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

June 16, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 16 June 2004 Mercredi 16 juin 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JASSEN CULLIMORE

DAVID COOK AND TERRY BUTT

RELAY FOR LIFE

JACK MCCLELLAND

HEALTH SERVICES

HEADWAY HOMES (NIAGARA) INC

EDUCATION

FEDERAL ELECTION

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASIAN LONGHORN BEETLE CONFINEMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA LIMITATION DE LA PROPAGATION DU CAPRICORNE D'ASIE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CANCER TREATMENT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

HYDRO RATES

MUNICIPALITIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DOCTORS' SERVICES

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

NORTHERN ONTARIO

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

SARS

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

MOTORCYCLE INSURANCE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

HEALTH CARE

TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

AJAX-PICKERING HOSPITAL

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

TAXATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

HEALTH CARE

LCBO OUTLET

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADAMS MINE LAKE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE LAC DE LA MINE ADAMS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JASSEN CULLIMORE

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Every hockey player dreams of becoming a Bobby Hull, a Mark Messier or a Wayne Gretzky and taking to

the ice in the Saddledome, the ACC or the St Pete Times Forum. For Simcoe native and Tampa Bay Lightning defenceman Jassen Cullimore, that dream has been realized.

On June 7, while much of Canada was fired up about the Calgary Flames playing in game seven of the Stanley Cup finals, many of my constituents were cheering on

Tampa Bay and Cullimore, as he manned the Lightning blue line. Despite a storm of activity in the dying seconds of the game, Cullimore and his team were able to clinch a 2-1 win and, as a result,

the Stanley Cup will be returning again to my riding. The return visit follows its arrival three summers ago on the shoulders of Norfolk county native and Avalanche star Robbie Blake. He lives just

a mile up the road from Jassen.

Championship hockey players are not unique to my riding. I think of locals Red Kelly, Chico Maki and Rick Walmsley, all of whom have had their names engraved on

the cup. On the women's side, Hagersville's Becky Kellar has been playing for Team Canada for several years. She competed in the 1998 Olympics and helped bring home the gold in 2002 from Salt Lake

City.

So to Jassen and the rest of the Tampa Bay Lightning crew, congratulations. Jassen, we look forward to seeing you and NHL's most coveted prize.

DAVID COOK AND TERRY BUTT

Mr Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): I rise today to recognize two outstanding individuals from Mississauga South: Mr Dave Cook and Mr Terry

Butt. Mr Dave Cook has written, and Mr Butt has financed, a book about the history of Applewood Acres, which is in the northeast corner of Mississauga South. In Mr Cook's book, titled Apple

Blossoms and Satellite Dishes, you can read how Applewood Acres was given development approval by Premier Leslie Frost.

Some of the historic people who lived in Applewood Acres include Buffalo Bill Cody's father and grandfather and Colonel Harland Sanders.

In Mr Cook's book, he will tell you the story of how William Grenville Davis, the 35th Premier of Ontario, changed his name to Bill Davis so he could appear

first on the ballot. That was a decisive part of his first election victory.

Mr Cook was able to give free copies of his book to all residents of Applewood Acres, thanks to Mr Terry Butt. As former councillors in Mississauga, both Mr Cook

and Mr Butt have shown their passion and dedication to their community, and now have enshrined it for all to read about.

I hope you will join me in congratulating Mr Cook on the tremendous work he has done in writing about this very important time in the history of Mississauga

South and of Ontario, and to Mr Butt for sponsoring him. Will they please rise in the east gallery to be recognized.

RELAY FOR LIFE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It was my privilege to attend the first Relay for Life cancer research fundraising event held in

Bracebridge, in my beautiful riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, last Friday evening. Such events are organized by the Canadian Cancer Society as a celebration of survival and a tribute to the lives of

loved ones. Approximately 300 people were present at the fairgrounds in Bracebridge, including 160 participants, volunteers and entertainers, for the 12-hour relay.

The weather was beautiful and the enthusiasm of those who participated, both young and old, was exceptional. The survivors' victory lap saw 39 cancer survivors

walk the first lap of the relay in recognition and celebration of their courage and struggle with cancer. Another highlight of the evening was the luminary ceremony, in which candles were lit and

placed around the track in memory of a loved one or in honour of a cancer survivor.

The event was a massive success, having raised $39,000 in this inaugural year. This is a true reflection of the hard work and commitment of all those who

participated, volunteered and provided their financial support. To all of them, I send my most sincere thanks. In particular, I would like to thank the enthusiastic organizing committee, chaired by

Tina Plavinskis; the many sponsors, including Dura Automotive Systems and Pride of Muskoka Marina; and the Bracebridge OPP for their participation by shaving their heads in the Cops For Cancer

event.

We all know someone who has been touched by this disease. It is events like this that give us hope that the day will come when cancer will be beaten. I extend my

warmest congratulations to all involved. I look forward to the second annual Relay for Life next year.

JACK MCCLELLAND

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise today on a sad day for Canadian publishing and culture. On Monday, our country lost a legend in Jack

McClelland, who passed away at the age of 81. Jack was born in Toronto, attended U of T and served in the Royal Canadian Navy. He joined the firm of his father, McClelland and Stewart, a Canadian

publishing firm, in 1946, and became president in 1961.

Over the next 20 years, Jack McClelland built M&S, as we lovingly know it, into the most significant Canadian publisher in the business. The house publishes

countless Canadian literary giants, including Farley Mowat, Peter Newman, Pierre Berton, Margaret Atwood and Margaret Laurence, to name but a few.

Mr McClelland had a keen eye for publicity and was a great promoter of Canadian literature in Canada and around the world. One of his most notorious moments was

when he marched toga-clad down Yonge Street to promote Sylvia Fraser's novel The Emperor's Virgin.

He was, to say the least, a legend. He was named a Companion of the Order of Canada in 2001 and held 11 honorary degrees for his contribution to Canadian

literature. He has been declared the "father of Canadian literature" and has been described as being instrumental in creating "the whole existence of Canadian literature."

Today I rise in respect of a legend. I hope that we as Canadians and as Ontarians will remember that Jack McClelland was such a contributor to our culture. I

thank him and thank his family for his contributions.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I want to take a few moments to discuss serious constituent concerns in my riding of Leeds-Grenville

related to the McGuinty Liberal government's attack on Ontario's health care system through the delisting of chiropractic, optometry and physiotherapy services. This ill-thought-out decision is yet

another direct violation of a Liberal campaign promise. Rather than providing reinvestment dollars for health care, it will ultimately cost the provincial treasury more and will inflict needless

pain on thousands of low- and middle-income Ontarians, especially seniors on fixed incomes.

One of the many seniors who contacted me is Evelyn Pelton of Brockville. For Evelyn, her chiropractic treatments are an essential part of the health care system.

She requires periodic treatments to restore mobility in her neck, and the chiropractic care she receives provides relief and doesn't require more expensive alternatives.

Evelyn is just one of thousands of Ontarians affected by the McGuinty Liberals' betrayal of promises and their pay-more-for-less approach to health care. I urge

the Liberal government to reconsider this wrong-headed and short-sighted decision, and restore funding to chiropractic, optometry and physiotherapy services in the province of Ontario.

HEADWAY HOMES (NIAGARA) INC

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The goal of Headway Homes (Niagara) is to provide a model long-term home with appropriate services for

severely brain-injured persons who are identified as slow to recover. There are currently no community-based services for these persons.

They formed a board of directors in June 1995 and since then have been meeting and discussing their project proposal with the central south regional office of

the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Niagara District Health Council. At the request of the central south regional office, they prepared several proposals and a business plan, but they

continue to wait and wait for approval for funding to build the first Headway Home in Niagara.

They understand and they've been told that a significant barrier to funding is not only financial but policy-related. In order to move the needed project

forward, the current policy preventing 24-hour nursing care in community-based settings must be revisited. They call upon this government -- I join them in calling upon this government -- to take

the necessary steps to correct this policy and open the door to more effective services for a unique group of individuals who are slow to recover from severe brain injury.

I have hundreds of signed letters from people in communities across Niagara who express their concern for the lack of residential services for adults who are

slow to recover from severe brain injury. I urge this government to respond. I insist that this government respond promptly to the creative, cost-effective and indeed humane and socially

progressive proposal of Headway Homes, so that they can move ahead with their plans to care for those very important people in our communities.

EDUCATION

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I would like to rise today to point out a visitor in the gallery. My nephew Christian Giansante is

here in the legislative gallery today. Christian is six years old and just about to complete the first grade.

Last fall, when we were engaged in the election, one issue in particular was repeated thousands of times at the doorsteps across Etobicoke-Lakeshore. The public

had lost faith in the public education system, and the Tories had turned it into a political football. They were looking for a strong commitment from our party to rebuild our fractured educational

infrastructure.

For years before the election and ever since our government has been elected, I have been meeting with parents and education experts who have been saying the

same thing: The most effective way to turn our system around and guarantee positive long-term results in education is to give children a strong start in public school.

Our budget has answered that challenge. We told the people of Ontario that class sizes from junior kindergarten to the third grade would be capped at 20, and we

have made the necessary investment to ensure these kids get the start they need to succeed in our public schools.

The Tories gambled and lost with public education. I can't imagine what they must have been thinking when they purposely set out to create a crisis in the system

so they would get credit for solving it. Luckily for the children such as Christian, they are no longer at the controls. When Christian enters second grade next fall, it will be in a public system

that is once again striving for excellence.

FEDERAL ELECTION

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): In the federal leaders' debate last night, Stephen Harper confirmed that his plan for Canada is to

recycle failed Ontario Tory ideas. What you might not know is that he is recycling failed Ontario Tories.

Looking at the names of candidates for Stephen Harper's Conservatives in the federal election, I came across a few that struck a chord with me and obviously

struck a chord with Ontarians recently.

