs so that the growing need in the community will be met by the Table and other organizations like it.

If anyone wishes to be the shining knight for the Table, please contact the Table at 905-454-8725. The Table will remain a warm, friendly and caring place where all are welcome and none need to leave hungry.

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I was shocked to learn on the weekend that --

Applause.

Mrs Munro: Thank you very much.

I was shocked to learn on the weekend, while reading the paper, that the Chair of Management Board has cancelled a deal to move the Ontario archives to a new location. This puts at risk millions of documents that represent our cultural and historical heritage. The minister denies that killing the move is a cost-cutting measure, attributing the closure to a legal opinion that he refuses to release.

Why do the archives need a new space? A report several years ago said that the current space is unsafe, unhealthy and that the preservation of documents is at risk. The collections are starting to develop mould and the second floor is sagging. Visitors and staff face security risks in a space that has little capacity for electronic surveillance, poor line of sight for guards and dangerous hidden alcoves where individuals can loiter. Historical documents and photos are at risk of theft or damage, and thefts have already been reported.

Documents as old as 200 years are at risk in this space that stores everything from birth, death and marriage records to native treaties and watercolours by Governor Simcoe's wife, Elizabeth.

Our government had a plan to secure and improve the archives. This Liberal government has dithered for an entire year, and then cancelled our plan. It hides an obvious budget cut behind a legal opinion it is keeping secret from the public.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): As we begin School Bus Safety Week in the province, I appreciate the opportunity given to me today to explain to all members of the Legislature why the safety of our children has a special resonance for all my constituents in Thunder Bay-Superior North.

This past February, four-year-old Allyceea Ennis lost her life while riding on a school bus en route to St Margaret school. While the circumstances surrounding Allyceea's tragic passing remain unclear and the regional coroner has not yet determined whether he will hold an inquest related to this tragedy, Allyceea's passing forced all of us to look more closely into how we can make travel on the province's school bus routes safer.

Melanie Perrier, the mother of this beautiful four-year-old child, has fought through her deep and unending grief to launch a multi-faceted campaign to ensure that no other parent experiences what she has gone through. While Ms Perrier supports the government's recent initiatives in this area, she believes much more can be done. In that regard, I will be officially launching her petition campaign later this afternoon in the Legislature.

One aspect of Ms Perrier's campaign relates to child safety restraints for children under 50 pounds in weight. Transport Canada, which is responsible for regulating safety standards on school buses, has completed a study which verifies the clear benefits of these special restraints. What they have not done is to enact the necessary regulations to make these restraints mandatory. While I know that our Minister of Transportation has written the federal minister to ascertain when we can expect this, I would like to ask Minister Takhar today to press his federal counterpart to move more quickly to get this regulation in place.

To properly honour Allyceea's memory and to move forward on any improvement that could reduce injuries and even avoid a future tragedy such as Allyceea's passing, we can surely do no less than see this vital safety device put in place.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): Today, the McGuinty government started bragging about getting results for health care in its first progress report since coming to office a year ago. Dalton McGuinty is trying to get our minds off his numerous broken promises and record-breaking tax hikes, but it simply won't work.

I have constituents waiting up to 10 months for MRIs and CT scans. Some, like Roger Lockhart of Collingwood, just don't want to wait. Because of this outrageous delay, Mr Lockhart travelled to the United States to get an MRI. He couldn't get timely care here in Ontario. Mary-Lou Brown of Duntroon was told that her Aunt Muriel will have to wait up to two years for a coronary transplant because the Toronto Western Hospital doesn't have the money to fund operating room time past two or three hours a week.

The Liberals also talk about improving access to cancer care, but they seem to have forgotten that they cut $2.5 million from the Ontario breast screening program in this year's budget. In my area of the province, cancer incidence is increasing 25% quicker than the Ontario average and cancer mortality is increasing 42% above the provincial average, and we don't even have a cancer centre.

Recently, we learned that Sick Kids Hospital is facing a $45-million budget shortfall that's going to force them to either lay off nurses or reduce and eliminate necessary services.

I don't know how this government can have the gall to talk about hiring 1,000 new nurses when they're cutting funding to Ontario hospitals. They talk big about boosting hospital budgets by $385 million last year, but this year they're cutting $200 million from those same hospital operating budgets. No one should believe this government. No one should trust this government. They're certainly not getting better results for the people of Ontario.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Today, Dalton McGuinty gave himself a B. That's exactly why we don't let school kids grade themselves. Is Mr McGuinty the kind of person who, when he was a kid, would forge his parent's signature on the report card so he didn't have to show it to them? It looks like Dalton has taken a red pen to make a B out of a big fat F.

Down in Hamilton-Niagara, where I come from, people flunked the Liberals, failed the Liberals for their incompetence, excuses and broken promises. In the last year, ordinary Ontarians have learned that Dalton can't read. He can't read his election promises sufficiently well to keep them. They have learned that Dalton can't write. He's not doing the right thing every time he breaks yet another one of his promises. Who knows arithmetic well enough to count up all of the Liberal broken promises?

Clearly, on promise after promise, Dalton and the Liberals simply don't make the grade. Just today, Dalton broke another promise. Before the election, he promised to ban partisan political advertising. Then he released this expensive, glossy report in Liberal colours that reads word for word like the Liberal election platform, minus the broken promises. And who is paying for it? Taxpayers. If a page comes up here, I'll send you this glossy, very partisan bit of fluff produced on the taxpayers' tab. I'll table with the Clerk evidence of the Liberals' disregard.

Liberals and promises: It's like they make them to break them. I say it's time to teach the Liberals and their promise-breaking Premier a lesson. Let's send these guys to promise-keeping boot camp and in three years, let's expel them.

PUBLIC LIBRARY WEEK

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to announce Ontario Public Library Week, which begins today and runs until October 24. The theme of this year's Public Library Week is Community Heartbeat @ Your Library.

During this week, we celebrate the contributions made by public libraries across the province. Public libraries are important hubs that help to build strong and healthy communities. I'm proud to say that Ontario has one of the best public library systems in the world. Ontario Public Library Week is a great way to celebrate the cultural, educational and economic contributions our libraries make. They are the trusted source of community information across the province, providing free and accessible services to 96% of all Ontarians. Last year, 69 million people visited our public libraries, circulating more than 100 million items.

This week, the Minister of Culture will be announcing funding initiatives, a new program for children and the details of support for small libraries from the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

I encourage all Ontarians to visit their local libraries this week to take

part in the celebrations.

PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

Mr Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Today is a special day. Few have had as much impact on the Canadian consciousness as the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was a passionate leader. Today marks his birthday and we celebrate a continuing legacy and reflect on his acts of proud service, both large and small, and his ability to bring people together.

Canada's vibrant society is enriched by the cultural diversity of its people, who have the inalienable right to participate fully and equally in the life of the country, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender or disability.

The late Prime Minister inspired people to stand up for our democratic rights and be proud to be Canadian. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's motto was "reason over passion." But it was his passion for Canada that defined him. It was his dream of a just society that captured the imagination of our country and made the entire world take notice. He inspired so many people to public service. That forever changed many generations of Canadians.

In recognition of our late Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I, along with community members from Concord and Thornhill, worked to raise money to build a man-sized bronze statue of the late Prime Minister in Thornhill. The statue was unveiled today, which marks the day of his birth, and will allow people an opportunity to come and visit the statue for years to come and remember what a great Canadian and Prime Minister he truly was.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to tell you that the people in my riding of Niagara Falls know our government is proceeding in the right direction and that change is working.

I'd like to read to the House from a copy of a letter I received addressed to the Honourable George Smitherman, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, from the seniors living at the Bella Senior Care Residence, a long-term-care service provider in the village of Chippawa in my riding.

It reads as follows: "On behalf of the 160 residents and 148 staff at Bella Senior Care Residence, we wanted to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the operating fund increase effective October 1 and the commitment for additional increases.

"We also want to let you know that the decisions to increase the comfort allowance and not to increase the resident copayment this year are also appreciated by our residents and their families."

In closing, these seniors wanted to let the minister know that they are very encouraged by his view of the role and potential of the long-term-care sector in the ministry's transformation agenda, and are looking forward to continuing to work with the minister to ensure that Bella Senior Care is able to realize these opportunities.

This is proof positive that change is in the air for our seniors under the excellent guidance of the Minister of Health. This House and the people of Ontario owe the minister a round of applause.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): With us today in the Speaker's gallery are the 2004-05 Ontario Legislative interns. We have Timothy Culbert, Nicola Hepburn, Audrey Lemieux, Adam McDonald, Kaila Mintz, Ben Rossiter, Rebecca Sciarra and Rebecca Scott. Will all members join me in welcoming the interns here today.

VISITORS

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In the east members' gallery I have my granddaughter Lucia and my daughter Kristen.

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I beg leave to present a report on the five-year review of the Securities Act from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Hoy presents the committee's report and moves the adoption of its recommendations.

Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Hoy: I want to thank all committee members and, most certainly, all persons who made submissions before the committee.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

(LICENCE COMMITTEE), 2004

Mr McNeely moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr8,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

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

Mr McNeely?

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I have no comment, Mr Speaker.

PHYSICAL FITNESS DAY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE L'APTITUDE PHYSIQUE

Mr O'Toole moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 127,

An Act proclaiming Physical Fitness Day / Projet de loi 127, Loi proclamant la Journée de l'aptitude physique.

