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

June 14, 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-14 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 14 June 2004 Lundi 14 juin 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY DAY

ST MATTHEW HIGH SCHOOL

EXPLOSION IN ELMIRA

URBAN SPRAWL

FOOD SAFETY

AGRICULTURAL HALL OF FAME

IMMIGRANTS

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

OF EASTERN ONTARIO

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY-BASED

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CANCER TREATMENT

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

IMMIGRANTS

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

EDUCATION FUNDING

ANNUAL REPORT,

OFFICE OF THE

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

ANNUAL REPORT,

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION OFFICE

PETITIONS

TAXATION

TRANSITION BENEFITS

ONTARIO HERITAGE DAY

TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

TAXATION

PENSION PLANS

PROPERTY TAXATION

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

TENANT PROTECTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY DAY

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I rise today to congratulate the Durham regional police and the Whitby community policing committee on their

successful 11th annual Community Day. This event marks the largest community police day in Ontario. Police officers come from across Durham region with police displays, including police dog

demonstrations, information from the tactical support unit, marine patrol, forensic identification unit and, of course, Air 1.

I want to recognize the police officers who were at the great event on June 13, 2004, and thank them for taking the time to host this fun and educational day.

Ontario's police officers routinely go beyond the call of duty to protect their neighbours and their communities. They are true everyday heroes, and they have earned the respect and support of all

the people in Whitby and across Ontario.

This event clearly emphasized building safer communities by building crime prevention. This year, thousands of people participated in the 11th annual Community

Day and helped raise money for the Kids' Safety Village and community policing and also for Racing Against Drugs.

I was pleased to attend the event this year and look forward to next year's Community Day. We're also looking forward to the official opening of the new police

station in Whitby in about two weeks' time.

ST MATTHEW HIGH SCHOOL

Mr Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I am proud today to honour the accomplishments of the students of St Matthew high school in my riding of

Ottawa-Orléans. On April 23, in

an act of great generosity and a spirit of community, 5,117 students, staff and neighbours gathered together to take

part in the Guinness Book of World Records

breaking bear hug, for which they received their official certificate on June 7. The 1,400 St Matthew students were joined by 30 busloads of high school students from St Peters, Lester B.

Pearson and St Pius high schools and from Divine Infant, Chapel Hill, Convent Glen and Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha elementary schools, as well as 900 members of the general public, of which I

was pleased to be one.

Although the Guinness Book of World Records distinction is fun and something to be proud of, what is significant is that the students of St Matt's were able to

raise an astonishing $108,000 through the event for the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre. According to our local media, the sum blew the previous national high school record completely out of the

water.

A major part of the joy and inspiration for the event came from one St Matthew student, Erin Gannon, an 18-year-old young woman who fought a battle with cancer

for two and one half years with deep faith and courage but succumbed to the illness just days after the bear hug. It is her spirit and heart that stirred a community and that indeed marks the

character of many of our young people today.

EXPLOSION IN ELMIRA

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I want to inform the House about an explosion and fire at the Crompton plant in Elmira, which happened last

Friday morning. I'm doing so in order to express my gratitude and appreciate for the rapid and effective response by the municipal officials from the township of Woolwich and the region of

Waterloo.

While en route to Toronto on Friday morning, I was informed of the incident. Apparently, according to published reports, a waste water tank exploded and burst

into flames at approximately 8:20 that morning. The initial reports I received from the minister's office indicated that our local officials had the situation well under control. I insisted on

speaking to the Minister of the Environment to ensure that she would be fully briefed on the situation and, if necessary, be in a position to take appropriate action.

From the information currently available, it appears that the entire emergency response system worked very well. The town siren warned the residents that they

were on high alert, and then a phone call went out to all residents asking that they stay inside, keep their windows closed and listen to the radio for further reports.

When I arrived at the plant in the afternoon, I was very relieved to know that the situation had stabilized and everyone was safe. For that, I thank the 75

firefighters from the stations in Elmira, St Jacobs and Floradale, who worked through the morning with Crompton's own fire brigade. The Kitchener Fire Department provided backup. I must tell this

House that those township firefighters are volunteer firefighters, and I commend Chief Earl Wideman and his crews on a job well done.

I want to acknowledge the role of the Ministry of the Environment, who deployed the mobile TAGA unit -- TAGA stands for trace atmospheric gas analyzer. It was on

the scene to ensure that our air was safe to breath. The township of Woolwich mayor, Bill Strauss, and township staff responded superbly. I want the House to be aware of their extraordinary

leadership and how they rose to the occasion to ensure that residents in Elmira were protected and safe.