One candidate, as education minister under Mike Harris, made drastic cuts that led to the textbook shortages, crowded classes and decrepit buildings that were

hallmarks of their education agenda. That same candidate, as health minister under Mike Harris, closed 36 hospitals, leading to the long waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms and nursing shortages

that patients struggle with every day and that we will have to reverse. This same candidate, as Management Board chair under Mike Harris, slashed the environment ministry budget in half and fired

one third of the staff, directly contributing to the Walkerton disaster, according to the public inquiry.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The member from Renfrew is not in his seat.

Ms Wynne: That Conservative Party candidate is David Johnson, running for Stephen Harper in Don Valley East.

Another one who caught my eye was the member who was known to have paid his press secretary $300,000 a year. That was Tony Clement.

We're repairing the damage that these members did when they were members of the Ontario government. Let's not give them another crack at government in this

country.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): It was an amazing night last night as we were debating Bill 70, because our good friend the member from

Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound stated the obvious: that his government had incompetent ministers. In his own words, "We had an incapable, incompetent minister handling it in Minister Hudak. He shouldn't

have been the minister. He was the minister, and that's unfortunate. He had his own agenda."

I wonder if the former minister, the member for Erie-Lincoln, was incapable and incompetent, but what was his agenda? I recall that under his tenure hundreds of

birth certificates were lost and he didn't tell anyone for months. Afterwards, he told the Toronto Sun, "We've got to do a better job." Well, no kidding.

Under the Tories, our schools were crumbling, cancer patients were waiting weeks and months for therapy, the former government was flip-flopping daily on the

energy sector, and the environment ministry was slashed by 40%, which led to the tragedy in Walkerton. Under the Tories, Ontario was left with a $6.2-billion hidden deficit, a provincial debt

increased by $25 billion under their term that our children and grandchildren will be paying off for years, and a decimated infrastructure.

I think Mr Murdoch is absolutely right. When he talks about the former government's incompetence, it seems that not all is warm and fuzzy in the opposition's

caucus.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated June

16, 2004, of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Pursuant to standing orders 59(

a) and 60(a), I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on

estimates on the estimates selected and not selected by the standing committee for consideration of the House.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): The standing committee on estimates presents the committee's report as follows:

Pursuant to standing order 59, your committee has selected the estimates 2004-05 of the following ministries and offices for consideration:

Ministry of Finance: 7 hours, 30 minutes;

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care: 7 hours, 30 minutes;

Ministry of Energy: 7 hours --

Interjections: Dispense.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Dispense? Dispensed.

Pursuant to standing order 60(b), the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being

selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Mr Wong from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presents the committee's report as

follows, and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr5,

An Act respecting Conrad Grebel University College

Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting Redeemer University College.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting Redeemer University

College.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? No further actions are required on your part -- or no

further actions are required on my part. Got that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASIAN LONGHORN BEETLE CONFINEMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA LIMITATION DE LA PROPAGATION DU CAPRICORNE D'ASIE

Mr Tascona moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 102,

An Act to limit the spread of the Asian longhorn beetle / Projet de loi 102, Loi visant à limiter la propagation du capricorne d'Asie.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Tascona?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): The intent of the bill is to prohibit persons from transporting firewood infested with the

Asian longhorn beetle, and creates an offence for doing so.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice

regarding private members' public business.

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

Hon Mr Duncan: I move that, pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 27.

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

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 till 9:30 pm on Wednesday, June 16, 2004, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1353 to 1358.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jackson, Cameron

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Miller, Norm

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 54; the nays are 18.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Page Jessica Guthrie from Welland South in Welland has visiting her today

her parents Joe and Debbie Guthrie. Her three brothers were left behind.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): That's not a point of order, but we welcome them.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is to the Minister of Health. On May 19 your Minister of Finance, during his budget

speech, made the commitment to invest in public health, and that it would increase immediately. He also said your government would increase the province's share of public health funding to 75%. I

was very surprised, in reviewing the expenditure estimates that were tabled before this House yesterday, to discover, when I took a look at the vote item for public health, that it had been reduced

by half a billion dollars. I would say to you, Minister, how can you justify this cut to public health?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think the honourable member is on slightly interesting ground, as it's her

legacy as a member of a government that actually cut public health. The estimates are very clear; that is, they demonstrate that there is a significant increase in funding for the provision of

public health services in this province, but it's not reflected exactly in the estimates for two reasons.

First, there are some transfers out of the Ministry of Health into the Ministry of Children's Services that are in effect in that estimate's line, but more

importantly there was a very significant expenditure related to one-time initiatives for SARS that are not repeated in this fiscal year. Overall, with respect to public health funding, there are

eight very distinct areas in our budget where public health will be advantaged as a result of the commitments we've made in this year's budget.

Mrs Witmer: It certainly looks to me like there are more shell games being played by this government. I would remind the minister that when we

were in office, we increased public health funding between 1998 and 2002 by 43%, both at the municipal and the provincial level. However, I would say, if I take a look at the estimates and look at

the programs that are there for Ontarians infected with HIV, I see that we spent $31 million on AIDS prevention and treatment assistance, HIV and the Ontario HIV Treatment Network. If I take a look

at your estimates, you have actually cut the public health programs and services for HIV and for AIDS-infected patients. I ask you, how can you justify what appears to be a cut of over $23 million

for these vulnerable Ontarians?

Hon Mr Smitherman: There's not much I can do for an honourable member who continues to stick with the script she wrote before the first

answer. First off, you've got a lot of revisionist history going on. You like to pretend you weren't the government from 1995 until 1998 and that there weren't consequences related to the decisions

you made then, like the arbitrary downloading of more of the responsibility for public health on to the tax base at the municipal level -- first and foremost. But the facts are very clear here.

When you remove the $589 million that was in the public health line item from last year which was one-time funding related to SARS, what's absolutely, abundantly clear is that this government, in

our first budget, is increasing public health expenditures by $190 million, for increases in eight very distinct areas. And any shell game that you see is purely a shell game that is a figment of

your imagination, but understandable given the fact that that's the way you operated for so many years.

Mrs Witmer: Talk about shell games; this minister stood up in this House and pretended that they were providing the funding for the

immunization programs for children, when he knew full well it was the federal funding that he was counting on. It had nothing to do --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Mrs Witmer: What you have done is, you made a commitment to health care; you are investing it in sewers. You're using the federal money to pay

for the immunization program. And if I take a look at your public health commitment, as the critic for women's issues, I find that you have cut $3 million from the Ontario breast cancer screening

program. This at a time when we know there is a need to invest in breast cancer screening. Are you going to immediately restore the funding for this program?

Hon Mr Smitherman: What is astonishing about this honourable member is that she served in cabinet for years and years, and still, through all

of that experience, doesn't seem to have come to understand that one-time federal money for immunization does not sustain immunization on an ongoing basis. What you have in this government, as a

result of the commitments that we made during the election, is the implementation of an immunization strategy for our children, not just for this year and not just for next year, when there are

federal dollars available, but a program that will be available for Ontario forever. This is an increase in immunization, a development of a new strategy that will be funded by the provincial

government for as long as that program is offered. That is a clear commitment.

Here's a quote from John Rapin, president of the Ontario Medical Association: "I want to applaud the government for making good on its promise to increase

funding. Expanding funding for children's immunization programs and public health is long overdue in Ontario and will improve health prevention and promotion initiatives."

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is to the Minister of Health as well. On Monday of this week, I asked your Premier a question.

Clearly, he has been misinformed by staff in the Ministry of Health about the status of your new drug funding program. I want to revisit your answer, not that I'll quote from Hansard, but you'll

recall that you indicated an error had been made by Cancer Care Ontario, that had released the drug, and then they were correcting -- your word, "correcting" -- that error.

Minister, I wish to advise you. I spoke earlier to the oncologist who headed the haematology disease site group that approved Rituximab for the province of

Ontario. It received its policy recommendations on September 23 and began usage in the province on January 1. And as you know, I tabled in this House the notice from Cancer Care Ontario saying that

the government of Ontario had a hard cap on their new drug funding program and that's why Rituximab for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was delisted in this province.

Minister, will you correct the record now that I've proved to you that this drug was on the formulary?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): There's no argument about the drug being on the formulary and there's no

decision point on the part of the Ministry of Health or certainly the Minister of Health with respect to what drugs Cancer Care Ontario chooses to put on the formulary.

By way of explanation that had been provided to me, I offered to the honourable member what I had been told, which is that the policy approvals necessary to

list the drug on their formulary had not been granted, and they made the decision, with no consultation and no communication, which is totally appropriate with my ministry.

Go back and read Hansard very carefully. What you'll find is the essential point and it is this -- I repeat it for the honourable member: The government of

Ontario will back up Cancer Care Ontario on the decisions that they make and on the implications that has in terms of spending. What I said very clearly to the honourable member is that we make the

commitment that the people of Ontario who need cancer drugs will get them, and therefore, as required, we will find the additional resources necessary.

Mr Jackson: Those words are rather hollow for several Ontario families who were told that Rituximab would be available to them in this

province, from January 1 to 27, until your government informed Cancer Care Ontario it had a hard cap.

There is a Toronto family I spoke to this morning. At this time last year, this gentleman was almost dead. His oncologist here in this city said that his bone

marrow blood tests showed 80% lymph. He had very little time left. They said it was at a critical level and he needed the Rituximab treatments. He went to Indianapolis at US$26,000 for four

treatments. If it was in our province, it would have been $12,000 for those four treatments, yet he was denied access to the drug, which is available in this province. Today, his blood is

completely clear, because there are no side effects from this drug.