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

Mr O'Toole?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): The bill proclaims the first Friday in September each year as Physical Fitness Day. Numerous medical studies consistently show that a moderate amount of physical activity is one of the keys to a long and healthy productive life. Prevention is the best medicine.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on Monday, October 18, 2004; Tuesday, October 19, 2004; Wednesday, October 20, 2004; and Thursday, October 21, 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 1353 to 1358.

The Speaker: Mr Duncan has moved government notice of motion number 171. All those in favour, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Churley, Marilyn

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 71; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

PERSONS DAY

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for each party to speak for up to five minutes in celebration of the 75th anniversary of Persons Day in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Today it would be absurd to ask a woman if she thought of herself as a person, and I particularly would like to point out the number of young women we have in the House today and ask them if there was ever a time in history that we would have had a conversation about whether women were in fact persons.

But in the early 1920s this was a hotly contested issue. Women were officially considered non-persons and were ineligible to be appointed to the Senate. In fact, British common law stated that they were "persons in the matter of pains and penalties, but not in the matter of rights and privileges." It wasn't until October 18, 1925 -- 75 years ago -- that women were formally considered persons under the law. On that day, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of England overruled the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of a person with the words, "and to those who ask why the word `persons' should include females, the answer is, why should it not?"

Today is the 75th anniversary of that ruling, which is known as the "persons" case. It was a huge victory for all Canadian women. The "persons" case is the inspiration for this year's theme for Women's History Month: "Yes! Women are "Persons!" / Oui, les femmes sont des « personnes! »

For the past 12 years, Canada has marked October as Women's History Month, to celebrate and recognize the many achievements and contributions of women in the development of our great country.

The "persons" case ruling in 1929 helped pave the way toward equality and participation of women in all aspects of Canadian society. Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney and Henrietta Muir Edwards, better known as the Famous Five, fought for 13 years to make it possible for women to serve in the Senate and become fully participating citizens. A few months after the ruling, on February 15, 1930, the first woman in Canada's history, the Honourable Cairine Reay Mackay Wilson, of Ontario, was appointed to the Senate. She was also the first woman appointed Chair of a Senate standing committee.

However, this was not the first victory for women in their quest for equal rights. Women won the right to vote in federal elections in 1918, after years of intense and imaginative campaigns to make the public aware of the voting rights issue. They won the right to vote in Ontario elections in 1917. Women's participation in public life has grown significantly since then, with representation on municipal councils, provincial Legislative Assemblies and as members of Canadian Parliaments. Women have achieved success and influenced social change in leadership positions as heads of political parties, chairs of royal commissions, as Prime Minister and as Governors General of Canada.

There are outstanding women throughout Ontario who have made significant contributions to their communities, such as Agnes Campbell Macphail, the first woman member of the Canadian Parliament and one of the first two women elected to the Ontario Legislature; the Honourable Sheila Copps, the first female Deputy Prime Minister; and in our own midst, Lyn McLeod, head of the Ontario Liberal Party; people like Frances Lankin, who ran for the New Democratic Party; and Elizabeth Witmer, who ran for the Progressive Conservative Party. These women are role models and we applaud them, not just here in Ontario but across Canada.

My government understands that ensuring equality for women is essential to building stronger, more vibrant, inclusive communities across the province. Today, 33 women serve in the Canadian Senate and 65 women serve in the House of Commons. Four women, including newly appointed Rosalie Silberman Abella and Louise Charron, preside on the Supreme Court of Canada, the largest number of women in any comparable court in the world. In this room, there are 24 women serving the people of Ontario as MPPs.

Ontario can be very proud of all its women. This month provides us the opportunity to honour their remarkable contributions.

However, much remains to be done to enable women to fully participate in our society. We need to continue to address women's safety in their homes, workplaces and communities, and ensure equal opportunities for education and training, particularly in high-growth areas where women are underrepresented.

It's my hope that today's young women will be able to look back at our generation the way I look back at the Famous Five, and that we can do so and they can do so with pride. Thank you.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): Today I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the PC caucus to recognize Persons Day. As we've heard, it was 75 years ago that the British Privy Council decided that women were persons under Canadian law. We certainly owe that landmark ruling to five outstanding, determined and very persistent women who took their fight all the way to the Privy Council in England, the highest court in Canada at the time.

These Famous Five -- Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby, Henrietta Muir Edwards and Nellie McClung -- changed the lives of women of their generation and of all future generations. These women opened the door of potential political opportunity to women who would take the challenge.

Persons Day falls in October, during Women's History Month. It is a time for all of us to celebrate the contributions of women, past and present, who have shaped Canada in so many ways. In business, in the arts, in politics and in sports, women have increased their presence and their influence and demonstrated that they can excel in non-traditional fields.

Since this declaration, women in this province and Canada have made great strides. Canadian women have served as justices in the Supreme Court, heads of corporations and even as Prime Minister, Kim Campbell. We also have had our first leader, Lyn McLeod.

More women than ever before are pursuing post-secondary education, thus increasingly becoming economically independent. More women today are owners and operators of very successful small businesses. In all areas of life, women are working extremely hard toward !independence and self-sufficiency. Certainly today we salute and recognize all of these outstanding women.

However, although we have made very great strides forward, I think it is also important that there are still challenges ahead and and still barriers to overcome. In fact, one of the biggest barriers that we need yet to overcome, according to Doris Anderson and others, is getting more women into higher levels of elected office in Canada. That is one of the next barriers that we need to overcome.

Certainly, if we are to meet this challenge and some of the other challenges that lay ahead for women, it is extremely important that all people in this province, indeed all of our colleagues on all sides of this House, work together. We need to ensure that women in this province and women in this country continue to make progress in achieving full equality in all areas of our lives. That is the legacy I want to bequeath to my son and daughter.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm honoured to be able to stand here today as a full person because of the work of these five women. I'm honoured to pay tribute to the 75th anniversary of the "persons" case and the Famous Five, who won this landmark ruling for all Canadian women. They challenged and defeated the status quo, which saw women as secondary citizens and strived to keep them from entering the arena of political decision-making. They wouldn't even let them vote.

I recently saw a bumper sticker that said something like, "Docile women seldom make history." Well, I may not make history, but nobody in this place can accuse me of being docile, I think. The Famous Five -- Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene Parlby and Nellie McClung -- definitely exemplify this adage, as well as many other women: the CCF's very own Agnes Macphail; Shirley Carr from the labour movement. I'm sure we could all go on and on about women who have led the way.

Their challenge to the

interpretation of the term "persons" opened the door for women to take their rightful place in Parliament and in all aspects of public life. Isn't it absolutely incredible to believe that a mere 75 years ago, women were deemed less than full persons? We were merely chattels, the property of men. This is in my mother's lifetime. I want to underscore here that they did it by working individually and collectively -- again, a testimony to the strength women have when we work together. Occasions like today remind us of this important lesson that we women, in recent years, at times seem to overlook.

I and my peers would not be where we are today had it not been for these five women coming together. Thanks to their legacy, we can now point to a stunning record of women's contributions to this province and, indeed, to this country.

Commemorating this watershed moment in Canadian political history is also particularly important in current times, when the declining representation of women in Legislatures like ours is a telling reminder that we can never become complacent.

Part of the democratic deficit that underlines voter cynicism and declining voter turnout is the lack of diverse representation in Legislatures. Canada, once a leader in electing women to public office, now ranks 36th in the world among democracies in terms of women's representation in the national Legislature. Provincially, this slide is also all too visible. In Ontario, 28 women -- still not enough -- sat in the assembly when we were in government. The figure declined to 19 when the Tories took over, 18 in their second term, and currently we've moved up again, but not to the full 28. There are 23 women members.

So after gaining some ground, the number of women in elected office today has not just declined but is in danger of rescinding more.

So while the five who came before us won one battle, a very important battle, there are many fronts left for us to fight and glass ceilings to shatter. The New Democratic Party of Ontario, indeed of Canada, is committed to ensuring parity of representation in the Legislature. That is one of the reasons we're calling for the introduction of a form of proportional representation, as recommended by organizations like Equal Voice, an action group that is tackling, in a very public fashion, the underrepresentation of women in Legislatures across the nation and in Ottawa.

Research undertaken by this group and by Fair Vote Canada, another partner in democratic renewal, shows that democracies with proportional representation have an average of twice as many women in public office. At the rate we're going now, I believe they have calculated it will take over 100 years to even achieve parity. That is not good enough. I've recommended that Attorney General Bryant pay attention to this point as we all await the unveiling of the Liberal's plan for restoring public faith and participation in politics.

Again, I am pleased to represent the Ontario New Democratic Party today in paying tribute to these five women who changed forever the lives of women in Canada and, indeed, in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week, I asked Premier McGuinty about your government's backdoor efforts to redefine medicare in Ontario by forcing hospitals to decide what services to cut as you strong-arm them to balance their budgets by creating two classes of patients: those receiving protected services and those who fall outside your priorities; for example, emergency room services. As usual, the Premier refused to provide a helpful response.

We've also contacted a number of hospitals to gauge the impacts that will result from your ultimatum, but the culture of fear you've engendered in the sector has them literally afraid to speak out. Minister, in last year's election you promised that health care services would be provided to all who need them when they need them. Are you now breaking that promise?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): There is obviously lots of evidence that abounds that hospitals are very engaged in the public discussion with respect to the challenges of operating within available resources. I would seek to remind the honourable member of two points which I think are very helpful in this discussion. The first is that our government is spending $700 million more this year on hospitals than the amount of money allocated by your government in the Magna budget for this fiscal year.