URBAN SPRAWL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The Liberals talked a good line with respect to protecting the Oak Ridges moraine when they were in

opposition, and they got into government after making a promise that they would protect it. They ended up breaking that promise and allowing 6,000 new houses to be built.

The government had another opportunity to test its commitment to curbing urban sprawl and protecting environmentally sensitive land. Local ratepayers are begging

for help. It's the Wild West out there. Look at what's going on in Simcoe county: Developers are literally leapfrogging over the protected area and the greenbelt and are starting to build all kinds

of low-density housing there.

I put forward a number of amendments in committee to deal with leapfrog development in particular but also with the Niagara Escarpment not getting as good

protection as the Oak Ridges moraine and other important amendments. Not one Liberal member on that committee stood up and supported one of these amendments, which would have made this commitment

to curb urban sprawl real. As it is now, it's another broken promise.

This was the acid test of the government's commitment to curb the urban sprawl, and they failed miserably. There will be a debate on the greenbelt coming up in

this Legislature, and I urge the Liberal members, if they want to keep their commitment to curb urban sprawl, to have a committee of the whole House and allow those amendments to come forward once

again.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): A recent Decima Research poll showed that 93% of Ontarians are confident that Canadian farmers provide us with

high-quality food. It also showed that 86% of Ontarians believe their food supply is well regulated and safe to eat. That confidence is a result of positive change in food delivery regulations that

the McGuinty government has brought to the province of Ontario.

I'm proud to stand and recognize the work this government has done to rebuild Ontario's meat inspection programs and strengthen the province's food safety

system. We are ensuring that we have the highest safety and quality standards for our food. We have appointed the Honourable Roland Haines to review Ontario's meat regulatory and inspection

regimes.

Small and medium-sized food processing plants are an essential part of Ontario's food production industry. We have introduced a new food safety system for small

and medium-sized food processing plants, called the hazard analysis critical control point. This voluntary program minimizes the risk of food safety hazards and helps ensure the manufacture of safe

food products by detecting potential hazards before they occur.

Perhaps most essential is the McGuinty government's hiring of more full-time meat inspectors to fill the void left by reckless Conservative cuts to essential

services in Ontario.

With these actions, we have turned the corner in restoring the confidence of Ontarians in their government and the services we provide.

AGRICULTURAL HALL OF FAME

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the 2004 inductees to the Ontario Agricultural Hall of Fame.

One of those inductees is particularly deserving. A pioneer in direct farm marketing, now commonplace in Ontario, and an innovator in growing and production

techniques, this inductee hails from my riding. I'm particularly pleased that he is my brother, Tom Chudleigh. On Sunday, he was honoured with induction into the Ontario Agricultural Hall of

Fame.

As he mentioned in his opening remarks yesterday, Tom's partnership with his wife, Carol, started with the words, "I do." Their innovations with high-density

tree fruit production, revolutionary pruning techniques and integrated pest management have had a significant impact on the efficiency of Ontario's apple industry.

Tom and Carol introduced "entertainment farming" as part of his leadership in the area of value added agritourism, an alternative to traditional wholesale

marketing practices. In addition, Tom and Carol, with the help of their sons, Dean, Scott and Michael, produced a line of products for local markets, which are now sold nationally and

internationally, especially to the US and Japan. Products such as Apple Blossoms and Chudleigh's Apple Pies were born on the farm and are now enjoyed at dinner tables around the world.

I hope all members will join with me in congratulating my brother, Tom Chudleigh, and his wife, Carol, and all the other inductees into the Ontario Agricultural

Hall of Fame.

IMMIGRANTS

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Last Friday morning in London at the Cross Cultural Learner Centre, I was proud to make an announcement, with

my colleague Deb Matthews, on the government's newcomer settlement program. I was pleased to be able to tell three London organizations that their government was fulfilling its promise to help

those who arrive here from another country.

apartment and settle in their new hometown of London. Mary Williamson is the executive director of the Cross Cultural Learner Centre, and she does a great job helping newcomers feel welcome. We are

helping the WIL employment organization, which assists new immigrants to Ontario find work and educational opportunities.

to start on my new journey. But I knew one thing for sure: I was home here in Ontario. Because of the help I received from the Cross Cultural Learner Centre, and the few friends I had at the time,

I began to build a life for myself. I started businesses, hired employees and began to contribute to my new home.