You tell this family and several dozen others that are traveling to the United States now why you've put a hard cap on Cancer Care Ontario's new drug funding

program. When will you lift the cap so that these Ontarians do not have to go elsewhere to get this vital treatment?

Hon Mr Smitherman: This is evidence of an honourable member who is not acting in the interests of people who are suffering from cancer in our

province, because he continues to propagate the idea that there is a hard cap. If you want to ask me questions, you, sir, have an obligation and a responsibility to listen to the answers and to

reflect those answers in what you're communicating to people who are hanging in the balance on these kinds of debates.

I have been very clear and I will repeat one more time: There is no such thing as a hard cap. That is a manufactured phrase that has been manufactured by this

member out of a political interest that is not serving the interests of patients in this province.

We print a budgeted number in the Ministry of Health. The member ought to know -- I know he does -- that in the Ministry of Health in a given year there are

many, many programs which are more open-ended, and during the course of a year additional resources are always found to support the expansions which are sometimes unanticipated in those programs.

But the key point is this: Those cancer drugs will be paid for.

Mr Jackson: I want to bring to the minister's further attention the damage he's doing to Cancer Care Ontario and to the thousands of cancer

patients in this province who on a daily basis are denied drugs that they could get in other provinces and that are freely available to them. Rituximab is available in Prince Edward Island, in BC

and Saskatchewan. Alberta actually lifted the discriminatory age cap of 65-plus which we have in this province because they had a rate of 55% fewer deaths from using this drug. It was

discriminatory to people who were denied the drug because of their age. They've now put it on their formulary.

On April 1 of this year, Cancer Care Ontario sent a further memo to every single cancer hospital or clinic in this province indicating that the half a million

dollars discretionary drug funding money that was available to them for the last five years has now been cancelled because of this government's approach to putting a hard cap on their new drug

funding program.

If you are not listening to cancer patients who are having to go to the United States because they have to go into their pockets to find money to pay for this

drug, will you not lift the cap?

Hon Mr Smitherman: There is no cap to lift. There is no cap to lift. Cancer Care Ontario makes decisions about drugs that it puts on its

formulary based on scientific evidence of efficacy. I don't get involved in those; no one in the government does. Those decisions are not made at cabinet.

The message has been conveyed very directly to Cancer Care Ontario and it has been conveyed very directly numerous times now in this House to the honourable

member, who chooses for some political reason not to get it. But here is the fact, and I will repeat it one more time to him: There is no hard cap. We've clearly indicated to Cancer Care Ontario

that we will work with them through the course of this year, as required, to enhance the amount of money they need to provide the drugs that their scientific evidence indicates are appropriate for

people suffering from cancer in this province. The commitment of the government remains firm on that, and any further attempt by the honourable member really needs, frankly, to be brought into

very, very sharp focus, because the intent of the member, it seems, is to destabilize cancer treatment for people in this province. There is no hard cap, and I assure the honourable member that

Cancer Care Ontario's resources will --

The Deputy Speaker: New question.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. It's now clear to all Ontarians that a good chunk of the

McGuinty health tax is being spent on programs that no one believes are health care services, programs like sewer and water pipe.

The numbers in your budget speak for themselves. You will get an increase in federal funds for health care of $726 million, and you will take in $1.635 billion

in the McGuinty health tax, which means you'll have an extra $2.36 billion to spend on health care services. But when you look at the spending on health care services, you're $200 million short,

which is why you start including sewer and water pipe.

Will you admit, despite your Premier's promises on his radio ads, that all the new money isn't going to health care services, and will you withdraw your budget

and bring in a new budget which recognizes all the false information that you put forward?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Speaking of false information, who is here spewing it forth, trying to run away

from his own party's platform? One time he believes in the determinants of health, and the next, he doesn't. This is a member who represents a riding that has an enormous number of native reserves.

You go on to those native reserves and tell them there's no correlation between quality water, drinkable water and health. Is that the point that you're taking? Is that the point that you'd like

your deputy leader to advance, after all the work about Walkerton, the lost and forgotten lessons of Walkerton? Evidence there in the front bench of the New Democratic Party.

Our party's commitment is clear. It's an investment in health care. In my ministry alone, $2.161 billion this year; money from the health premium and money

that's provided as a result of work that we've done with the federal government.

Other ministries, aligned across our government in the interest of enhancing the health of Ontarians, also have money to expend. I don't hear the member

talking about the commitment --

Mr Hampton: Your credibility problem grows worse in the out years. I want you to turn to page 12 of your own budget. What it shows on page 12

is that next year, you clearly state, health care spending will increase by only $600 million over this year, but during that same period you will be taking in $800 million more through the

McGuinty health tax, and the federal government will be increasing health transfers by another $800 million. So it means that you will have $1.6 billion more that you say is going to health, but

you're only spending $600 million more on health. Next year you'll have a $1-billion gap. What are you going to do next year, trot out another $1 billion of sewer and water pipe and call it

health care services?

Hon Mr Smitherman: This member just doesn't get it. He doesn't seem to understand that a government can come together, that it can reject the

silo mentality that says the only ministry that influences expenditures on health care is the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. He doesn't seem to --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Smitherman: The others are chiming in. They don't seem to think that expenditures that are made by, as an example, the Minister of

Community and Social Services that include significant investments in drug benefits, are health care expenditures by their logic, or that investments in children's mental health by other

ministries, other than the one that has "health" in its name, are indeed dedicated to the task of enhancing the overall health of the people of Ontario.

What's new for the honourable member, and that I urge him to get used to, is that this is a government aligned on a narrow range of priorities. Enhancing the

quality of health care and enhancing education are tasks that all members and all parts of the government are involved in.

Mr Hampton: I want to read Dalton McGuinty's quote, which is playing on radio ads. It goes like this: "I'm Dalton McGuinty, and I want you to

know that every penny of Ontario's new health premium will go to health care." Then we open up the government's budget, and what do we find? Next year the government will take in an extra $800

million through this regressive tax on middle- and modest-income families. It will get another $800 million of dedicated health care funding from the federal government. That's $1.6 billion in

total, but its health care investments only go up by $600 million.

I say to the minister again, what are you going to do next year? Are you going to fill some potholes in the roads and say, "Oh, that's health care spending

because the ambulance might go over it"? Are you going to run some ads on television telling people to jog around the racetrack and say that's health care spending? You've got a real credibility

problem.

Hon Mr Smitherman: The honourable member continues to run from his platform, which said, "Practical Solutions for Public Health Care," where

in part he says, "Smog kills thousands, and the NDP plan to shut Ontario's coal-fired generating stations...." They talk about "protecting the quality of drinking water at source." The other day in

a statement, the honourable member from Sudbury went out of her way to say that housing is an essential component of health care as it relates to people with mental illness in our province.

The point simply is made by the honourable member, which is that health is so pervasive. It is influenced by so many things. It is a government-wide priority.

There's no secret in that. To his challenge at the beginning of his question, I'm pleased to stand in my place and say that the Premier is right: Every cent of the new health premium will be used

to enhance the quality of the health of the people of the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: Again to the Acting Premier. I want to read the Premier's promise again: "I'm Dalton McGuinty, and I want you to know that every

penny of Ontario's new health premium will go to health care." Then he lists a number of things. He doesn't list sewer pipe; he doesn't list water pipe; he doesn't list television ads saying, "You

should start a fitness program." Those aren't health care.

That's why you're in such trouble, Acting Premier. Once again, you promised one thing, and now it's clear that the money isn't all going to go to health care.

Some of it's going to go to other things. You weren't straightforward. You distorted the facts. Will you admit that to the people of Ontario? Withdraw your budget and bring in a budget which

represents what's really happening.

Hon Mr Smitherman: Man, oh man, you're working pretty hard to spin away from what used to be an essential principle of your party and your

government. Let me read a little bit more from Howard Hampton's platform, which was drafted almost a year ago: " ... finding practical solutions to some of the social causes of bad health --

poverty, homelessness, inequality and illiteracy, to name a few -- these are the keys to a healthy Ontario."

That was then, according to Howard Hampton. But now, for purposes of his own political opportunism, he likes to try and characterize an initiative that is

designed to give people opportunities to be more active as something that's fundamentally not in the interest of better health. This is outrageous.

Mr Hampton: I certainly recognize that having safe drinking water is important. I certainly recognize that people being fit is important. I

don't call those "health care services," and I don't go out there and try to fool the people of Ontario by pretending that they're health care services.

I don't issue a promise saying I'm going to lift $1.6 billion out of the pockets of modest- and middle-income families and say it's all going to be spent on

health care services, and then spend it on sewer and water pipe. It's your promise. It's your distortion of the truth. When are you going to come clean with the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Smitherman: It's a little rich to hear the man who authored this statement talk about coming clean to the people of Ontario: "Public

power means the best way to keep people healthy is to have a healthy environment." The determinants of health messaging -- all lost on that government now and the promotion of healthy lifestyles is

not about health care, is not about making sure that people have all the information to stay healthy in the first place. This is an attempt on the part of that honourable member and his party to

create nothing except a lot of noise.

The fact of the matter is that for years and years, they have been the proponents of the determinants of health argument that says health care is influenced by

a variety of things, including the environment we live in, the quality of the air we breathe and the quality of the water we drink. That was then, though, and apparently this is now.

Mr Hampton: I suspect people across Ontario will now be very interested that the Acting Premier of the McGuinty government believes that when

you do air quality testing, that's a health care service and you should pay for it out of the health care tax; that when you put in sewer pipes, that's a health care service and hard-working

families of Ontario should pay for it under this new health care tax.

Minister, admit it, here's what you did: You decided you were going to raise taxes, you decided you were going to raise them on modest- and middle-income

families, and then you thought, "How are we going to make people swallow this? Oh, we'll call it a health care tax. It doesn't matter that the money's going to be spent on sewer and water. It

doesn't matter that in the second year of this health care tax, we'll spend a billion dollars less on health care services than we take in through the tax. We'll just fool the people by calling

this regressive increase in taxes a health care tax."