Since coming to office just about a year ago, we've invested nearly $1 billion in operating at Ontario hospitals and acknowledged a further $721 million in debts that are essentially the unpaid operating bills from when your party had the privilege of providing services in the province of Ontario. We recognize, of course, that there are difficult challenges, but I think the sustainability of our health care system does very much dictate that we operate within our means and that we move beyond the day where deficits could be run up and forced upon government in the final days of the fiscal year.

Mr Runciman: Although hospital administrators are afraid to publicly criticize the Liberal government, we did learn this weekend about some of the deficit projections facing a number of hospitals and some of the impacts.

We know the Sault Area Hospital is cutting 75 jobs; the Campbellford Memorial, east of Peterborough, will close 19 beds and lay off 21 people; the Huron-Perth Healthcare Alliance will close 47 beds; and at Sick Kids in Toronto, where the vice-president of child advocacy has mysteriously disappeared after speaking out publicly, there will be reduced patient care and longer waiting lists. Instead of enhancing health care services, as you promised, you're making it impossible for patients to get timely, adequate care.

Minister, explain to the people of Ontario why they are paying a new health tax yet getting less access to crucial hospital services. Why is that?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The honourable member would be well advised to be reminded of the actions of his party on the subject of hospitals while in government. Was it in their second year that they actually cut hospital funding by 3.5%? Was it in their third year in government that they cut hospital funding by 4.4%? It had the effect of reducing the amount available to our hospitals by $557 million.

In contrast to the argument the honourable member brings forward, what have we done as a government? Early on, upon our arrival, we invested $385 million in base funding for hospitals; in this year's budget, 469.5 million new dollars for Ontario hospitals, and a comprehensive and unprecedented investment in community-based care to assist our hospitals in diverting traffic so they can focus on the things they are best able to do.

We acknowledge that our hospitals have challenges. None of these changes that the honourable member has referenced have occurred to date. Hospitals are working through a process with our government, and the first piece of that is the expectation that hospitals will produce balanced budgets -- not on an immediate basis, but by the end of 2005-06, because that's the relief Ontario hospitals sought and obtained from our government. We're working with them. There are difficult issues to be resolved for sure, but our determination to create a sustainable health care system is at the basis of this challenge.

Mr Runciman: Minister, you and your Premier have failed to address the impact of interim agreements you're strong-arming and intimidating hospitals into signing. You don't want to talk about the cuts these agreements will require to important services like chemotherapy, diabetes and arthritis clinics or emergency room services. We've already heard of a firefighter having to lie on a park bench outside an emergency room -- an alarming and disturbing scenario, but an indicator of even worse to come from your ham-fisted government.

Minister, will you end your war on hospitals, stop your bully-boy tactics and release details of these interim agreements so that people will finally understand the effects of your attempts to transform the health care system in Ontario? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I think the people of the province of Ontario fully recognize that the legacy of that party after eight and a half years in government was these difficulties that we experience in health care in Ontario. We've invested $2.161 billion already this year in the most comprehensive expansion of community-based care, designed to assist our hospitals by diverting traffic. We've invested nearly a billion dollars in new operating funds as a government since taking office. And we've acknowledged $721 million in operating debts, sir, that your government directed Ontario hospitals to bury in their books so the province could claim the books to be balanced.

So I do fully acknowledge the challenge associated with this difficult file -- it is the largest line in the government's books -- but our determination to work with hospitals to get them in balance and to keep them in balance on a sustaining basis is a fundamental issue and one which we're dedicating quite a lot of time to. I continue to look forward to working with the honourable member to resolve these issues to the benefit of Ontarians.

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

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, last week we on this side of the House showed you the dire crisis facing the Ottawa Hospital. Today we learned that it is not only the Ottawa Hospital, but that you and your government's mismanagement and incompetence have literally started a fiscal fire across virtually every hospital in Ontario. Last week we learned the details of the 35% increase that you gave to the OMA for our physicians. Two days later we learned another thing: Sick Kids faces a $45-million cut.

Minister, isn't it time that you stop this crisis you've created? Isn't it time that you admit this is all your fault? Won't you tell us right here and now what you plan on doing to fix this problem you've created?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I appreciate the opportunity that the member's question provides to read a quote from a very interesting person. This is former Minister of Finance Janet Ecker, who said on Friday night, with respect to our agreement with the Ontario Medical Association:

"But I think this agreement has great potential. I think it is trying to take new money and it's trying to incent the kind of behaviour everybody says we need in the health care system if we're going to finally get a sustainable system. And so, if this agreement can go through and if it is a workable agreement, it might well make positive change."

The point is that the situation we inherited from that party -- their legacy is clear. It was one that dissatisfied Ontarians. We're working very hard to develop better quality health services in the province of Ontario, we're making unprecedented investments to do so, and I believe we're on the right track.

Mr Baird: Sick Kids Hospital is in your constituency. You neither seem to be an advocate --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Nepean-Carleton, you've been using that prop. I ignored it the first time, but could you put your question without props, please.

Mr Baird: You're not prepared to stand up for the hospital in your own riding and neither are you prepared to stand up and be an advocate for any public hospital in Ontario. It's not just the crisis that you created in Ottawa or Toronto.

Let's look at the headlines from around the province: "Cuts Could Leave the Stratford General Hospital with 18 Fewer Beds"; "Campbellford Hospital to Cut Jobs to Balance Budget"; Nearby Peterborough Regional Health Centre Announced Plans to Cut $12 Million in Spending"; and the "Cornwall Community Hospital Will Need to Cut $7.1 Million Worth of Services." These are headlines from right across the province. Virtually every hospital is in a fiscal crisis.

For the first time in the history of the province of Ontario we don't seem to have a minister, a caucus or an advocate for public hospitals in Ontario. Will you stand in your place and now admit that this crisis is wrong -- it's hurting patient care -- and will you back down and fund our hospitals properly? Will do you that?

Hon Mr Smitherman: Just a few facts that might be helpful to the honourable member: We have not cut one dime. Every hospital in Ontario is receiving more money this year than last. We have, as a government, invested nearly $1 billion, not yet our one year anniversary in government. We're investing $700 million more in our hospitals this year than that party, while in government, proposed.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Baird: Going back to the question made by the leader of the opposition, not only do we not have an advocate for public hospitals in Ontario, we seem to have a bully government and a bully minister leading the charge against our hospitals. I want to ask you very directly, are you aware that the Sick Kids spokesperson Cyndy DeGiusti was forced to resign this afternoon, after your ministry put pressure on the hospital board over her comments in Saturday's Star? Will you admit that, and will you stop this bullying of the hospital community?

Hon Mr Smitherman: On the issue of an advocate for Ontario's hospitals, I'll put the record of our government up against the record of your government that I've enumerated this afternoon. Nearly a year in office, and we've invested nearly a $1 billion of new operating funding in our hospitals. In two years, that party while in government reduced hospital funding by $565 million. We're funding them to the tune of $700 million more than their own Magna budget proposed for Ontario's hospital. I think this makes the point: We're working very hard in Ontario to create a health care system for once --

Mr Baird: You're fired.

Hon Mr Smitherman: -- that recognizes the reality --

Mr Baird: Donald Trump --

Hon Mr Smitherman: -- that community --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Nepean-Carleton, please stop shouting across. I'm not having an opportunity to hear the minister. I think you were completed, Minister.

Hon Mr Smitherman: Completed, Speaker. Thank you.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week we learned that you were giving some physicians a 35% pay hike. Over the weekend we started to see the consequences of that. The Hospital for Sick Children said clearly that your health care decisions will mean a $45-million reduction to health services for some of our sickest and most vulnerable children. Your Premier seems to think this is progress; I call it making a crisis.

Will you commit today that crucial children's hospital services won't be placed in jeopardy because of your deal with the doctors and your failure to properly fund our hospitals?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I note that the honourable member seeks to reference our historic agreement with the Ontario Medical Association. I had the opportunity on Friday to hear from a former Health Minister of Ontario, Dave Cooke, who said, "I think this, on the surface, looked like a very innovative agreement." The Toronto Star in an editorial said, "Deals with Doctors Good for the Province of Ontario." Communities all across the province, many of them in that member's own riding, have seen their fate in the hands of those two parties while in government and it has been a fate of family doctors, disappearing from local communities.

I stand firmly in favour of a process that will once again renew family practice and restore vitality to it, and see doctors return to communities in Ontario. That will be important for providing services to children as well.

Mr Hampton: The question was, will the minister guarantee that crucial health and hospital services for children won't be reduced? It's interesting. He did everything possible to avoid answering the question. That is the issue, Minister.

You hand physicians a 35% pay increase and then hospitals like Sick Children are facing a $45-million reduction. They are very clear about what that means. It means a reduction in services for children. It means longer waiting times for children who need services. It means children's acute care beds being reduced, outpatient clinics being reduced, surgical beds being reduced.

Minister, I'm going to ask you the question again: Will you guarantee that crucial hospital services for sick children, children's acute care and rehabilitation beds won't be cut as a result of your failure to properly fund our hospitals?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I'll remind the honourable member what I said a moment ago in answer to the other party's questions, and that is that every hospital in Ontario is receiving more money this year than they did last year. I think this is important.