That is what makes Ontario a great province. We welcome newcomers to Ontario, and we understand that immigrants bring new energy, talent and skills to the

economy of Ontario and help make our communities strong.

Today is a good day for Ontario. Our government is laying out a welcome mat for newcomers by assisting community newcomer settlement programs.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

OF EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Chalk this announcement up to one more commitment delivered on by the McGuinty government. Our pledge to save

the cardiac unit of the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario was fulfilled last Friday when the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care announced that prominent heart surgeon and senator Dr Wilbert

Keon would oversee a joint pediatric cardiac surgery program between hospitals in Toronto and Ottawa. Dr Keon will help implement the program at Toronto's Sick Kids Hospital and the Children's

Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa.

I'm sure we all remember the previous Conservative government having terminated the pediatric care surgery unit at the Children's Hospital of Western Ontario in

London in the summer of 2002, which left large swaths of underserviced areas in the province, instead favouring a centralized point of delivery in Toronto for child health care. The reckless cuts

to spending by the former Conservative government have not only deeply impaired the finances of Ontario but also, in this case, almost resulted in the closing of an extremely important point of

delivery for children's health in eastern Ontario.

It is encouraging to see that the McGuinty government has its priorities straight. We committed to keeping both pediatric cardiac surgery units open last fall

and we are delivering. It is essential that we maintain a system that has a capacity for being in more than one physical location, as SARS has shown us. This announcement is reflective of the

commitment of the government to ensure the health for all Ontarians throughout Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Could I ask the members to keep private conversations a bit lower.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): As revelations go, this was a doozy: Over the weekend, John Tory, the leading candidate

to replace Mr Eves, acknowledged that his party should have been more forthcoming about the state of the province's finances during the last election. According to a CBC report, Mr Flaherty agreed,

admitting he was surprised by the size of the financial mess. Finally, after months of denial and a clearly orchestrated effort to blame everybody else, a couple of sorry Tories have come forward,

actually prepared to come clean.

What I found fascinating was that Mr Flaherty, former finance minister and consummate insider, would admit to having been blindsided by the state of affairs. If

true, and I have no doubt it is, then the new government and the new Premier must, out of a sense of decency, be given even more benefit of the doubt. If, as we have learned, Mr Flaherty was

surprised by the size of the deficit, imagine the new Premier's and the new government's absolute astonishment at learning that the real deficit figure was more than three times the $2 billion we

had projected. Is it any wonder that so many citizens remain cynical and distrustful of politicians and politics when a situation like this exists?

My mother used to say, "When you mess up, fess up." Today I want to applaud Mr Tory and Mr Flaherty for taking mom's advice and finally summing up the courage to

fess up. I want to say to all my Tory friends that there is hope for you, indeed for all of us, when we recognize that it is the truth, and only the truth, that shall finally set us free.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have with us in the Speaker's gallery a delegation from the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council

of State Governments. They are Senator John Hottinger from Minnesota, Representative Libby Jacobs from Iowa and Representative Stephen Buehrer from Ohio. Please join me in warmly welcoming our

guests.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 pm

to 9:30 pm on Monday, June 14, 2004, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Caplan has moved government notice of motion 131. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise 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

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Yakabuski, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 53; the nays are 23.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY-BASED

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Before I begin my remarks, I'd like to acknowledge some people in the gallery

who have come today to hear them, including David Kelly, executive director of the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs; Patricia Bregman and Peter Coleridge,

representatives of the Canadian Mental Health Association; and Mike McClintock, vice-president of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, in the east members' gallery.

I'm pleased to rise in the House to tell you today that the McGuinty government is taking action in an area of health care that has been neglected for far too

long in this province: community-based mental health services. That means a system that gives people across the province enhanced health services in their communities, because we believe that the

best health care is found as close to home as possible.

What we are building in Ontario is a responsive, accountable, accessible health care system that serves the needs of Ontarians. To deliver on this plan, we are

restoring and fortifying the essential health services that Ontarians need. We are using our precious health care resources in the best possible way to deliver the best possible results. Our

strategy is to drive vital health resources down into communities where they can do the most good, and that embraces all aspects of health care, including mental health services.

For a long time there has been a stigma around the issue of mental illness, and that has created a wall between people and the care that they need. Twenty per

cent of Canadians will personally experience mental illness in their lifetime. It touches most families; it has certainly touched mine. The economic cost of mental illness in Canada was estimated

to be over $8 billion in 1998.