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: Admit that, Minister, because it's obvious to absolutely everybody in Ontario that that's what the McGuinty government's

doing.

Hon Mr Smitherman: It wasn't only in his party's platform -- oh, Howard, stop hogging all the questions so Shelley can ask one.

It wasn't only his presentation in his public power platform that the honourable member is now running from. He went before the Romanow commission. Here's what

he said when he went before the Romanow commission: "Hampton argued that all levels of government must focus on the determinants of health and used the example of diabetes in a northern Ontario

community to illustrate the impediments to access to basic health care...." The point of the matter is simple. Use diabetes as an example. How do you have kidney dialysis in Ontario if you do not

have access to a clean, safe, stable and secure water source?

The fact of the matter is that they can run and they can make all the noise they want, but at the end of the day, people understand that the implication is

clear, and what we learned in Walkerton was that as a province, we have an enhanced obligation to improve water protection.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'll give the Acting Premier a chance to cool off there.

My question today is for the Attorney General. As Ontario's Attorney General, the province's special investigations unit falls under your jurisdiction. It is

your responsibility to ensure that the SIU is allowed to conduct investigations without influence from anyone, especially from cabinet ministers.

I established in my question to the Premier yesterday that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services has tainted the SIU investigation with

his recent comments regarding the police shooting of a Scarborough man. Minister Kwinter has also encouraged and biased a potential civil suit by the man's family, because with his comments he

clearly implies that the police were wrong to shoot the man, that they should have been equipped with a Taser so they could have used it instead.

Minister Bryant, will you admit right now that Minister Kwinter has tainted the SIU investigation, tainted a potential civil suit and prevented you from

effectively doing your job?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): With respect to

the SIU investigation, obviously it is under investigation, and I certainly have nothing to say about that.

Minister Kwinter had made references to police operations. That is something Minister Kwinter does, make references to police operations. This government has

complete confidence in Minister Kwinter's comments on police operations and otherwise, in every way.

Mr Dunlop: I don't think this government sees how serious this issue really is. It involves someone's death. Yesterday, the Premier brushed me

off with short, arrogant answers. He obviously didn't want to comment on the issue at all.

This morning, my staff received a news release from Canada Newswire. In the news release, Minister Kwinter announced the funding already announced by our

government --

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): You announced, but you never put the money up.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Eglinton-Lawrence.

Mr Dunlop: This is a serious issue, in case you don't know.

-- on June 14, 2003, for a pilot project to help Toronto Police Services track sex offenders, a program that you and Minister Kwinter had refused to implement

until you were embarrassed into doing it a few weeks ago on the anniversary of Holly Jones's death.

Minister, were you involved in the communication strategy to issue the release for the sole purpose of taking attention away from the mess Minister Kwinter has

created with his remarks that now jeopardize a special investigations unit investigation?

Hon Mr Bryant: I say to the member, you're asking about two different things. If it's with respect to the announcement made by Minister

Kwinter today, then if you have further questions, I suggest you ask him. If you have another supplementary, I will refer the questions.

I just want to make clear that Minister Kwinter did not make a comment on the investigation, and I will not make a comment on the investigation. That is the

end of the matter.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, yesterday you unveiled a hydroelectricity plan

that makes the profit-takers, the fee-takers and the commission-takers of Bay Street very happy. They are literally rubbing their hands with glee. They can't wait to start gouging consumers again.

You've taken them back to the good old days of Mike Harris -- privatize electricity, but consumers will pay handsomely.

You've already broken your promise to freeze rates until 2006, so you must have some idea of how much hydroelectricity rates will go up after this

reintroduction of privatization. How much will they go up? Is it 20%, 30%, 40%? What are you telling the people of Ontario?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I can say with confidence to the people of Ontario that hydro rates will go

up a lot less than the 40% they went up under his government.

Mr Hampton: Minister, that's the same answer Jim Wilson used to give before the prices shot through the roof. But I'll tell you, the people of

Ontario deserve an answer.

For example, we know from the Electricity Conservation and Supply Task Force that to generate electricity from natural gas would cost 7.5-cents a kilowatt

hour. That's a lot more than 4.7 cents. Your officials have these numbers. Will you share them with the people of Ontario, or are you afraid to tell the people of Ontario how much hydro

privatization under the Liberals is going to drive up their hydro bill?

Hon Mr Duncan: The numbers are readily available from the IMO, and they vary from day to day. I take it from his question that the member

would prefer to use coal, which is cheaper than natural gas.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): He wants coal. He's in favour of coal.

Hon Mr Duncan: I suppose he wants coal.

The member opposite does not understand the hydro file. His policy's logic was flawed. The history he's recounted of hydro in this province was flawed. His

ideas have been tried and didn't work. Ultimately, the people of this province rejected his ideas with respect to hydro.

What we can say is, if this government fails to do what we've set out to do in this legislation, then prices will go up. We're confident that the best way to

provide reliable and stable electricity prices in this province can be found in the path that we've set forward, a path that undoes the mess that the NDP left this province in when it cancelled all

conservation programs and the mess it left when the NDP government raised electricity prices by 40% in less than three years.

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. In my riding of

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, many of the smaller and rural communities and municipal councils are struggling to fund imperative infrastructure projects such as water treatment plants and road

repair.

With the announcement of the 2004 Ontario budget, our government dedicated gas tax monies to Ontario cities for upgrading and maintenance of public transit

systems. This dedication equals two cents of the existing gas tax, or approximately $312 million when fully implemented. However, in Ontario there are countless communities and municipalities that

do not have public transit systems.

Minister, the gas tax funds are a welcome and much-needed announcement to larger municipalities. However, since smaller municipalities will not be able to

access these funds, what has been allocated in the budget to offset this perceived inequity, and what is our government doing to aid rural Ontarians in advancing their infrastructure needs?

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I thank the member for the question. I want to commend to you the words of AMO

president Ann Mulvale, who said, "This budget turns a page in Ontario's recent history by working with municipalities, showing greater respect to property taxpayers, and making essential municipal

services and infrastructure a priority." And she wasn't simply referring to our gas tax commitment. She was also referring to the Canada-Ontario municipal rural infrastructure fund, about which we

signed a letter of intent with our federal and municipal partners at the OSUM conference in Owen Sound on May 6. COMRIF, as it's called, is a $900-million fund dedicated to communities of 250,000

and less. It will help our rural and northern municipalities invest in capital projects that will help with prosperity, projects such as roads and bridges, water and sewer. This government is

committed to safe, clean, liveable communities right across this province.

Mr Brownell: Thank you for clarifying how our government is going to aid rural Ontario to reach its infrastructure goals. As a government, we

have high standards for municipalities and the services they offer to their residents. As a former municipal politician, I understand these constraints, which, under the past Tory regime, were

downloaded upon municipalities without a whole lot of foresight and long-term planning.

To hear that our government has finally committed to helping rural Ontario provide safe water and waste water systems, safe roads and bridges and generally

greatly needed infrastructure improvements gives me much pleasure. I look forward to helping the communities of Stormont, Dundas, and Charlottenburgh apply and receive funding under the COMRIF

program.

However, Minister, can you inform this House about other ways we are aiding to relieve the financial pressures on municipalities initiated by the past Tory

government?

Hon Mr Caplan: One of the reasons why municipal leaders are so supportive of the budget that my colleague the finance minister introduced in

this House on May 18 is because there are other methods. We are setting up the Ontario Strategic Infrastructure Financing Authority, or OSIFA, which will be a pooled finance vehicle for

municipalities, a subsidized loan pool. OSIFA is simply another way in which we are going to be helping our rural and smaller communities in Ontario to invest in critical infrastructure. It is

especially important in light of the fact that both previous governments did not make these much-needed investments, and our province is literally crumbling around us. Municipal leaders know the

kind of support that Dalton McGuinty and Finance Minister Sorbara and this entire government are providing to them.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Health. You might know that the most efficient program for eye cataract surgery is

in my riding of Durham at Lakeridge Health Bowmanville. It's my understanding that they perform 29 extractions or replacements on a daily basis.

However, in the past few weeks a number of my constituents who have had the pre-op assessments etc have been called and told that their surgery has been

cancelled. Lakeridge Health tells me they are working with your ministry people and appealing for increased funding.

Minister, would you kindly advise what action is being taken to respond to Lakeridge's request for increased funding for their eye cataract centre in

Bowmanville?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would express more generally -- this can't speak specifically to the

Lakeridge piece of it, except to acknowledge that they're one of a variety of important providers of that service in Ontario.

We have additional resources as a government to deploy for cataract surgeries, recognizing it is one of those areas in our health care system where people are

waiting longer than we think is appropriate, particularly given the capacity to enhance their quality of life. What I can assure the member of is that we're working in the acute care branch to

establish budgets with hospitals for this year. Involved in that is the decision around where these procedures will be provided. All I can say to the honourable member is that we're working away

diligently on that, and when I have something to announce, he'll be among the first to know.

Mr O'Toole: That's reassuring for the patients who are on the waiting list, but I read and watched your budget with some interest. You have

allocated funding for 9,000 additional procedures in cataract, and your attempt to shorten waiting times -- I completely encourage that because the truth is that it really is a quality-of-life

issue. In fact, I have a specific constituent who's waiting for the surgery very patiently, and to return to work to support her family. Minister, I wonder if you could tell not just me in the

House today when you're prepared to make those commitments so people can get on with the quality of life you've made reference to in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Smitherman: I would very much like to thank the honourable member for his endorsement of our government's strategy, as contained in the

budget, which includes very specific initiatives to address wait times around cataracts, hips and knees, cardiac, cancer and access to MRI and CT scans in the province. I would just say to the

honourable member that it will be a little bit of time yet before the absolute allocations are provided, but we are looking forward to getting on quickly with the challenge of shortening the list,

the wait times for people waiting for cataract surgery in the province. Lakeridge continues to be one of those partners we look forward to working with.