With respect to the specific issue he raises, the member should know that the process we're involved in is not one that is to be resolved on the basis of a newspaper story but rather on Ontario hospitals working through a process which has been established with them, which is that first they must submit proposals with respect to balanced budgets. We'll work through these issues with them, including, as may be necessary, assisting them with turnaround teams that would involve professionals from other hospitals who have had success in creating balanced conditions.

We acknowledge that there's lots of work to be done in working with Ontario hospitals to get them in balance and to create a sustainable system, and we will do that. I remind the member that these issues he chooses to use for research, issues in the newspaper, are not the final word on the subject. We're working very closely with all Ontario hospitals to resolve these matters.

Mr Hampton: Once again, the question was, will you guarantee that these important hospital services for sick children won't be cut or reduced? Twice you failed to answer the question. You claim to be a know-it-all on health care; then answer the question.

Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre is also facing serious cutbacks. Right now, they are looking at cutting outpatient services, food services and housekeeping services. You and your Premier call that progress. Once again, I call it your broken promises and letting our children down. These are human costs, the costs of our children who are suffering. So I'm going to ask you again: Will you guarantee that these important hospital services for sick and vulnerable children will not be reduced as a result of your failure to properly fund our hospitals?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I want to tell the honourable member that of course we recognize the extraordinary value of hospitals like Sick Kids and Bloorview MacMillan. While he seeks to suggest that I have no emotional commitment or attachment, I would simply tell the honourable member that as one who spent four months in Sick Kids Hospital, I have a very strong attachment to that hospital. That's where I went to celebrate my 40th birthday, with a contribution to their foundation. They do extraordinarily good work there.

Obviously, budgets must be established in our province on the basis of what is available and of the sustainability of our health care system. I repeat the message, and I remind the honourable member of two things: The first is that every hospital in the province of Ontario received more money this year than last, and that we have a process established with Ontario hospitals to get them in balance over a period of 18 months. That does provide us the necessary time to work through these very specific challenges that are being brought to the attention of the Legislature today.

The Speaker: New question?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Minister of Health. Today, the Premier gave himself a B when he was grading your government, but when it comes to protecting health care for women, you don't make the grade at all, because you're putting unique health care services for women on the chopping block. The Ontario Hospital Association and Women's College Hospital tell us that your proposed budget formula for hospitals means deep cuts for women's health programs. You call that progress; hospital officials call it cuts to gynecology, obstetrics, breast care, birth control, fertility and abortion.

Will you guarantee today that you'll make sure none of these critical health care services for women will be cut?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I appreciate the opportunity to address a question about another of the valued health care services that is located in the riding of Toronto Centre-Rosedale. I have long been a supporter of the excellent work done at Women's College Hospital. The assurance I can give the honourable member is that we've invested more money in hospitals -- almost $1 billion since we came to office.

We look forward to the opportunity of working through these challenges with Ontario's hospitals over the course of the next 18 months or so, and I can assure the honourable member that there will be no sign-off on these changes that have been predicted so far in newspaper stories. We're working to ensure that the provision of these essential health care services is there for the people of Ontario.

Ms Churley: I want to make it clear to the minister that I have met with front-line workers from the hospital. This is not just from a newspaper story; they told me what's going on there.

You say that you're making progress on health care. Let me give you more specifics about what is happening at Women's College Hospital, Ontario's leading women's health centre. The 24-hour urgent response centre is no longer open at night; the pelvic pain clinic is gone; there are just a few surgical beds left; the environmental health centre is disappearing; whole corridors are already empty; offices are vacant; equipment is mothballed. And the worst is yet to come: You're forcing Women's College Hospital to cut its budget by 25%. Hospital supports say you're turning the hospital into a ghost hospital.

I'm asking you again specifically, will you guarantee that you'll make sure none of these critical health services for women will be cut?

Hon Mr Smitherman: It seems a little bit interesting to get a lecture from a member of a government that closed 8,000 beds while she was part of the government.

On the issue of Women's College Hospital, I repeat what I said a moment ago in answer to the member's question earlier: It's an important facility. We recognize its very special role for women's health. I'm a very strong supporter of Women's College having a strong role in this regard. Obviously, like other hospitals in Ontario, they are submitting some information related to the challenges they must confront in reducing their budgets. We, as a government, are working with them to encourage them to take advantage of all those reports which have indicated hundreds of millions of dollars in savings in non-clinical areas that have not yet been taken advantage of.

I remind the member that she seeks to turn this into a crisis point of this afternoon but that we have an opportunity over the course of 18 months to bring hospitals in Ontario into balance and sustainability.

Ms Churley: Minister, it's not me trying to turn this into a crisis; you've turned it into a crisis. The front-line workers are coming to see me, telling me that they're already in crisis, and you're making it worse. Dr Bev Richardson, former chief of medical staff affairs at Women's College, says this about your progress: "This organization will not survive." It will be the last of a thousand cuts after what the previous government did to it.

You have a duty, Minister, to ensure that women get access to crucial and unique health services that we need. Your actions so far show that you think women's health services are dispensable. But it's not too late to do the right thing, and I have a recommendation for you: Will you commit today to take those services off of the cuts list and put them on the protected services list, where they belong? They are not on the protected services list, Minister. Will you agree to put all those services on that list so they won't hit the chopping block?

Hon Mr Smitherman: It's interesting that the honourable member thinks that spending more money makes things worse. The fact of the matter is that Women's College, with Sunnybrook, is part of a very significant and important hospital in Ontario. They're obligated, in the same way that other Ontario hospitals are, to file information with the ministry with respect to the initiatives they would undertake to get their budgets in balance. We have the opportunity to work with all Ontario hospitals to make sure that the things they're offering in terms of change are focused toward non-clinical areas.

As I've said a few times in the House today, we have this opportunity over the course of the next 18 months and I look forward to working through these challenges with all Ontario hospitals.

At the end point, what is clear is this: We're investing more money this year in Ontario hospitals. That party, while in government, reduced hospital beds by 8,000. That party, while in government for two years, reduced hospital funding by $565 million. Our record is clear: less than one year in office, one billion new operating dollars for Ontario hospitals and acknowledgement of another $721 million in the form of working capital deficits. This represents a very significant commitment on our part to making sure that our hospitals are performing their important role.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. About one year ago, you went to the OHA convention and you promised a new approach to solving problems. You can imagine their disappointment when, without any consultation, you introduced Bill 8, which shifted authority from the hospitals to the Ministry of Health, and you made them agree to specifics or run the risk of penalties or sanctions. That was the beginning of the intimidation, the threats and the fear that we see today.

Then you had your budget, which underfunded hospitals to the tune of about $600 million. We know that these cuts are going to hurt the London hospitals. We see in the paper there are going to be service cuts, there are going to be staff cuts. Cliff Nordal, the president, says there are going to be longer waiting lines. Smaller rural hospitals might have to close their emergency departments. There are going to be service cuts.

I ask you, Minister, can you commit that no emergency rooms will close and that no nurses will lose their jobs?

Hon Mr Smitherman: You know it's going to be an interesting day at the Ontario Legislature when that member stands in her place and raises issues about nurses. This is the member who, as part of a government, fired thousands and thousands of them and then paid $400 million to try to mask that.

The facts are very clear: a new government, one year in office, $1 billion in new investment in our hospitals, $721 million in working capital deficits acknowledged, the single largest community-based investment in those services designed to divert traffic from our hospitals so they can be left to focus on only the things they are best built and suited to do.

We're working through these matters with Ontario's hospitals. The Ontario Hospital Association asked us for an extension to get these books in balance in Ontario hospitals. We've granted that. That gives us a window of opportunity to work through these on a case-by-case basis, and that is exactly what we're doing.

Mrs Witmer: Despite his rhetoric, I would like this Minister of Health, that person, if he chooses to refer to people in that way, to know that our government added 12,000 new nursing positions. You have promised to hire 1,000 more, and we now learn that hospitals across this province are threatening to fire nurses. There will be more than 1,000.

I would also say to you, despite your rhetoric, hospitals are not happy. They're not working with you in a co-operative manner; they do it only under the threat of intimidation, fear and anything else you or your staff are throwing at them.

I'd like you to acknowledge, at the least, that you can't expect hospitals to sign these accountability agreements in the absence of knowing their allocations for 2005 and 2006 or the impact of upcoming labour negotiations.

Hon Mr Smitherman: The honourable member makes an interesting case about her party's record while in government related to nurses. I think what most people will remember is that your government fired them by the thousands and your former Premier compared them to Hula Hoops, saying that nurses in our province were as out of date as the Hula Hoop.

I'm very proud of the initiatives we've launched with respect to nurses, and I'm very proud to say that in the work we're doing right now with Ontario hospitals the issue of the stability of the labour force, particularly around nurses, is one of those priority areas that we seek to emphasize.

I do acknowledge that we have a lot of work to do. The fact of the matter is, we've given ourselves an appropriate time frame to work through these things with Ontario hospitals.

I would just say a word to the honourable member. I had the opportunity earlier today to be in contact with a hospital's CEO. That hospital's CEO expressed no hostility toward me. In fact, that hospital's CEO is very pleased with the relationship we have. Many hospitals in the province are working through their difficult issues. We're doing that together.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Minister of Health. You'll know that there is a crisis facing alternate-level-of-care patients in the community. Last week, I asked you to consider temporary funding of long-term-care beds or temporary beds at the Sudbury Regional Hospital to try and avoid sending long-term-care patients to Manitoulin Island, Espanola or even Chapleau.