Our government believes that it is crucial that people who are mentally ill receive care in their communities from people they know and can trust. Today I'm

pleased to inform Ontarians that the McGuinty government is making a record investment in community mental health. It is an investment that is going to have a major impact on the way this care is

provided for Ontarians who need it. That's because we have committed an additional $185 million in new annual funding over four years, for a total investment of $583 million in these crucial

services by 2007-08.

Our government is reaching out a caring hand to Ontarians with mental illness and expanding services where they are needed. That is because we know that

community-based mental health care is more therapeutically effective and more cost-effective. Community-based mental health care keeps people out of hospitals and jails, leaving both institutions

to focus on those with more pressing needs.

This investment will help relieve some of the stress that many families face in caring for loved ones with mental illnesses. Our over half-billion-dollar total

investment will help relieve some of the stress that many families face in caring for loved ones with mental illnesses. This will come as a helping hand to families and communities.

I want to take a moment to tell you about some of the particulars of our commitment to community-based mental health care in Ontario.

Our investment will result in expanded case management for people living with mental illnesses. Case management provides a vital anchor to people coping with

mental illness. This involves a team of mental health professionals who build a trusting and respectful relationship with the patient and help that individual negotiate through a complicated system

to ensure they get the care and support they need.

This funding will also expand crisis response services. These services come to the assistance of individuals who are in acute distress. They include telephone

crisis lines and mobile outreach teams that are rapidly deployed to individuals in times of need.

We are also funding more early intervention programs. We know that the earlier a person with mental illness is diagnosed and assisted, the better their chances

of recovery.

I am also very pleased to announce that our government will be providing a base funding increase to stabilize the capacity of community mental health agencies

in communities all across the province -- the first such increase in 12 years.

The public has a significant need for up-to-date and accessible information on mental health resources. The Ontario Drug and Alcohol Registry of Treatment --

DART, as it has become known -- has come forward with a proposal for a provincial mental health registry. I am very pleased to announce that we are responding to this innovative proposal and will

be funding the creation of the Ontario mental health services registry. This registry will be a one-stop portal for information about mental health services. Information can be accessed 24/7

through a toll-free line, staffed by professionals, as well as on-line services. Part of this funding will go toward improving coordination and collaboration with other ministries and the police to

better service the needs of mentally ill people who have been convicted of crimes or are involved with the criminal justice system.

More than 78,000 Ontarians -- our friends, family members and neighbours -- are suffering from mental illness. They will benefit directly from the expansion of

these services.

We know that investment in community-based mental health services has proven to be a cost-effective use of health care dollars. We know that the mental health

community is behind us as we make this commitment. I can offer the following quotes from members of the mental health care community as proof that our commitment to community-based mental health

services will be an effective one.

From Dr Barbara Everett, CEO of the Canadian Mental Health Association: "Funding for mental health and addiction services is an excellent investment by the

government. Community mental health and addiction services save money by relieving pressure on more expensive services. Research has shown that they reduce hospitalizations by 86% and emergency

room visits by 60%."

Dr Paul Garfinkel, president and CEO of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, offered this support: "Mental health and addiction services have long been

the orphan of the health system. With the pressures this government faced given the province's deficit situation, we applaud the McGuinty government for their forward-thinking investment in

services, as well as the desperately needed increases in income supports. These investments will help some of Ontario's most vulnerable people -- those with mental health and addiction

problems."

David Kelly, executive director of the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs, offered this comment on our government's plan of

action: "This is a great first step in solving this province's mental health and addiction problems. The McGuinty government can be congratulated for recognizing the need to build community-based

mental health and addiction services. After 12 years, there is now renewed hope for these services in Ontario."

That is a remarkable display of solidarity in the community-based mental health sector.

Our plan of action on community mental health is going to make a very real difference for the 78,000 Ontarians in need of these services. Our government is

committed to a more accessible, responsive health care system in this province because we want all Ontarians to lead healthier lives. The funding increases I have spoken about today are a very

real, tangible way that we're going to work together to meet that goal.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): First of all, on behalf of our caucus and, I dare say, all members of the House, we welcome new funding that

goes into mental health services in this province, especially community-based mental health services. It's worthy of note that today's announcement is a multi-year commitment of $185 million, which

is less than the commitments that were made in the previous budget in this area.

Hon Mr Smitherman: Annual -- $185 million.