DOCTORS' SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Deputy Premier. My question has to do with the whole issue of the underserviced

situation we find in northern Ontario when it comes to physicians. Minister, you'll know that in towns like Kapuskasing, Geraldton, Timmins, and the list goes on, we have a shortage of family

doctors. There are not enough doctors to serve the needs of the community. In fact, 1,700 patients are without a doctor in the city of Sudbury, and in the city of Timmins it's somewhere around

10,000.

You are now going to delist chiropractic services. You are now going to delist eye exams out of the OHIP formulary. You tell me how that's going to assist the

underserviced problem when people start piling into the doctors' offices because they can no longer afford to go to a chiropractor or an eye doctor.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): When you ask your supplementary, I say to the honourable member, why don't you

stand up and tell me why you cut the production line of doctors in this province? It's the biggest single contributor to the problem that is being experienced right now. The fact of the matter is

that at least this party, while in government, enhanced our production capacities, but everybody will know the production of a doctor doesn't happen overnight.

It's important to note that just this very morning, the Ontario Medical Association spoke to the committee reviewing the budget and was complimentary in a

variety of areas about the initiatives we're undertaking as a government. Specific to the issue of doctors is the Northern Ontario Medical School, which I know the member supports, and we have

already begun to see net increases in the flow of doctors to northern Ontario in anticipation of the role to be more involved in helping to do the clinical training for new generations of

doctors.

Secondly, with respect to -- oh, sorry, you want me to --

Mr Bisson: Yes, sit down, George, because quite frankly you're missing the point. The serious issue is that there is a shortage of doctors in

northern Ontario. You can try to blame it on the Conservatives, you can try to blame it on the NDP, but the fact is you're the government, you're the minister in the chair and you're the one now

responsible. Now your government decides you're going to exacerbate the problem of underserviced areas in northern Ontario by forcing patients out of chiropractors' offices, out of the eye doctors'

offices, and into either emergency wards that are filled to capacity, as you well know, or into the doctor's offices.

Minister, will you do the right thing and relist those services that you're about to delist in Ontario, and not make a bad situation in northern Ontario even

worse?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I'd like to remind the honourable member that his party cut medical school spaces in this province. That's where doctors

get produced, after all. So it's not about blame. Maybe it's a little bit more about standing up and taking some responsibility for the short-sighted efforts that you were involved in as a member

of a government not long enough forgotten in this province.

I heard the physiotherapists were before the committee this morning, and here's what they had to say, in part: "In 1993, the Ontario Physiotherapy Association

negotiated an historic fee increase with the OHIP

schedule 5 with the Rae government that would have revitalized community-based physiotherapy." Regrettably, that fee increase was rolled back in

the social contract.

Here's my point, after all: We're working very hard as a government to make up for a variety of decisions made by those two parties while in government. I

believe that our family health team proposal to bring a multi-disciplinary approach to the provision of primary care services will be an extraordinary advantage to the people of northern

Ontario.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): In establishing the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, our government delivered on an important

election promise. Our goal in establishing such a ministry was to eliminate many of the silos that exist within our government, demonstrate the importance we place in our children and youth in this

province and pay particular attention to their programs and services. Children's agencies in my area, particularly family and children's services, and our local children's treatment centre,

KidsAbility, supported the creation of the new ministry but withheld judgment until they saw real results being delivered. Can the minister tell us of the progress she has made in keeping our

commitment to better serve the needs of the children of Ontario, particularly in Waterloo region?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Since becoming a minister in this

area -- having the great honour of being minister in this area -- one of my challenges is to better integrate the services across the province, and that means working very closely with other levels

of government and with agencies like KidsAbility. Some of the things we've done are: We announced capital funding for non-profit child care centres, and just the other day we announced a 3%

operating increase in children's treatment centres, including KidsAbility in your area. The centre will receive over $130,000. As well, we've relieved the fiscal pressures of historical deficits of

our children's aid societies and we'll very soon be announcing $25 million of new money for children's mental health and $58 million of new money for child care in this province.

Mr Milloy: Children's organizations like KidsAbility have told me they want to forge a new relationship with the government and work together

to ensure that the needs of our children are being properly addressed. They want to be full partners rather than supplicants, going cap in hand to the government every year, often to be turned

away. Will the minister commit to reviewing our government's programs and services for children and establish a new working relationship with organizations like KidsAbility?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: What I've heard across the province over the last few months of consultations is that often programs don't meet the

needs of children; basically children are trying to meet the needs of programs. We have to turn that around and break the silos that we heard earlier in this question period. In order for this to

happen, we do have to work very closely with our transfer partners, with agencies like KidsAbility. I understand the good relationship that you have with the KidsAbility in your city. I also want

to reassure you that this 3% is not one-time funding but annualized funding that makes KidsAbility and other treatment centres better able to plan for the future.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On June 9, while introducing an

amendment to the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001, you stated, "Far too often in years past, municipalities have been caught off guard and taken by surprise by the provincial government of the day." Did

you consult with the six municipalities in the district of Muskoka before taking them out of the north in the budget of May 18?

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

Finance.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I'm happy to answer the question. I know the member has argued very eloquently the case for his

constituency and the municipalities in the district of Muskoka. The fact is that we have an obligation to bring some reality back to the way we allocate very scarce taxpayer resources. The area we

returned to the boundaries of southern Ontario had historically been part of southern Ontario, really, since the early days of Confederation. The land mass didn't move.

Back in the year 2000, the then Conservative government, for reasons that I don't understand, changed the boundaries to include Muskoka, including Gravenhurst

and all that wonderful cottage country, in the boundaries of northern Ontario. Frankly, we thought that was an incorrect decision and we corrected it in our budget.

north.

I would like to go back to the minister's comments last week and remind you that there was in fact no consultation -- I repeat, no consultation -- with the six

municipalities in the district of Muskoka. They were caught off guard and surprised by your government's actions. In the same statement, the minister went on to say that after municipalities have

"worked hard to draft their annual budgets, the province has often come along and imposed new standards, programs and other municipal requirements." That is exactly what your government did.

These municipalities made up their budgets expecting to be part of the north, expecting funding from the northern Ontario heritage fund. Then on May 18, you

came along, without consultation, without warning, and removed them from the north. At this point, seeing as you didn't consult with the municipalities in Muskoka before the May 18 budget, will you

at least commit to consulting with them now?

Hon Mr Sorbara: There's absolutely no doubt. I'd be delighted to meet with all of those municipalities and have further discussions to respond

to their needs. But let's be fair. I invite my friend to be fair about where the real needs are in the province. I invite him to visit northern communities where the issue is depopulation, where

young people are leaving the communities and heading south, where the values of property are decreasing because the amount of business activity is not there.

I tell my friend that we have very scarce resources in this province. If we are going to give special treatment to the people of northern Ontario, that should

go to the people of northern Ontario. Regrettably, we cannot share those resources with the people of Gravenhurst and the other municipalities in Muskoka, which really form part of a pretty vibrant

southern Ontario economy. It was the right decision. I'd be delighted to meet and discuss with those municipalities the rationale behind our decision.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Acting Premier. In 2000, four Albanian-born women in this province applied for

went to York University and passed all of those tests. They were certified for two years, but the rules changed and these women, who did all of this work trying to get into a profession which they

had previously done in Albania, are left high and dry. They have been teaching in private schools. They have been told that they're doing an excellent job.

In your election platform, you said you were going to help new immigrants get certified. Yet your ministers, the Minister of Education and David Caplan, have

refused to meet with them. They have refused to help them. They have refused to do anything to help these women do what is necessary to get teaching accreditation in this province. I want a

commitment from you today that you will meet with them and you will help them get the jobs that they deserve, and for which they are now qualified.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I want to thank the member from Beaches-East York for bringing

that to our attention. We are very eager to make sure that internationally trained individuals can practise in their chosen career here. As far as teachers are concerned, in January, one of our

announcements was $1 million, working in partnership with the college of teachers, which will serve 2,000 internationally trained teachers, enabling them to become accredited to work here. If I

could just continue, or if you want a supplementary, I'd like to give you a little bit more.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Some of these women are constituents of mine and they came to see me back in February. I've been

dealing with the college of teachers on behalf of these women, asking them to please grandparent them because they completed all of the requirements under the rules at that time. They're now

devastated to be told that they can't go out and work in their chosen profession. We are asking you very specific --

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Totally unacceptable.

Ms Churley: It is totally unacceptable. We are asking you very specifically today, will you step in and fix this problem for these women? I

want to tell you that if you don't do that, you will not be keeping your commitment to immigrants to support their efforts for Canadian certification in their professions. Will you please look into

this case and fix it?

Hon Mrs Chambers: I will be very pleased to look into these cases. I would encourage the member from Toronto-Danforth or the member from

Beaches-East York to provide me with files on those individuals. I will be very pleased to look into that.

SARS

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Health. A few months ago, the final report of the Ontario expert panel

on SARS and infectious disease control and the interim report of Commissioner Archie Campbell on the investigation into the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome were made public. As I

recall, you said you would get back to the public within two months. Minister, that was almost two months ago and I'm wondering if you would have an update for us.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Indeed, I do. First, I want to report to the House one very significant piece

of progress. The Premier has given me some additional resources to help on the challenge of public health renewal, and that's by our colleague the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

We are very involved at the ministry in developing our comprehensive response to the reports of Naylor, Walker and Campbell, and I'm pleased to tell the House

that that response will be forthcoming next week.