It's clear that funding temporary long-term-care beds at a local facility is an option. On Wednesday night, city council heard that as a result of a redevelopment project at our local home for the aged, some 30 beds could be created on a temporary basis to resolve this crisis. That's why, on Wednesday night, city councillors passed a resolution urging you to fund 30 temporary beds at Pioneer Manor as soon as possible.

My question is this: Will you fund these beds and do it as soon as possible?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I do want to comment to the honourable member. In fact, both members from the Sudbury area have been very forceful advocates on behalf of their constituents, as is appropriate.

I'm not in a position today to tell the member that the resolution that's been proposed is one that we can move forward with, but I expect to be in a position within the next few days to be able to take advantage of some of the opportunities that do exist, recognizing, again, that it is a very, very significant challenge for people to be asked to move beyond their communities, particularly given the travel distances in northern Ontario and that winter is on the short horizon there. So I would hope, before the week is out, to be able to offer tangible evidence of progress on this very, very crucial issue.

Ms Martel: I think that Pioneer Manor offers an excellent short-term opportunity for these temporary beds, but I also think it offers real opportunity for long-term-care beds so that this crisis of a shortage of beds in our community will not continue.

As a result of the capital redevelopment, it's clear that there's a new opportunity to convert B and C beds to A beds. That could be done with minimal capital adjustments, much less than what would be required to actually build 30 new A beds right from the start.

So, Minister, as you consider funding temporary beds at Pioneer Manor in the short term to avert this crisis that's upon us, will you also have your ministry review what might be possible in the longer term at Pioneer Manor to convert existing space into new A beds?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The short answer is yes, but I wouldn't limit it to that option. I would say to the member, as I believe I acknowledged in my answer last week, that the allocation of beds in northern Ontario does seem to have provided significant challenge, not only in the Sudbury community. It's been a very, very significant issue in Thunder Bay and Timmins, as I think the member would be very well aware, and in other communities. We do think that there is a short-term point and also a longer-term resolution which is necessary. At the heart of that would seem to be overall bed capacity in northern Ontario.

So we are taking a look at that longer-term issue, with a view toward trying to address it. But I hope to be able to demonstrate progress on the short-term issues before week's end.

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Small businesses form a very vital part of Ontario's overall economy. In my riding of Hamilton West, many small businesses, such as the Locke Street Bakery, Skinner Opticians, Pasword Communications or even Hill's TV, contribute greatly to our region's overall economic prosperity. These businesses hire from our local communities, purchase goods and services from our local communities, and thus contribute immensely to the overall economic success and growth of our Ontario communities.

Will the Minister of Economic Development and Trade confirm to the Legislature the importance of small business in Hamilton West and Ontario's overall economy?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Let me thank the member for the question. I'm proud to stand up today to tell the Legislature that October is officially Small Business Month in the province of Ontario. The member is right: Small business plays an extremely vital role in Ontario's economy. In fact, small businesses generate 60% of all new jobs in Ontario; 94% of all small businesses employ fewer than 50 employees; nearly 75% of these businesses employ fewer than five people. So it is extremely important to our economy.

Let me just cite a report that was brought forward by CIBC, entitled Canadian Small Business: Back in High Gear. The report says that Ontario will lead the country in small business growth: 90,000 new firms in 2004-05 will be created, and an expansion of 6% for the year 2004-05. So this is good news for Ontario's economy.

Ms Marsales: Thank you very much, Minister. I'm glad to see you understand the vital role that small business plays in our economy, and certainly all the women who are participating in these small businesses. Could you please tell me what we are doing to help these small businesses achieve greater economic success?

Hon Mr Cordiano: We are diligently working on the creation of a small business agency. With the help of my parliamentary assistant, Tony Wong, who has consulted with the small business community, we're going to make access to government programs easier and decrease the amount of paperwork that small businesses have to do through the use of a one-window, Web access portal, working with my colleague Jim Watson.

Also, we lowered our small business income limit to $400,000 through the help of the Minister of Finance -- thank you very much.

We are also increasing the number of apprenticeships, working with my colleague the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Minister Chambers.

We're also bringing forward a northern Ontario strategy through the good work of my friend Rick Bartolucci.

This McGuinty government is working together to ensure that we have a very positive business climate for all businesses in Ontario, particularly small businesses.

WOODSTOCK GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Health. As you heard in my statement last week, the lack of approval of Woodstock General Hospital is wasting taxpayers' money because a full year of construction has been lost. The sidewalks are installed, the pre-grading is complete and the fundraising is well underway. The people of Oxford don't understand how the hospital could be so close to completion and then stall like it has. They have been questioning your motive for the delay. Minister, will you assure the people of my riding that this delay is not politically motivated by signing off on the approval immediately?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I appreciate the work of the people in this community, and I know that they've gone through a lot. But the thing they should understand is that any delay is motivated by the very clear reality that your government made a lot of promises that it didn't leave enough money to back up. We're working through those challenges, therefore, to be able to make sure that we move forward with the construction of hospital capital in a fashion which is consistent with the fiscal realities we're facing.

I want to repeat what I said right at the get-go: There's lots of recognition of the incredibly hard work and community support that exists around this proposal, and I just want to reassure the community of that.

Mr Hardeman: Not only does this delay waste time and taxpayers' money, it sends a signal to our doctors in the area that they are not valuable enough to be provided with a modern facility in which to work. While you were out last weekend negotiating billion-dollar deals with Ontario's doctors, you were ignoring the facilities these doctors need to practise. I appreciate that we should value our doctors' services, but do you not also want to provide them with the proper medical facilities?

Show the doctors in Oxford that you understand their profession and how much they need this new hospital. Minister, will you assure the doctors in my riding that you value their services by signing off on this hospital?

Hon Mr Smitherman: Any doctor in the province of Ontario reading the current negotiated agreement we've made would have no doubt about the extent to which we think they are essential for the provision of good-quality health care.

I would simply remind the honourable member that in the life of his government, the government that he was part of, communities in this province went from 60 to 132 designated underserviced. The gentleman beside him was a lobbyist for that designation in his community.

I just want to make the point that not all doctors who provide essential services to Ontarians practise in hospitals.

I stand by the comments, of course, that I made in my earlier question. I look forward to being able to work with the local community and move forward on their health priorities. But I would just remind the honourable member that in the run-up to elections, many things were said and many great big oversized cheques were presented, but on presentation to the bank, the legacy of your government was that too many of those cheques were NSF.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. Last week, many parents joined my NDP colleagues to protest your plans to cut transportation funding for 30 school boards across Ontario. Tonight, parents will be at the Durham District School Board to fight the cutbacks to busing.

Trustees say they have to cut services because your government is cutting funding. These cuts will mean almost 1,000 children have lost seats on their school buses. These cuts leave children walking beside busy highways or walking to school alone. These cuts make children less safe.

The question to you is, will you tell these parents today that you are scrapping your current plan and that you will develop a real student transportation plan that offers reinvestment instead of cutbacks?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): We really appreciate the member opposite giving us the chance to address the question here in the Legislature, because he wouldn't want those parents or anyone to misapprehend what's happening in education today. Things are getting better in every board. In fact, this year transportation funding increased by a minimum of 2% for every board, by an average of 5% across the board. We're the first government to actually open up a dialogue with the boards on how transportation should be funded in the future.

I'm sure the honourable member opposite will not perpetuate a misconception. In fact, this is a discussion of a draft document that may happen in terms of a formula for transportation funding that will ask boards one thing and one thing only: to be fair with the way they transport their kids, to not have an advantage over other boards and to maintain a high standard.

It just so happens that in Durham region the two boards aren't collaborating as much as they could. We're giving them an amount of money today that covers all of their needs, plus an increase. We're saying that for their future years, we want them to consider becoming more effective. We think that's a good thing to do because it allows us to take care of all the needs we have in the future to meet some of the needs across the province that have more challenges. In fact, over two thirds of the boards face significant increases.

We have a discussion, as past governments sometimes forgot, with the people affected, because they are the ones who are going to make sure that students and their parents have the comfort of knowing they get the transportation they need.

Mr Marchese: Minister, you've already ditched support for school bus funding. In fact, your claim that this is only a discussion paper -- your so-called Equitable Allocation Through a New Funding Model for Student Transportation document, the one I'm holding in my hands, which is available on your Web site, goes into detail about where you plan to cut education funding. It also shows clearly that this new funding model is being phased in this year. Minister, if this is a draft plan, why are you implementing it right now and why don't you admit that it's a bad plan and scrap it today?

Hon Mr Kennedy: I guess I should be a little more generous. I thought the member opposite would join with us right away. Maybe after the supplemental, he'll join with us to make sure we develop the best transportation funding formula.

I guess I shouldn't be shocked, but the document he has in his hands says at the top -- and maybe we can get his help here -- "draft" funding formula. I know the member opposite intended to include that.

What we're saying is a reasonable thing -- something they're not used to after eight years in the wilderness and four or five years of confusion before that -- which is that they should be part of the answer. They should be part of drafting a better transportation formula. We invested $33 million more in transportation this year. We would ask for all of the boards to be part of moving forward with the best way to make sure that kids get safely transported.

I look forward, after this further explication, to having the member opposite join with us, making sure that everyone knows there have been no cuts at all. There is no implementation of anything this year. This formula can be improved on, but only if all the members of this House undertake to get good, accurate information out there, which I know the member opposite will now do.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. It's certainly not a secret to anyone in this House that providing access to professions and trades for internationally trained professionals is vital to our workforce and our economy. Since we formed government, I know we've done substantial work on working with Ontario's regulatory bodies and by providing several bridge training programs to provide our internationally trained with Canadian work experience.