Mr Jackson: I understand how to read your press release.

The minister has raised quite a few questions with his statement in the House today. First of all, is he acknowledging that this includes some of the

children's mental health services dollars? Does it include recognition of the fact that domiciliary hostel funding in this province is at a meagre $40 per day compared to individuals in our

corrections institutions who are funded at $140 a day? The domiciliary hostel funding program, Minister, as you well know, is a significant safety net for mental health patients in our province

and, as such, we would hope they are included in your plans and your announcement today, although I do not see any evidence of that. These are front-line residential and program supports on a daily

basis for thousands and thousands of mental health patients in our province.

You talk about coordinating services and helping navigate the system. We'd like to know how much of this is actual new money or is part of the federal homeless

funding initiative that deals with mental health issues. How much of this has to do with the large increase in lottery revenues that your government is experiencing this year, which forms part of

the funding that assists persons with addictions?

I'd also like to comment that, as you shorted our hospitals in this province to 3.4%, the minister, with his experience, will know that one of the first

programs to suffer when hospitals run deficits is their community mental health and mental health programs. I've seen anecdotal evidence of that. Therefore, the importance of this announcement

cannot be understated, but it is also part of a significant area that affects our hospitals as well. There's no comment in today's announcement about that.

Finally, as I indicated earlier, we're anxious to determine just how much of a commitment this government will be making to children's mental health services

as part of this issue. This is hard for us to reconcile when we consider the fact that children's aid societies have been red-circled by your budget in terms of their budget. There is no increase

projected for that.

The school boards --

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: We paid all their back deficits as well. You've red-circled children's aid societies at fewer dollars this year than last year.

The Minister for Children and Youth Services may be upset --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Could you allow the member from Burlington to finish his response?

Mr Jackson: There's a lot of latent anxiety over there in the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

The fact of the matter is that children's aid societies have been red-circled this year and they are struggling with their budgets right at this time of the

year. They certainly are receiving more children into their care, more children at risk who are involved with families where mental health problems not only affect the parents but also their

children.

School boards as well have not seen the kinds of increases this year for their special ed programs, again, where school boards have to cope with an increased

number of complex cases of children and their needs.

We welcome the new funding for community-based mental health services. There's no question that these services require a significant expansion. We will be

anxious to look in more detail as to where the funding is coming from, and more directly where the funding is going.

We'll be anxiously waiting for confirmation that you are including support for domiciliary hostels in this province, that they have not had the increase

they're due. They are almost exclusively assisting persons with mental health to find accommodation they would otherwise be unable to find in this province. So that first line of defence for mental

health needs the support of this government.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I want to begin with a mental health issue that I remain most concerned with, that's closest to me because it

affects our community and one that I do not think is resolved by the announcement today. That's the deficit at the Northeast Mental Health Centre, a $2.3-million deficit that is going to cause a

crisis for that centre and a crisis for children and adults who receive mental health services right across northeastern Ontario.

I first raised this issue with both the Minister of Children and Youth Services and the Minister of Health at the end of February, in letters to them urging

them to intervene with this situation, to deal with the program cuts that were proposed. Here we are, mid-June, having had an announcement with respect to children's mental health, and now an

announcement with respect to adult mental health, and still not an indication that this very serious problem is going to be resolved. I want to point out to members again just what is at stake if

these two government ministries don't deal with this serious issue.

The cuts to children's programs include the following: the cancellation of mental health services for children aged 0-6 living in Sudbury district east,

Espanola and Manitoulin Island; the cancellation of mental health support for children living in CAS foster homes; the cancellation of the district day treatment program that helps secondary school

students who are fighting addictions to finish high school; services for children who are duly diagnosed with mental and developmental disabilities will be reduced; and the waiting list for

preschool speech and language services is going to grow from eight months to a year.

On the adult side, the consequences are: Adults are going to lose their community-based programs in Elliot Lake and Walden; counselling services will be

reduced elsewhere in Manitoulin-Sudbury; wait times will grow for seriously ill patients needing help from the ACT teams; and nine acute care beds on the hospital side of the operation will be left

empty by the end of the fiscal year 2004-05, even though they are desperately needed.

I look at the announcement today, which is a global announcement, which doesn't indicate how much each individual agency is going to get, and say to this

government, you cannot not act any longer. The unions have already been advised of the layoff notices. People are looking for other work. Patients with mental illness, who are already very

vulnerable, are being put at even greater risk because of their concern about the services that are going to be lost.