Mrs Sandals: We've been talking about the budget and the fact that there is $190 million in new investments in public health, and we all know

that the failure of the public health system contributed to the SARS situation. Do you have any examples of how that money will be used?

Hon Mr Smitherman: More information on all these points will be forthcoming.

I would want to cover some areas that are going to be the beneficiaries of additional spending with respect to public health: first is the responsibility that

the province is going to take back from our municipal partners, which I think has been enormously well received among municipalities; our immunization program, which we've spoken about; enhanced

infection control; a very significant return to a tobacco strategy, long missing in this province; campaigns designed to enhance physical activity and address obesity and the challenges associated

with it; new investments in public health information technology, which has been lagging far behind; enhancements to the amount that we spend at the Canadian blood service; and I think perhaps

quite notably, our fulfillment of our party's commitment to help to develop a new public health agency for the province of Ontario. These eight distinct areas will be the beneficiaries of

additional resources, all of which are going to contribute very significantly to the renewal of public health in Ontario.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Yesterday you suggested that I review the estimates tabled

for your ministry. When I received a copy of the estimates, I did just that. I would suggest that you not tell everyone to do that, because they will be surprised by the numbers. I saw $65 million

of your budget cuts coming directly from the farm safety nets. I saw that money to cover farmers' needs through the agricultural policy framework has dropped dramatically.

How can you face the farmers of this province and tell them you are fighting on their behalf when you let your budget be cut by $128 million, half of which

comes directly from the financial support of the farmers?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Obviously the honourable member doesn't know how to read the estimates, because there is

not a $128-million cut to the budget. There is a change, a grand total change in the budget of $66.9 million.

What we're trying to do as a government is something that you didn't do, and I can't believe you have the nerve to stand up, as a member who campaigned in

1995, who stood there in front of the people and said -- and Mike Harris said -- "No cuts to agriculture." What did you do within your first six months in office? You closed down the vast majority

of the agricultural extension offices in this province.

How you can stand up and be so high and mighty -- we've had to do things differently, but we are committed to supporting the agricultural industry.

Mr Hardeman: I suggest that the minister do a little reading of his own and find out that the Mike Harris government was elected in 1995, and

the changes in the delivery of agriculture services were in 1999, in a different mandate of government totally. I suggest he read the document.

Minister, today we heard that you would finally flow money to the beef industry that you promised last February. Let's be clear: This is not new money. You

have already made that announcement. But what about the front-line producers? They need compensation. Minister, you knew this when you were agriculture critic, and that, I believe, was in 1999. You

told the then minister, Helen Johns, to do what it takes to save the entire industry. You said that provincial contributions of 40% were a minimum and called on the minister to enhance and expand

the program.

Minister, are you willing to go to your Premier and cabinet and ask for some of your safety money back so you can do what you know is needed, which is to

compensate farmers reeling from the closed American border?

Hon Mr Peters: First, I want to thank the members of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Ontario Sheep

Marketing Agency who are here today. I want to thank them for hosting this appreciation day today, but I think, more importantly, for demonstrating to everyone in this House and the staff in this

building and the citizens of Ontario that we do need to stand behind and support our agricultural industry.

That's why this government moved forward with the agricultural policy framework. You were not able to achieve a deal with the federal government. We worked

with the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council and the Ontario Cattlemen's Association to get a better deal for the citizens of Ontario and ultimately a better deal for all Canadian farmers. We

were able to get that agreement in place with the negative margins. We have a commitment from this government of $120 million a year in support of agricultural programs. If you talk to those

farmers about the CAIS program, you'll find out that that's a program that's going to work and help the farmers.

PETITIONS

MOTORCYCLE INSURANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): This petition is signed by several hundred of my constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas tens of thousands of responsible motorcyclists are being hit with huge increases in insurance or are being denied coverage because of the type of

vehicle they ride;

"Whereas the premiums for the mandatory insurance coverage for motorcyclists have increased on average over 40% in the past two years;

"Whereas many responsible riders can no longer afford to insure their motorcycles due to high insurance costs;

"Whereas sales of motorcycles in Ontario have dropped over 7% year-to-date, a figure attributed directly to the increase in insurance rates; and

"Whereas many businesses and individuals in the motorcycle industry are suffering due to the loss of sales and decreased employment high insurance rates are

causing;

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

"Please amend the insurance regulations to make motorcycle insurance more affordable and to ensure motorcyclists are treated fairly and equitably by insurance

companies, brokers and agents."

This petition has my signature of support.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've got a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that I received from the office of Dr Gary

Bovine, chiropractor.

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

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I have signed this petition as well.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I am pleased to present to the House a petition from the residents, family members and supporters of Bella

Senior Care Residence in the city of Niagara Falls. In the petition they're indicating that "long-term care is underfunded and is one of the lowest-funded long-term-care sectors in North

America.

"Long-term care needs nurses and proper funding to ensure such areas as dietary, housekeeping and maintenance and all other expenses needed for a quality of

existence that the seniors so rightfully have earned. Bella Senior Care Residence needs the government's support for seniors in long-term care in Ontario."

I'm pleased that our budget is doing that and I'm pleased to affix my signature to these 400 petitions.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have several hundred names from my riding, Leeds-Grenville, attached to petitions that read:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

physiotherapy services,

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

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

TAXATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I also have a petition dealing with the government's breaking of the taxpayer protection act and

their failure to comply with the requirement for a referendum. I'm affixing my signature to both these petitions. Thank you.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have another petition to save chiropractic services in Ontario that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs;

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

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

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

I agree with this petition.

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

M. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): « Attendu que le gouvernement ontarien devance son projet de loi pour rendre l'Ontario une

province sans fumée;

« Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

« Nous, membres de la communauté de l'École secondaire catholique Garneau à Orléans (Ontario), demandons au gouvernement ontarien

de devancer son projet de loi pour rendre notre province sans fumée. »

Merci.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "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;

and

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign my name to that.

AJAX-PICKERING HOSPITAL

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas at the time the Centenary Health Centre and Ajax-Pickering hospitals amalgamated under the umbrella of the Rouge Valley Health System, a commitment

was made by the Health Services Restructuring Commission that the communities of Whitby/Pickering/Ajax, according to the amalgamation agreement, would not lose a full-service hospital and would

maintain all existing services; and

"Whereas municipal governments in the region of Durham have provided financial support to the Rouge Valley Health System on the understanding that

Ajax-Pickering hospital would continue as a full-service hospital; and

"Whereas numerous service clubs and other organizations have also raised money in support of the expansion of the Ajax-Pickering hospital and services provided

therein such as the maternity unit on the understanding that the Ajax-Pickering hospital would continue as a full-service facility; and

"Whereas the Rouge Valley Health System has changed its strategic plan without consulting its key stakeholders, such as the residents who use the hospital, the

doctors, nurses and other professional staff that work within the system and the local governments and organizations that fund the hospital; and

"Whereas this has led to a decrease in the level of service provided by the maternity unit and the number of acute care beds;

"We, the undersigned concerned citizens of west Durham, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That a full-service hospital with all the existing services at the time of amalgamation be maintained at the Ajax-Pickering site and new services added as the

population continues to grow and age, as agreed to by the Ajax-Pickering General Hospital and Centenary Health Centre in the amalgamation agreement signed May 31, 1998."

Mr Speaker, I'm sorry, it's a long petition, but I certainly agree with it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Of course, that was the member from Davenport.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

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

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government is cutting provincial funding for essential health care services like optometry, physiotherapy and chiropractic

care;

"Whereas this privatization of health care services will force Ontarians to pay out-of-pocket for essential health care;

"Whereas Ontarians already pay for health care through their taxes and will be forced to pay even more through the government's new regressive health tax;

"Whereas the Liberals promised during the election that they would not cut or privatize health care services in Ontario;

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

"We demand the McGuinty Liberal government keep its promises and guarantee adequate provincial funding for critical health services like eye, physiotherapy and

chiropractic care."

I agree and have signed this petition.

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have thousands more petitions to keep Muskoka part of the north, now bringing the total to 6,000, and

I shall read it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

Sudbury; and

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

incentives enjoyed by residents of other northern communities; and

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

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

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

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

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

TAXATION

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): A petition to force Premier McGuinty to obey the taxpayer protection law:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government's 2004 budget will break the taxpayer protection law by not conducting a referendum on tax increases; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty signed an election pledge on September 11, 2003, not to raise taxes without the explicit consent of voters through a referendum;

and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised in TV ads not to raise taxes by one penny on working families; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty pledged in writing to obey the taxpayer protection law, which requires a referendum before increasing taxes;

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

"To ensure that all of the McGuinty government's tax increases are put before the people of Ontario in a referendum."

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have another petition and it is addressed to the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Finance. It reads as

follows:

"We, the undersigned property owners and tenants, strongly recommend changes to the current value assessment system.

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

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

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

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

house sf class price; lot sf class price, garage sf class price; and (7) the owner should be authorized to approve the assessment."

Most of our funding has come from the ratepayers groups and citizens from across the city. I will just sign my name to this petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

physiotherapy services,

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

"To reverse the delisting of chiropractic, physiotherapy and optometrist services and restore funding for these important and necessary services."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

LCBO OUTLET

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): A petition for an LCBO agency store in Baxter:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the LCBO agency store program is intended to revitalize our small towns and villages and to provide rural consumers with responsible and convenient

access to LCBO services;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make available to the village of Baxter an LCBO agency store."