But about 70% of the residents of the neighbourhoods of Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park in my riding are recent immigrants to Canada. Many of them received approval for their applications to immigrate to Canada specifically because of the points they got for their professional credentials, but when they got here, they discovered that their credentials aren't the ones Canada's regulatory bodies accept. More than that, they're frustrated by the fact that the process to appeal an accreditation decision by a regulatory body varies widely among the professions and trades, with no common standard.

Minister, could you talk about what steps our government is taking to address this issue?

Hon Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): We are closely committed to improving the access of internationally trained individuals to professions and trades in Ontario. With regard to the process for accreditation and licensure, many refer to that process as being confusing and arbitrary.

I do want to say that I've been working with the regulators over the past several months, and many of them are making really good progress. But it is a fact that the processes vary greatly from one regulatory body to another. Very recently I appointed former Ontario Justice George Thomson to review all these processes and the appeals opportunities that go along with these processes. I have asked him to recommend to me an appropriate process for independent appeals.

Ms Wynne: Minister, the review of the appeals process is a strong step, and it indicates that we're committed to continuing to work with our internationally trained individuals. However, I know that many newcomers to our province have been caught off guard by the requirements they must meet in their chosen profession and have also been unaware of the demands of their respective trade or profession in Ontario's labour market.

At a recent town hall meeting in Thorncliffe Park, this is the refrain that MP John Godfrey and I heard over and over again: On average, it takes two years from the time of first contact to immigrate to Canada. Given good information about the requirements they must meet to practise in their field of expertise, those two years could be spent getting ready to come and work in Ontario.

Minister, what steps will our government take to better inform our internationally trained individuals in Ontario's labour market climate of the requirements they need to practise and the programs our government offers in order to prepare them?

Hon Mrs Chambers: The fact that individuals come here feeling that their credentials have been accepted is a very reasonable expectation they would have, because they're in fact assessed on the basis of their number of years of post-secondary education and their number of years of work experience, and then they arrive here and find that's not valued to the extent they think it should be.

I'm working with my colleague Minister Bountrogianni on this, and she's working with the federal government on this as well. We think it's absolutely essential that prospective immigrants and all who are interested have a good sense of what the labour market forces are in this province. Recently, we actually launched a Web site. This is part of the government of Ontario Web site. You click on "economy" and it will take you to "career maps" and labour market information by profession. I know this is the kind of information that individuals will be interested in having even before they leave their home countries so they can work toward effective integration into our workforce.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. In Thunder Bay and Sudbury, the hospitals are receiving 80% funding for their construction projects. Why has the McGuinty government refused to provide equivalent funding for the new hospital project in North Bay?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Speaker, I know that the Minister of Health would like to respond to that.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Because the proposed project in North Bay also includes the transfer of a psychiatric facility, I can confirm for the honourable member that the government of Ontario's contribution is, I believe, 79.3% in total.

Mr Miller: I'm pleased to hear that the minister is increasing the funding, but the mayor of East Ferris does not feel that way. He suggested that the province is treating municipalities served by the North Bay regional hospital like second-class citizens. Councillors in North Bay and East Ferris say that they face the same tax assessment challenges and construction costs as Thunder Bay and Sudbury. East Ferris's share of the cost will be little more than a million dollars, a significant amount for a small municipality.

Taxpayers in East Ferris are already paying for health care through your new health tax. Why are you discriminating against the people of the North Bay Regional Hospital?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I'm very pleased to report to the honourable member the same thing I had the opportunity to say to the mayor on a face-to-face basis, and it was simply this: If I were to go with him to visit the Sudbury hospital, which is the regional centre, which provides for trauma and tertiary care and the like in northern Ontario, we would see residents from East Ferris. If I were to take the mayor of Sudbury to North Bay, the likelihood of seeing residents of Sudbury in the North Bay hospital is much reduced.

It really makes the point that in northern Ontario there are two regional hospitals that are asked to provide services to a much broader piece of territory than just the communities nearest to them. While all hospitals, of course, draw people in from farther afield, these two hospitals in northern Ontario are essential to the proper functioning of the health care system.

The fact of the matter is that under the funding formula, and the way your government was moving forward, both of these hospitals were being compromised by multi tens of millions of dollars of deficit related to the construction of their hospitals that only had one outcome, if not resolved in this fashion: that it would further imperil their ability to provide the supports that the people of East Ferris and everywhere else in northeastern Ontario are depending upon the Sudbury Regional Hospital to provide.

RURAL EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education. On December 12 last year, you announced a moratorium on school closures. At the same time, you promised a new funding formula for rural schools by March this year. You promised as well an additional $177 million in funding for rural schools. Minister, March is long since past and we haven't seen the new $177 million for rural schools. As a result, the Lakehead District School Board in Thunder Bay is set to close 19 schools, many of them rural.

Minister, you said to the people of Ontario, "Choose change." You promised a moratorium on school closures. You promised the $177 million of new funding. Where is it?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): Again, I'm still working on the accuracy of some of the information coming from the third party. The member opposite must have taken notice, because he cares about this issue, that we did deliver an extra $33 million for transportation, part of our rural initiative. He would have noted as well, very closely I'm sure, because it affected very significantly some of the riding he represents, the $31 million that we provided directly to rural schools not very long ago.

In fact he knows, because I happened to see him in the airport lounge, that I was up in Thunder Bay on Friday and met with the school board there. He may wish to talk about schools closing.

They're interested in talking about what is the best school system. They were interested in knowing about the number of things we're working on right now that will affect their decisions there -- every single one of them an improvement. One part already announced is that $2 billion is going to fixing up some of the schools that the past two governments let crumble, let get past their best-before dates, let them go down because maintenance and support weren't there.

We've delivered on this and more, Mr Speaker, and I look forward to telling you more about it in my supplementary.

Mr Hampton: The question was about the $177 million in new funding that the McGuinty government promised, which hasn't appeared yet. As a result, the Lakehead District School Board is set to close 19 schools, many of them rural schools. But what was amazing: When the minister went to Thunder Bay, he must have grabbed a Conservative policy book, because the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal says, "Education Minister Gerard Kennedy Has Changed His Tone.

"Rather than urge the Lakehead District School Board to slow its course toward school closings, the minister now commends the board for its `forward-thinking' approach."

This is what the Conservatives used to say. Where's the change that was promised? Where's the $177 million in new funding? What's going to happen to these kids who are already being bused for an hour and 15 minutes to rural schools when those schools close and they have to be bused even farther? Where's the change you promised the people of Thunder Bay and people across this province?

Hon Mr Kennedy: It's very interesting. The leader joins his critic in this supposition that isn't founded in fact. We have put forward $65 million. We talked about a $177-million commitment. We've already engaged a very large part of it. There is more to come.

In fact, what he should pay close attention to -- and if he or his critic or anyone in his caucus wish to talk to the board, they'll find the board is now looking at what improvements they can make. They made a plan based on the dark days, based on the kind of rules and assumptions that came from the government opposite. They know now very clearly, as does that entire community, that those days are behind us. We have started to put together the kind of support there should be for rural and northern school boards.

I would say that board and all the boards I met with -- I met with northern Ontario education leaders -- know that we have delivered increased funds for rural schools, that we have delivered increased funds for transportation; and new guidelines and other support for them are forthcoming.

Again, I invite the member opposite to work with us on the improvements that are happening. Get your head out of the sand and see that it's already underway.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, on September 9, your ministry strengthened support for people with developmental disabilities by investing in community supports and launching a major new review of the developmental services system. Can you please explain to the House what exactly that announcement entailed and what it means for the developmental services sector in Ontario?

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): On September 9 we did, in fact, make a very significant announcement, probably the most significant announcement, that signals a huge shift in retooling of policy in developmental services, something that is long overdue. In that announcement, we also said in the next five years we would be closing the three institutions which still exist in Ontario. That would happen over the next five years.

Combined with the closure of those three facilities is the investment in the next four years of $110 million in this sector so we can properly lay the groundwork for the thousand people who still live in these institutions and will be moving into the community.

As you know, we have to continue funding in the developmental services sector to help all families be certain that those individuals will move into community when the community is ready to receive them. I recognize that there are some who have significant issues, families with great concerns, and we are taking great care to be certain those families will be comfortable with what happens with their individuals.

Mr Hoy: Minister, indeed in that same announcement, you set the date for the closure of three institutions that remain here in the province, and that included southwest regional centre in my riding. My constituents have expressed a concern about this announcement. Can you please clarify for the families and staff what this move means for the developmentally disabled who live in these facilities?

Hon Ms Pupatello: It is important that on the day we made that announcement we took great care to have an opportunity to speak with families in advance. Ministry staff and personnel spoke to virtually every family that has an individual in the institutions, and we took the time to talk to staff people in advance of making the announcements, because we recognize how difficult and challenging it can be for some people affiliated with this.

I want to say that every single government since 1987 has supported the movement to close these facilities. We believe it's the right thing to do. We have to be very mindful of how difficult and challenging it is for some and take care that we make this change gradually and that we do it well. These are individuals who are our most vulnerable citizens, and we owe our most vulnerable citizens to take the time to do it properly.