I urge this government to finally sit down with this centre, with the staff, and come up with the $2.3 million that is necessary for this mental health agency

to stave off the cuts, stave off the layoffs and ensure that children and adults in northeastern Ontario can get access to the mental health services they need.

Let me deal with three other problems with respect to this announcement. I said earlier, and I'll repeat, that this is a global announcement of $65 million

this year. Agencies do not know what their allocation will be. We do not know what the percentage increase for each of those agencies will be. That's very important. If it's only a 2% increase to

base funding this year, I can tell you that's not going to do anything to solve the problem at the Northeast Mental Health Centre. Frankly, it's probably not going to do much to solve problems at

other community-based agencies that have been desperate to try to retain their staff when those programs were underfunded.

If it's only a 2% increase, I can tell you that agencies will not be developing and delivering new programs. They will probably not even be hiring new staff.

They will probably just be using the 2% increase to hang on to the staff they have and to pay their utility bills. We need to know, and those agencies need to know, if that is the situation. We're

not going to do anything to deal with the serious problem of wait lists either if the percentage increase this year is only at 2% or 3%.

The second problem with this is, does it involve addictions agencies as well? I looked very carefully at the statement and I looked at the press release that

was announced today. There is no reference at all to addictions agencies, those that provide community services. We know that those addictions services agencies and mental health agencies work hand

in hand. Those agencies haven't had an increase in a long time. They are losing their staff as well. They have wait lists, and they need more than a 2% increase this year as well in order to

survive. But we need this government to make an announcement that this money also applies to addictions agencies.

Third, where is the supportive housing component? The government was very clear in its election promise that they were going to significantly increase

supportive housing options for those suffering from mental illness. There was not a word about that in today's announcement despite the fact that all nine task force reports noted the need for

that, despite the fact that all the most recent research that has been put forward shows clearly that when people have supportive housing when they are chronically ill, they will stabilize in a

stable environment.

Finally, we need announcements with respect to huge children's mental health waiting lists. The minister needs to make announcements in those fields as

well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Premier. When you were seeking office last year, you promised the voters of Ontario that

you would not raise their taxes, that you would hold the line on taxes. Then, in the provincial budget you imposed an OHIP tax on all the people of Ontario. Well, the people of Ontario have had an

opportunity to consider your broken promises: Provincial support for McGuinty's Liberal government plummets to 32%; Conservatives now lead at 39%. In fact, seven in 10 Ontarians, according to this

morning's Ipsos-Reid poll, believe the budget is bad news.

Given the overwhelming anger of the voters in Ontario, of the taxpayers in Ontario to your betrayal, to your breach of your promise to them, and their desire

for change in the budget, is your government considering reversing its decision to impose the health care tax on the people of Ontario?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No, of course we are not considering doing any such thing. But let me

just take the opportunity to say that we welcome the entry of John Tory into the debate about the misinformation that was released prior to the last provincial election, when the government members

insisted that the budget was balanced. We all learned, to our dismay and chagrin, that they were hiding a $5.6-billion deficit. I'm with John Tory, when it comes to this particular matter, who says

that it's time for their party to admit that they in fact hid a $5.6-billion deficit from the people of Ontario.

Mr Flaherty: I welcome the Premier's comments. I'm not sure if John Tory will welcome them or not, but those are the comments of our Liberal

Premier.

You say you're not considering changing the tax. Your health minister, in the Toronto Star, is talking about a health account to give Ontario taxpayers back

some of the money that the government was going to take away from them in the health care tax --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. This is just the first supplementary and we have had a lot of shouting on the other side. I'd like to

hear the member for Whitby-Ajax put his supplementary.

Mr Flaherty: Thanks, Speaker.

Not only is the health minister talking about changing the tax; the MPP for Niagara Falls, Kim Craitor, is quoted in the Niagara Falls Review as stating that

he is lobbying his own government to reverse its decision. Mr McMeekin, Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot: "I heard about the potential delisting of health services. I asked that that not

happen."

It certainly sounds, Premier, like there are discussions in the backbench, and in one case the minister of health himself, indicating that you are discussing

reversing your decision with respect to imposing this unwelcome tax on the people of Ontario, a tax that you promised you would not impose when you were seeking their votes. Are you not having

those discussions --

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'll take the opportunity to remind the honourable member opposite and the good people of Ontario about some of the contrasts

between this, our first budget, and their very first budget. In their first budget -- and I know they're very proud of this -- they cut welfare spending by 22%, they fired one third of the Ministry

of the Environment staff, they slashed education funding by $400 million, they cut $400 million from colleges and universities, and they took $552 million from our municipalities.