I've signed and agree with this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This is 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; and

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

overburdened family physician offices and emergency departments; and

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

million in other health care costs; and

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADAMS MINE LAKE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LE LAC DE LA MINE ADAMS

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 15, 2004, on the motion for third reading of Bill 49,

An Act to prevent the disposal of waste at the Adams Mine site and

to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the disposal of waste in lakes / Projet de loi 49, Loi visant à empêcher l'élimination de déchets à la

mine Adams et à modifier la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement en ce qui concerne l'élimination de déchets dans des lacs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I listened with interest to the debate yesterday. I'll have an opportunity in a few minutes to put some

of my thoughts on the record. Right now, I want to respond to the comments made by several of the official opposition members yesterday. I forget some of the things that were said. I don't agree

with many of things that were said. Some of the Conservative members are outraged that the Liberal government is stopping the Adams mine. I certainly don't agree with them on that.

It was our party, me working with Jack Layton, David Miller, Michael Prue -- who was at city council then -- who fought very hard from our end here in the city

of Toronto, along with Gilles Bisson, Howard Hampton, Shelley Martel and others from the north, fighting it from that end. So we think this is the right way to go. We hope this time it really is

"D-E-D," as Mel Lastman said at the time; dead.

I do want to say that there was something that I agreed very vehemently with: some statements made by the member for Simcoe North. Those were around how the

government is determining, cherry-picking, what they're going to stop and what they're going to allow to happen in other jurisdictions in terms of landfills. What I would say about that is that

there isn't going to be an opportunity any more for any government of any stripe to be able to site landfills, to expand landfills, to build incinerators, to even build the new modern type of

incinerator -- the so-called gasification process I'll talk about later -- because people just won't allow it.

So I would say in response that we all agree that, whether philosophically we're there or not, we have to move on by dealing with our waste in different

ways.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I'm pleased to comment on the comments made previously. I understand the member from Toronto-Danforth

has suggested that it's not so much the bill, but she's also questioning the motive with which this bill is being brought forward.

I have to say that it certainly is about the notion that government has a role to play in protecting the public interest when it comes to the environment. This

is an example where government has acted. Very shortly, we will also see that hazardous waste landfilling will also have higher standards in this province. As you may know, in the last four years

in opposition, I brought to the attention of the government of the day the need to have more stringent standards for the disposal of hazardous waste in this province. Nothing was done. As a matter

of fact, the notion that this was possible was scoffed at.

Well, we're also doing that. So there's a comprehensive, long-term plan to deal not just with the nature of the Adams mine and landfilling at this site, but

also with how we dispose of hazardous material in this province so that we don't have the lowest regulations in North America and that our standards are strict and therefore we are protecting the

public long-term. It is about that long-term vision that we bring in this type of legislation, so that we don't leave legacies to our children and our grandchildren that will -- but something we

would be proud of long-term when we say, "You know what? We have been able to protect the environment, and the government has done the right thing in these matters."

It's silly of the third party to question motive, even though the bill is a good one.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm pleased to add comments on the speech by the member from Simcoe North on the Adams mine lake bill. I

think that if the government wants to achieve the 60% diversion target it has set for itself, it should be seriously looking at a deposit-return system, which is why a month or so ago, I introduced

an LCBO deposit-return private member's bill in this place. It's been shown in other jurisdictions that a deposit-return system is much more effective in terms of keeping waste out of our landfill

sites, in terms of keeping litter off our streets and roadways, and there are many other benefits from a deposit-return system.

I would like to comment not only on the member from Simcoe North, but also on the member from Lanark-Carleton, who was speaking on this bill yesterday as well.

I'd like to point out that I don't like landfill sites, personally. However, in the case of this Adams mine lake landfill, the proponent had gone through a lengthy, expensive process, following the

rules that were set for the proponent, and then the government just pulled the rug out from underneath this proponent.

I question the way in which they have done this bill, the way they have arbitrarily changed the rules at the last moment. I think there are some serious

property rights being undermined by the way in which this bill has been introduced. That is something I have real concerns about with this bill. I hope it's not the way this government is going to

proceed with property rights in the future.

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I have enjoyed the debate, particularly yesterday. The member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant spoke

for some time on the matter. During that time, he was referencing a motion that, I guess, today is before the Michigan House of Representatives, regarding landfill matters. He made particular

reference to Daniel Acciavatti and some concerns he seemed to have had.

Let me assure this House that our Minister of the Environment has met with Member Acciavatti on two occasions so far. When he was here at the hearings on this

bill, he made reference to the fact that the waste stream that's coming from the Toronto area is, in waste terms, clean waste. It was his view that, working together with the province of Ontario,

there would be common accord and opportunities to continue doing what we're doing as we seek the long-term solutions necessary for our waste.

I must say that, having heard the members opposite talk about landfill, how the proponents have all this investment and that, somehow, by not allowing this to

go forward, we are putting them at some disadvantage, that we're taking away their rights, I recall the NDP government, with the IWA process, spent an awful lot of taxpayers' dollars trying to site

landfill sites in the greater Toronto area.

One of those was in the municipality that I represent. I have to tell you that my constituents didn't feel that, because the government of the day had spent

tens of millions of dollars trying to site landfills, they should let one go forward in the municipality in which I live and which I represent. What it did do was drive home the need to deal with

waste.

As a matter of fact, I put the waste out just yesterday, for the first time, as an expansion within our community: the wet waste program. It's now expanding

throughout the municipality.

I know the time is short in the couple of minutes I have right now, but I'd love to be able tell the House more about that initiative during the course of

debate.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe North has two minutes to reply.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'd like to join with my colleagues from Lanark-Carleton and Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant to thank the folks

from Toronto-Danforth, Sarnia-Lambton, Parry Sound-Muskoka and Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge for their comments on our leadoff yesterday.

In

summary, we won't be supporting this piece of legislation. It's as clear as that. We believe there are a lot of faults that were outlined by all three of

our speakers yesterday.

I think what's really important is that we have to look at what happened as a result of the Walkerton inquiry. Justice Dennis O'Connor made some very, very

specific recommendations. One of those recommendations, of course, was to provide water source protection legislation. In effect, this bill jumps ahead of all the other pieces of legislation or

other landfill approval sites in the province of Ontario. We haven't seen any background material that would suggest any technical reasons why the Adams mine should be turned down, and yet we have

all kinds of other landfill sites across the province. I know you know I've mentioned many times about site 41 in my riding.

The bottom line is that they have jumped the gun on this bill for political purposes. They're passing it. I understand that a lot of people don't like the idea

of waste going into an old mine shaft, but the bottom line is that they have not looked at other landfills across the province. If you treated everybody fairly, I could understand why this bill

would be passed, but this bill does not treat the other municipalities fairly. I made that very clear in my comments yesterday.

In

summary, I'll say again that site 41 in my riding is a mistake. The recommendations of the Walkerton inquiry clearly point that out. I'd like to see a

moratorium put on that site until we actually see legislation on water source protection implemented in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Churley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for the member for Timmins-James Bay to use any remaining time in our

lead a little later in the rotation. He can't be here right now. Is there unanimous consent for that?

The Deputy Speaker: Consent has been requested. Is it the pleasure of the House?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Just repeat it, please.

Ms Churley: Mr Bisson, the member for Timmins-James Bay, would like to share the lead with me, but I would like it to be later in the

rotation. Is there consent for that?

The Deputy Speaker: I think we have consent. Agreed.

Ms Churley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I understand the House leader needs to know before saying yes to any unanimous consent request from any

other party. We listen very carefully over here when the House leader from the government side stands up to make any motions.

Here we are, talking about Adams mine again. I simply want to say that I support the legislation to hopefully kill Adams mine once and for all. There are a lot

of people, of course -- and I said this when the bill was first introduced -- taking credit, as politicians and parties tend to do. They don't often take responsibility for things that go wrong and

the actions that cause problems, but politicians are well-known for taking credit for things that they played a tiny

part in. That's OK, but I also think it's important to point out who really did

the hard, slogging work, and to thank them, because I don't believe we'd be here today, years after this was first proposed. When the NDP was in government, we said no to Adams mine. We got a lot

of flak for it. You weren't here then -- a lot of new members since then.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Ms Churley: Were you? Sorry, Speaker.

You will recall that we said two things: We were not going to allow incineration and Adams mine to be options for garbage. It was, I admit, a rather disastrous

process we went through in trying to find new land sites> We were hoping that banning these other two things, along with some of the other plans we had for diversion of garbage, would lead us

more quickly to a full environmental assessment; once, and if, sites had been found under the old environmental assessment, before it was scoped by the previous government, we'd be looking at,

through that process under the Environmental Assessment Act, alternatives to the undertaking and alternatives to the site.

Intervener funding used to exist then, but the previous government cancelled that as well, and we're hoping the Liberals will bring that back. By the way, that

doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny. It came under the Attorney General's office, and it was paid for by the proponents of the large undertaking.

Under that scenario, we were hoping that would happen, and that it would drive the process of moving us forward more quickly in recycling, composting, all of

the other diversion tactics that we know about and we're still so far behind on. What happened, of course, is the Conservatives came to power, cancelled all of that, cancelled the process where we

would end up having a full-blown environmental assessment process, and brought back Adams mine again, which was just a travesty. It caused huge problems.

What got me into politics was fighting garbage incineration and closing down, with other citizens and politicians, an old garbage incinerator in my riding. I

was known as the garbage lady of Toronto. It was not very flattering, but said in flattering terms at the time.

I thought you were going to chastise me for something, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Never.

Ms Churley: So the situation was then, and still remains, that we're far behind other jurisdictions in terms of moving forward on the other

diversion tactics that are in place.

I started by saying -- and I thanked them when this bill first came forward, but I'm going to mention them again. That would be Public Concern Timiskaming, the

Timiskaming Band Council, Timiskaming First Nation. There are so many names, people from the area, that I'm loath to mention anybody in particular.