Let me also say that in the communities where these facilities are located, we are taking great pains to ensure we speak across ministries of this government, as well as other levels of government, so we can bring people in to talk about the redevelopment, the potential for economic development in these areas.

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Chairman of Management Board. As stated by my colleague from York North today, we were shocked to hear your decision to cancel the move of the Archives of Ontario. This decision puts the historical records of our province and its people at great risk. The current location is simply no longer suitable. Will you do the right thing now, stop hiding behind the legal opinion which you will not release and restore the funding for this vital project, or will you just play politics with our history?

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The first thing I would say is I want to assure the people of Ontario that we clearly will ensure that we protect these important documents. We've done a couple of things. One is that you're probably aware that 80% of the archives are moving into a new facility that is being built in the north of Toronto -- 80% of them will be handled there. The second thing we're doing is to look at a significant long-term plan for housing the archives.

I would say that when we came into government a proposal was there and all the legal advice we got was that we were unable accept it. And if you want to know what we do, we take these legal opinions seriously. We're not going to put at risk the taxpayers of Ontario. I just want to assure everyone we will come forward with a plan for ensuring that we have a long-term, viable option to make sure that our archives are properly protected. We will do that, we'll do it in a fiscally responsible way and we'll do it in a way that ensures we don't run into significant legal risks.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): That's the end of oral questions. It's time now for petitions, but there's so many people standing, I'm not sure if I can recognize anyone. I'll recognize you all.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and many more like it from a lot of people right across Ontario

"Whereas the Liberal government has announced in their budget that they are delisting key health services such as routine eye exams, chiropractic and" psychotherapy "services,

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

"To reverse the delisting of eye exams, chiropractic and" psychotherapy "services and restore funding for those important and necessary services."

I have also signed it.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I'm having difficulty with so many people standing. I don't know if they are wanting a petition or they're leaving the Legislature. But I will easily recognize the member for Beaches-East York.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas those with reduced ability to pay, including seniors, low-income families and the working poor, will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family physician offices and emergency departments;

"Whereas 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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I am in agreement and would sign my name thereto.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I am beginning the petitions put forward by Melanie Perrier, the mother of Allyceea Ennis regarding school bus safety. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Education requires district school boards to ensure that classes, `on average for each board, do not exceed ... 24.5 in elementary overall (junior kindergarten through grade 8)';

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Education states, `For safety and discipline purposes, a school bus is regarded as an extension of the classroom';

"Whereas a full-size school bus has 24 seats and can carry up to 72 children, far more than a teacher is allowed to supervise unassisted;

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Transportation states, `Police can charge drivers with careless driving if they do not pay full attention to the driving task';

"Whereas school bus drivers, no matter how diligent, cannot adequately supervise up to 72 children and safely navigate a multi-tonne bus through busy traffic and changing road conditions;

"Therefore, all elementary school buses should have a trained adult supervisor on board in addition to the driver.

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Transportation regulates deployment of safety equipment unique to school buses;

"Whereas Transport Canada recommends that, `depending on their physical characteristics, children up to the age of four or five be restrained on school buses using the same restraint system recommended for a passenger vehicle';

"Therefore, school buses require the proper installation and use of appropriate child safety restraint systems for all junior and senior kindergarten students.

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Transportation is responsible for establishing rules and regulations pertaining to driver qualifications and licensing; and

"Whereas the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators recommends that commercial vehicle drivers take a first aid course that includes respiratory emergencies, artificial respiration and accident scene management;

"Therefore, all school bus drivers should annually pass mandatory instruction and testing in first aid, CRP and emergency situation management, as a requirement of Ministry of Transportation licensing.

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, remember Allyceea and petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"That the Legislature pass a law:

"(1) requiring all elementary school buses to have a trained adult supervisor on board, in addition to the driver;

"(2) requiring the proper installation and use of appropriate child safety restraint systems on school buses for all children under 50 pounds or 23 kilograms; and

"(3) requiring all school bus drivers to annually pass mandatory instruction and testing in first aid, CPR and emergency situation management, as a requirement of Ministry of Transportation licensing."

Thank you for your patience. It's a very important petition signed by --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Further petitions.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I need to say happy birthday, Mum.

Applause.

Mr Ouellette: Thank you.

This petition reads:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas those with reduced ability to pay, including seniors, low-income families and the working poor, will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family physician offices and emergency departments;

"Whereas 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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I affix my name in support.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

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

"Whereas seniors and other qualified patients require the continued provision of physiotherapy services through

schedule 5 clinics to promote recovery from medical conditions and continued mobility and good health;

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

"The patients of

schedule 5 physiotherapy clinics request the continued support of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for provision of OHIP-covered physiotherapy treatment to qualified seniors and others in need of these vital health care procedures."

I'll sign my name in this corner.

LANDFILL

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have just come from a meeting concerned about the expansion of the Edwards landfill.

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

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

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

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

"Halt the Edwards landfill site excavation."

These petitions are being published in the Haldimand press, and I affix my signature to them.

TEACHING ASSISTANTS

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

"Whereas the Minister of Children and Youth Services, Dr Marie Bountrogianni, has stated that it is the policy of the Ontario government to `help children and youth with autism' (press release from ministry, March 26, 2004); and

"Whereas, despite this stated policy by the ministry, it has come to the attention of parents with children attending Gledhill public school that the number of teaching assistants designated to Gledhill public school will be reduced from four to two, in spite of an increase in the number of children with learning disabilities attending the school; and

"Whereas all of the children attending the school benefit from the presence of teaching assistants to assist children with learning disabilities, including autism and autism spectrum disorders, in that their presence allows the teachers to share their time among all students equitably as the TAs provide the additional supports needed to assist students with special needs;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned parents of children attending Gledhill public school, demand that Minister Bountrogianni along with the Minister of Education ensure that the Toronto board of education is instructed to at least maintain the present level of teaching assistants designated to Gledhill public school and all other schools in the system, and that they ensure that adequate funding is in place to make this attainable in order to ensure equal opportunity and the safety of children with learning disabilities."

I am in accordance, and would sign my name thereto.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that" millions of "patients who use chiropractic" services "will no longer be able to access the health care they need;...

"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;...

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

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas there are approximately 23,000 children and youth in Simcoe county and York region who have special needs; and

"Whereas approximately 6,000 of these children have multiple special needs that require a range of core rehabilitation services; and

"Whereas children with multiple special needs (and their families) throughout the province access ongoing rehabilitation services that are critical for their development at children's treatment centres in their area; and

"Whereas there is no children's treatment centre in Simcoe county or York region. For families that can travel, the closest services are in Toronto; and

"Whereas Simcoe county and York region is the only area left in the entire province that does not have access to children's treatment centres services in their own area; and

"Whereas, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care provided funding to the Simcoe York District Health Council for implementation planning for an integrated children's rehabilitation services system in December 2001, and

"Whereas the implementation plan was submitted to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care in December 2002; and

"Whereas the proposal was reviewed and approved by the appropriate ministries in 2003 and, in August" of 2003, "the Ministry of Health advised the Simcoe county and York region district health council that the funding had been committed and would be available shortly;

"We the undersigned petition the Legislature of Ontario to release the funding for the children's treatment centre in Simcoe county and York region so that core rehabilitation services can be delivered to the children and youth in Simcoe county and York region."

I affix my signature.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

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

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who have chosen to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

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

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

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the other institutions and agencies of and within the government of Ontario, undertake specific and proactive measures to work with the bodies regulating access to Ontario's professions, trades and other occupations in order that newcomers to Canada gain fair, timely and cost-effective access to certification and other measures that facilitate the entry or re-entry of skilled workers and professionals trained outside Canada into the Canadian workforce."

I sign my name with full support to this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas gasoline prices have continued to increase at alarming rates in recent months; and

"Whereas the high and unstable gas prices across Ontario have caused confusion and unfair hardship to Ontario's drivers while also impacting the Ontario economy in key sectors such as tourism and transportation;

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

"That the provincial government consider an immediate gas price freeze for a temporary period until world" crude "prices moderate; and

"That the Dalton McGuinty provincial government petition" their "federal Liberal" cousins "to step up to the plate and lower gas prices by removing the GST on gasoline products and fix the federal Competition Act to ensure consumers are protected and that the market operates in a fair and transparent manner."

I'm pleased to sign this on behalf of my petitioners, Shirley Kuipers and others.

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have received more petitions to save the Leslie M. Frost Centre. I shall read it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Leslie M. Frost Centre is Ontario's leading natural resources education, training and conference centre, aimed at fostering an understanding of natural resource management, with a focus on ecosystems and how they can be sustained for future generations; and

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

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

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

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

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

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

EVENING SCHOOL BUS SERVICE

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

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty has promised to make the needs of students a priority for his government and that students deserve to have a bright future with a good education; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty has promised not to give up on students or Ontario's public school system;

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

"That the provincial government work with the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board to establish an evening bus route from St Joan of Arc High School in Barrie to the outlying communities. This would allow students to participate in extracurricular activities and help them to fulfill their potential, secure a bright future and receive the best educational experience possible as promised to them by the Premier."

I agree with this petition, and I've signed it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 14, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 106,

An Act to implement Budget measures and amend the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 106, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures budgétaires et modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Mr Speaker, I'd ask for unanimous consent to stand down my 13 minutes to follow the New Democratic Party, the next speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I understand that this is considered to be the leadoff speech and that I have a whole hour to address the assembled crowd here.

Interjection: We are so honoured.