There's no doubt about it: We've decided to invest in better quality public services for the people of Ontario. That's the difference between our budget and

their budget.

Mr Flaherty: What we haven't seen is an investment in political integrity; that is, when you make a promise to voters in Ontario, you keep the

promise. That's character education, Premier, and another one of your problems.

It's not just your backbench MPPs; it's not just your health minister; it's you yourself --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health, could you come to order?

Member from Whitby-Ajax.

Mr Flaherty: It's not just your health minister, it's not just backbench MPPs who are saying you should change the tax; it's you yourself.

Osprey News reported, "Ontario's Liberal government will consider modifying a controversial health care premium introduced in last month's budget, Premier Dalton McGuinty said in an interview with

Osprey News on Thursday.

This is only Monday. That's only a few days ago. Surely you remember what you said on Thursday to the reporter, that you're thinking about making changes to

this unpopular health care tax.

Let me suggest a change to you: Get rid of it. You promised you would not increase taxes in Ontario. The only thing less popular than your government is this

Liberal tax, and the only person less popular than your government is you, at 9% in the polls. Do the right thing: Repeal the tax.

Hon Mr McGuinty: Personally, I've always thought popularity was a bad thing, and so far I've managed to avoid it.

I'll tell you what people are concerned about. They're concerned very much about the fact that a $5.6-billion deficit was hidden from view when we went into

the last election campaign. In fact, the quarterly financial statement -- the quarterly update, as they called it -- specifically said that the books were balanced, that there was no deficit.

What we intend to do for and on behalf of the people of Ontario is, by means of our Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, ensure that before each and

every ensuing provincial election the people of Ontario will know exactly what the state of our financial affairs is, so that never again will what happened at the time of the last election ever be

perpetrated on the people of Ontario.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. You're absolutely right. I think you're right that the people of this province

will ensure that never again will happen what happened in the last provincial election; that is, that they believe you, because they can't believe you.

The fact is that last week's poll said that only 9% of people in this province believe anything you say -- 9%, Premier. This week's poll tells us that seven

out of 10 people think you brought in a bad budget. One third of Ontarians are saying that they're going to punish the federal Liberals for what you've done in this province, and we're looking

forward to that.

We have observers here from another country. Surely they have never experienced the kind of deceit in their elections that has taken place --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I'll ask the member from Oak Ridges to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.

Mr Klees: I'll withdraw that. If I might --

The Speaker: You've completed your question. Premier?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm sure that the member is very much supportive of those parts of our

budget that would do the following: shorten wait times by creating 36,000 more cardiac procedures, 2,300 more joint replacements, 9,000 more cataract surgeries, 8,000 more full-time nursing

positions, and 78,600 more Ontarians receiving mental health support in their communities.

We think those are good things to do. They're not easy things to do, but they're important things to do, and we are committed to doing them by means of this

budget.

Mr Klees: The Premier doesn't get it. What the people of Ontario don't think is a good thing to do is promise one thing in an election

campaign and then break every promise you make to people once you're in office. That's what the people of Ontario object to. What the folks who are observing us here may not know is that in this

province we have a law, brought in by the previous government, that before you bring in a tax increase, you have to have a referendum by the people of Ontario. Not only did you promise not to

increase taxes; you've broken the law in this province by not having a referendum. Will you at least stand in your place and say we will have a referendum to do what you said you weren't going to

do? Will you stand in your place and do that today?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Well, I think the law that the member is referring to is called the taxpayer protection act. That would be the same law that

he and his colleagues broke in this very Legislature by amending that same law, without a referendum.

Also, because they did not balance their last budget, they stand in abrogation of the balanced budget legislation. There's a consequence connected with that,

and that is to give up 25% of your salary. I'll be asking the member to stand in his place now and tell the good people of Ontario why it is that, in the face of breaking that particular law, the

balanced budget legislation, he has yet to send over a cheque payable to the treasury of the province of Ontario in the amount of $9,000.

Mr Klees: I cannot believe the Premier walked into this one. The fact of the matter is, Premier, you had six months to balance the budget. I

stood in this place and asked you at least 25 different times: What have you done? Have you instructed your Minister of Finance to balance the budget in the months that you have left to do so? Not

once did you answer the question. You, sir, had the opportunity to balance that budget, as we would have. You didn't, and now you're increasing taxes to the people of Ontario. Will you at least do

it legally and have a referendum according to the law of this province? Why won't you do that? Why do you continue to spin further untruths in this place?