Well, I'm going to mention Charlie Angus, because he's running for the NDP federally in the area. Do you know what brought him into this? It was getting

involved. That's what got me involved in politics too. I must say, these fights sometimes do create, after citizens taking actions, more interest in the political process and people leaping from

that into politics. That's certainly, I believe, partly what spurred Charlie Angus on. He, along with some of the others, fought very hard and spent a lot of their own money and a lot of their own

time coming down here to Toronto time after time, in busloads sometimes, to go to city council. Mel Lastman at city council at one point voted for it.

I remember we went there one day, my leader Howard Hampton and me, Gilles Bisson and some others, and there was quite an interesting scenario going on at city

hall. The people from the area came down. Council had voted for it, but there was an opportunity for them to revisit it. I remember that then-Mayor Mel Lastman was so mad at us that I think he

called my leader and I -- it was printed in the paper. I don't know if he called us "dumb" too. I think he said that Mayor Miller, before he became the mayor, said dumb things and would never

become mayor, and look what happened there. But it wasn't very flattering about my leader and me being down there among the protesters. So we played a small part.

We played a small

part in this House by standing up to the Tories at the time and continually pointing out the flaws and the problems, working with the

citizens' groups and First Nations to show the problems. Some of the independent professors and others did independent reviews of the very flawed computer modelling that was done and the very

scoped environmental assessment that was done. It was just so clear that it was flawed and shouldn't proceed.

Those people should be thanked particularly for their hard work because they're the ones who really made the difference. We became the mouthpieces in many ways

for people who did a tremendous amount of hard work.

I recall that during the municipal election at that time -- I think it had just been called -- Charlie Angus and a bunch of other people came down and brought

their guitars. They came down in buses. Jack Layton, who was then the municipal councillor in that ward in my riding, had just opened up his campaign office. They had nowhere to stay -- it was a

very exciting night -- so we opened up the campaign office. We got them sleeping bags and food, and most of them slept there on the floor that night. People were up half the night, playing guitars

and singing. They were a determined bunch of people.

We all went down to city hall the next day to fight this. Thanks to many of the councillors there, then-councillor David Miller found something within the

existing agreement that made even Mel Lastman nervous. I'm not going to go into the details of that because I have too many other things to say about waste diversion.

So here we are, and the Adams mine -- this bill will be passed, I'm sure -- will be hopefully dead forever. It was a bad plan from day one, and it will

continue to be a bad plan.

What I want to say as well -- my colleague from Nickel Belt, Shelley Martel, raised this yesterday -- is that here we are cancelling throwing tonnes and tonnes

of garbage into the Adams mine, into water, into a man-made lake, at the same time that the federal Liberal government in Ottawa has created -- I have to look here. It's a Canadian agency called

the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. It was formed under the Liberal government in Ottawa and it has been looking at long-time storage options for nuclear waste somewhere in Canada. I know

the federal government in Ottawa has been looking at this for a very long time.

The reason it's connected to the Adams mine debate is that we have I don't know how many hundreds of tonnes of deadly nuclear waste that has to be stored

somewhere. This agency is now again looking at -- it has been looking at this for some time -- storing this in underground caverns in the Canadian Shield. Some of those, as you know, are in

northern Ontario. I would say, as the member for Nickel Belt said yesterday, no way is that going to be stored in the north. I know she and our northern colleagues will fight very hard for that.

We've got a problem here. Where are we going to store this stuff? It should not be stored. You're going to find the same problems with the caverns in these underground mines as you did with the

Adams mine. This is deadly waste that will be around for generations to come.

Here we have a Liberal government, at the same time, now that it has come out with its energy plan, giving the go-ahead, the green light, for new nuclear

plants. It is insane. While we sit here --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: No, no. He's talking about burning coal; we have to shut the coal plants down. But nuclear power, already, just on the basis of

the cost, has proven to be not cost-effective. There are all kinds of alternatives.

Do you know what? That is not even the debate here. The debate here is: What do we do with the waste? Nobody's talking about that. The decision has been made,

after all the billions and billions of dollars of cost overruns on nuclear, and they continue to happen -- nobody's talking about what to do with this deadly nuclear waste.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Now they're heckling me and harassing me, suggesting, "What are the alternatives, so why worry about it?" Adams mine is a perfect

example of why we need to worry about it. We are faced with this same problem, only a much, much bigger problem: where to put this deadly waste. We're talking about building more nuclear plants

that will create even more deadly waste, and we have no safe place to put it now. We're not just talking about our grandchildren; we're talking about their grandchildren. We're talking about your

great-great-great-grandchildren. This is very, very serious when we're talking about leaving this kind of legacy for generations to come.

I think we need to have a debate in this House in the context of expanding nuclear plants. There are all kinds of reasons I could give and others could give as

to why we shouldn't, in terms of cost-effectiveness -- it isn't -- and other environmental problems. Actually, nuclear plants are one of the biggest water polluters we have. Maybe the Minister of

Health can take some money out of the new health care tax to deal with nuclear waste. Hey, that's a health problem. Our water is polluted by this, and we need money from somewhere to help deal with

that.

We can't ignore these problems. It is easy to stand up and say, "We're going to build new nuclear plants because we need the power," and not deal with the

repercussions. So I just want to put the government on notice that this is going to turn into a very serious problem that we're going to have more debates about.

I wanted to take a little bit of time to talk about, OK, if not Adams mine, what?

This is not a prop; this is part of my discussion. I don't know if people have had an opportunity to read Ontario's 60% Waste Diversion Goal-A Discussion

Paper, which just came out June 10. As you can see, I've been through it -- these little yellow stickies. It's not exciting reading, but if you're interested in this, as everybody should be, it's

an interesting read. There's some good stuff in it, but there are a lot of problems. That's why discussion papers, of course, are put out: for people to critique. That's what it's all about. I'm

going to do a little bit of that now.

The only way we can prevent another Adams mine type of scenario, whether it is a proposal to dump waste in the ground, in a landfill; whether it's a proposal

to dump it again in some form of water at some point; whether it's a proposal to expand existing landfill; whether it's a proposal to build new incinerators or gasification and other new and

emerging technologies, which have to do with not diverting our waste but actually finding ways to dispose of it -- we're going to have problems, no matter who's in government, from any party,

political stripe. People are too aware, in this day and age, of the ramifications and implications of having those kinds of things, whether it's technology or just a hole in the ground with a good

liner in it. They're not going to go for it.

That only leaves us one option, and that is to move forward far more quickly than we have on diverting waste, which they have done in other jurisdictions. We

talked about it here before. Edmonton is one example, and Halifax. We know they are smaller cities; that's true. It's a little more complicated here; we have more high-rises and things, but it can

be done. It has been done in Germany and other jurisdictions.

The only way we're going to prevent other really bad proposals and huge fights within communities -- and that's the other piece of the problem with having

these proposals in our communities. People in that community were really split, and I felt for everybody. There were people desperate for jobs and it was being proposed as job creation, although

there weren't a lot of jobs. There were some jobs. Good friends and neighbours were really split. Things got ugly, and that was very unpleasant for everybody. That's another reason why, to the

extent we possibly can, we need to keep these kinds of proposals from communities so that people -- good neighbours and friends -- don't end up being at each other's throats, which is what happened

here.

For the province to meet a 60% waste diversion goal, it has to do a lot more than it's doing now. As we know, the province never met its prior target of 50%

waste diversion by 2000, and then, as a consequence, landfills have imploded and garbage has to be trucked outside of our borders. This has given us an infamous reputation as a wasteful

jurisdiction and as a jurisdiction that can't deal with its own waste. I'm not proud of it; I think it's terrible. I don't blame the people in Michigan for saying that they don't want our garbage.

I'm embarrassed by it. That's the situation we find ourselves in, and I think we would all agree that we have to -- in fact, we're not going to have any choice in a few years. I expect, when the

contract runs out, there will be no renewal of that contract.

The minister released this waste diversion discussion late last week. It outlines potential strategies to consider, and I want to discuss a few of the things

in it. I don't have time to discuss it all because I will be leaving some time for my comrade-in-arms on the Adams mine, Gilles Bisson.

I want to talk a bit about industrial, commercial and institutional waste. One of the problems with this document and one of the critiques I would make is that

when it comes to these kinds of waste streams, one strategy doesn't fit all. It's important to show that there are different volumes and types of waste generated by the different sectors in this

category, and I'll just give you a fast and easy-to-understand example. Restaurants generate a large proportion of organic waste compared to office towers, which, of course, generate a lot of

paper. So to see a visible reduction in the overall volume of ICI waste, you need to have specific programs and targets for each of the different sectors that fall under this category.

I want to talk a bit about construction and demolition waste, which is a very important one. The paper does discuss this category of waste, but in very general

terms. It does not list any concrete action items for consideration pertaining to this kind of waste. So, some suggestions for this category: One is that there must be targets set, real targets set

for using recycled materials in road construction, such as reclaimed aggregates, concrete and asphalt pavement. I'm certainly not alone in advocating this suggestion. I pointed this out recently at

the greenbelt committee hearings.

People may not be aware of this, but the province's Environmental Commissioner has also said that Ontario is not taking full advantage of the opportunities to

conserve aggregates. In his 2002-03 annual report, the commissioner analyzed that an estimated 3% of Ontario's aggregate consumption is supplied by non-virgin materials, "in great part because of

the lack of incentives," such as a preferential bid system for contracts that use recycled materials.

I'd suggest that people look at the Environmental Commissioner's annual report, 2002-03. That's something that should have been acknowledged in this paper.

Recommendations should be there. I'm hoping that will be included in a later updated version.

What has happened is that, as a result, there has been no government action on this since that report. The demand for cheap aggregate goes unabated.

These are the points I made in the greenbelt hearings, that what's happening is it's creating large holes in our landscape, such as the case of Dufferin

Aggregates expanding into Milton quarry. This is a big hot-button issue in the area, and in my view -- not everybody shares my v