Mr Prue: I'm glad you're so honoured.

This bill is Bill 106. It is the Budget Measures Act, 2004. It contains, within the body of this budget, really only three things. The first is the Ontario health premium, which I intend to speak solely and exclusively on, but it also contains provisions of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act that I understand my colleague Gilles Bisson, the member from Timmins-James Bay, spoke on earlier in this session, and as well the Trust Beneficiaries' Liability Act.

I intend to speak only about the Ontario health premium because it is perhaps the most controversial aspect not only of this bill, not only of this budget, but I would arguably state the most controversial measure that has been undertaken by this government in its first year in office. It is a most regressive measure. It is a measure which is not designed, in my respectful submission, to help the people of this province; particularly, it is not designed to help those who are of moderate or fixed income, those who are at the middle or lower-middle economic strata in Ontario and those who daily struggle to try to find the monies necessary for themselves and for their families.

It is a most singularly regressive measure, and it is a measure that was clouded in some forms of secrecy in the first few days. I remember the Minister of Finance standing up and, first of all, calling it a premium because he didn't want to call it a tax. Then, when he was pressed on the issue, he admitted it was a tax and not a premium when he found out that if it was a premium, there would be many collective agreements, including the collective agreements of the Ontario government's own employees, that may kick in and force the companies that were responsible for those collective agreements or who had to pay for those collective agreements to actually pay.

Having said that, there are three things wrong with this premium.

The first is that the costs are borne disproportionately by the poor and by those of middle income.

The second thing is that it is unlike the rollback of the OHIP premiums in 1989. It's not simply a reinstatement of those -- that would be a bad measure in and of itself -- but this is even worse, because in 1989, more than half of the people who had their OHIP premiums paid had them paid by the employer. In the 15 years that have passed since then, of course, no one has had those premiums paid, because there were no premiums by the employer.

Last but not least, the third reason is that, although anyone can argue and anyone should argue that the dollars were probably necessary for medical services in this province, medical services that had once been the pride of this province and of this country but that are now sorely in need of cash infusions -- they would be hard-pressed to stand here and tell this House or the people who are watching on television that the money was not needed for hospitals, for doctors, for nurses, for chiropractors, for the thousand other things that our medical industry is able to give to the people of this province.

However, having said that, the $2.4 billion that is going to be raised by this regressive tax could have and should have been raised more equitably by those people who could better afford to pay it than our working poor.

If I may continue, how does this bill operate? Well, there is an appendix at the back of the bill that sets out how people are going to pay these OHIP premiums, and I would just like to go down how these premiums are going to be paid and how they are going to be borne most disproportionately by those who are of limited income.

The government, in this first fiscal year, 2004-05, is going to raise $1.635 billion by the measures that were introduced. Next year, in the year 2005-06, it will raise some $2.35 billion through this OHIP premium. When it's fully rolled out, this is what's going to happen: Individuals earning between $20,000 and $36,000 a year will be forced to cough up $300. Individuals earning between $36,000 and $48,000 a year will have to pay $450. Individuals earning between $48,000 a year and $72,000 a year will have to pay $600. Individuals earning $72,000 to $200,000 a year will pay $750. Individuals earning more than $200,000 will pay $900.

The premium is absolutely regressive, because you can see that people who earn $200,000 pay only some three times as much as those who earn $20,000 -- 10 times more income coming in, but only three times more that you have to pay on this regressive tax. The premium is extremely regressive, with lower-income folks paying a higher proportion of their income than those who have high, high income.

In fact, as a percentage of income, the premium figures also show how regressive this is. At $25,000, the surtax is 1.2%. By the time you make $70,000, that declines to 0.86%. If you're lucky enough, one of those rare individuals in this province who earns $100,000, the surtax has gone down to three quarters of 1%. If you earn $200,000 -- and here we're only looking at about 1% of the population -- the surtax is down to 0.45%. At $500,000, if you are one of the extremely rich CEOs of the major corporations or you have all kinds of money from however it is made, the surtax is down to 0.18%.

Therefore, 1.2% for those poor people who earn $25,000 a year, and 0.18%, about one sixth of that, for those who earn above $500,000. This is the inverse of our tax system. Our tax system, which is designed to be fair, taxes those who can most afford to pay it. This regressive tax taxes those who can least afford to pay it, and then says it's a premium.

The premium substantially increases the provincial income tax payable for low- and moderate-income earners as follows: Those individuals earning $30,000 a year end up paying 24% more provincial income tax; those earning $50,000 a year will pay 16% more provincial income tax; those making $100,000 a year pay only 7% more provincial income tax; and those people who make lots of money -- the $200,000-a-year people -- pay only an additional 3%. So if you earn a modest income -- $30,000 a year -- you pay 24% more on provincial income tax than you paid last year.

If you earn $200,000, it's a pittance; you're only going to pay 3% more, so I guess you can really afford that. But it shows you again how regressive this tax is.

No matter how the tax is calculated, it's regressive. If it's on the basis of dollars alone, it's regressive. If it's on the basis of a percentage of what you're paying, it's regressive. If it's on a percentage of the income tax you pay to the province of Ontario, it's regressive. There is nothing good to be said about this particular tax.

I'd also like to talk about people who are poor in this province. There are a number of key determinants of what causes poverty. It's caused by a whole range of things from housing to education to opportunity to the place where you live. There are those who would say that visible minorities tend to be poorer than non-visible minorities. There's a whole range of things done to assess that.

But the one that is universal, the one that is used by this government, by the federal government, by the governments of the municipalities -- indeed, universally across the province -- is the low income cut-off figure arrived at by Statistics Canada. That figure says who is poor and who is not. If you earn above the level established, you are considered no longer to be poor; if you earn below that, you are said to live in poverty.

The figures, of course, are different for various parts of the country. They are different in rural places as opposed to urban ones, where rents tend to be higher. They are different in small cities as opposed to large cities. They are different in Toronto than they are in Halifax. But in Ontario, in the large cities like Hamilton, Ottawa and Toronto, a low income cut-off figure, which determines when a person lives in poverty, for a family of three is $28,560.

That is, a single mother with two children who has a job and who earns $28,560 is said to live in poverty in the city of Toronto, in Hamilton or in Ottawa. But that same individual, under the formula of this bill, will be forced to pay a premium. That same individual will be taxed approximately an additional 20% in provincial taxes this year. Although that individual lives in poverty, that individual will be forced to pay, under the provisions of this bill.

If we look as well at somebody who lives in a small urban region -- we can look at the city of Kingston or we can look at Cornwall or St Catharines, cities that are smaller around the province -- the low-income figure is $22,635. So an individual living there, that same mother with a modest job, two children, who earns $22,635, would as well be required to pay some amount of money under the provisions of this bill. She lives in poverty, her children live in poverty, and she is further placed in poverty by the provisions of this bill, which force her to pay a premium when she does not have the necessary money.

I would also remind the members of the Legislature of one final number, which I think is kind of interesting. For a person, again, in a large urban area like Toronto, Hamilton or Ottawa, a single wage earner in a family of five -- and let's say the mother is the single wage earner and the father's the stay-at-home dad, because these things are starting to happen, and there are three children. The family, in order not to be in poverty, must earn $38,646. If that family has one earner who earns that much, they have to pay $450 under your plan. Think for a moment about what you are doing.

You are taking money from people who are living in poverty. You are taking it from the wage earner, you are taking it from his or her family, and you are taking it from the children.

This is one of the reasons that we are opposing your bill. We are not opposing the bill because the money is not needed. The money is needed. I will state categorically, and we have said this from the beginning: The money is needed for the hospitals; it is needed for the doctors, for the nurses; it is needed for health care; it is needed for public health; it is needed for 1,000 very good reasons. But it is how you are getting the money that is wrong. You are taking it from people who cannot afford to pay it and you are taking it, in the end, from people who live at or near the poverty level.

You are taking it disproportionately from the working poor and from those who are not at the higher income levels enjoyed by many in our society.

We go on to health and where the money is going to be spent. As I've just said, there are many good places you're spending the money. I would even agree on some of the inoculations, although not necessarily that you took the money away from chiropractic services, from optometry or from physiotherapy. But the money is being spent in some very good places. I have to tell you that you're taking it away and you're spending it in ways that cannot be justifiable in terms of this particular tax. There's the whole issue about money being spent on sewers. That was quite the debate here in the Legislature --

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): It's not true.

Mr Prue: As you know, Mr Caplan, it is very true. It is absolutely true that some of the money is being spent on areas outside what one would normally classify the health system. I'll get to that in a minute. But what's particularly galling, I think, in terms of this bill is that all the money that's being raised -- the money that this government is getting from the federal government and the money that this government is getting from this particular tax; we're looking this year at about $2.5 billion in extra revenues, and we're looking next year at probably $3.5 or $4 billion in extra revenues -- at the same time this money is being collected, there are services that are being cut.

I speak first to the chiropractic services. This is a biggie. This is some $104 million that's being taken out of the system for this year, and it's being taken out this very month. People are now going to have to pay $104 million for chiropractic services that they had not counted on at the beginning of this year, and indeed do not count on even now, and will be forced to pay out of their own pockets.

We are looking at the delisting of optometrists. This is going to save some $39 million and will take effect next year. For physiotherapists, it is going to save only some $16 million, and it too will come out next year. That money is being taken out of the system at the same time there is more and more money available for this government and how it is able to raise funds.

We have seen that the government has some options, and