The Speaker: You know the unparliamentary word, and I would ask you to withdraw.

Mr Klees: I'll withdraw that, but you know --

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, we brought a very different approach to dealing with our financial mess left to us by the Tory government. It's true

that in order to balance the budget this year and deal with their $6-billion deficit, we could have shut down our entire community college system, and that would have saved us $800 million. We

could have shut down 10 hospitals; that would have saved us about $1 billion. We could have fired 16,500 teachers, and that would have saved us about $1 billion. We could have done what the Tories

did and reduced welfare by a further 22%. We could have cut again at the Ministry of the Environment, with ensuing dire consequences in the community of Walkerton. But we chose a different path. We

didn't choose an easy path, but we chose the right path. We chose to make investments in better health care and better education because we believe that's in the interests of the people of Ontario,

and we're proud of that.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. I want to read from your radio ad. 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 turn to page 44 of your budget, and what do we find? We find things like sewer and water projects being counted as health care services. In fact, $113

million of what you call health care services is in fact sewer and water construction. When are you going to explain this to the people of Ontario? Under the McGuinty government, when did sewer

pipes become a health service?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm pleased that the leader of the third party has now taken the

opportunity to take a look at the budget. This is hardly a secret. It was part of the budget that we put out several weeks ago. You'll see, on page 43 and thereafter, we list the investments that

we are going to make in order to -- it says, "Investments for Healthier Ontarians." I'm sure that my friend opposite understands the concept of broader determinants of health, which medical experts

have been speaking to for many, many years. For example, earlier today, the Minister of Health talked about the investments that we're making in community-based programs, including those that will

serve children at risk. Technically, that money does not flow through the Ministry of Health; it will flow through the Ministry of Children and Youth Services --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, I'd like you to come to order.

Mr Hampton: Premier, these are your words: "I promise you that every penny of Ontario's new health premium will go to health care."

I think what people across Ontario want to know is this: People who need the health care services of a chiropractor are now told, despite the McGuinty health

tax, that a chiropractor is no longer a health care service covered by OHIP in Ontario. People who need to have their eyes checked by an eye doctor are told that under the McGuinty government,

despite the new health tax, the services of an optometrist are no longer a health care service covered by OHIP. But if you look at your budget, sewer pipe is now, according to you, a health care

service. Can you tell me: Why is health care money now going for sewer pipes, but people are told that chiropractors and optometrists no longer provide health care services?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member opposite doesn't believe or doesn't understand that clean and safe drinking water is a prerequisite to good health

in Ontario. He might want to review Mr Justice Dennis O'Connor's report arising from the Walkerton inquiry, where seven people lost their lives as a result of drinking dangerous water. We are not

going to apologize for investing in safe and clean drinking water --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to warn the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. The next time I'm going to be naming you. I also caution the

member for Simcoe North.

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member opposite may not believe that safe and clean drinking water is a prerequisite to good health in Ontario, but I

want to commit to him, and to his constituents in particular, that we will not apologize for doing whatever we can to invest in the better health care of all Ontarians by ensuring they have safe

and clean drinking water.

Mr Hampton: I know enough that sewer pipe is not a health care service.

I also want to read your ad again.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: If I can speak over the Minister of Health, I'd like to -- Dalton McGuinty says --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm going to ask the Minister of Health -- I'm going to warn you. The next time I may have to name you.

Mr Hampton: There's another problem with your ad. It makes the promise that every penny from the new health care premium will go to health

care, and then you say, "meningitis vaccinations for children." Your Minister of Health had to retreat on that last week, because the health care premium is not going to pay for vaccinations. We

already discovered that $156 million is coming from the federal government as part of a national program of immunization. We know that vaccinations are paid for by the federal government. Why are

you trying to claim that the new health tax is paying for vaccinations? That doesn't seem to be true either.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I don't know why it is that the member opposite is so opposed to improving the quality of health care for the people of

Ontario. I don't know what he has against vaccinations for our children. I don't know what he has against quicker and more readily available cataract surgeries, hip and knee replacements, cardiac

surgeries, more chemotherapy and more radiation. The member opposite apparently does not support those kinds of initiatives, but we on this side of the House feel we've got a responsibility to move

forward in that direction and we will continue to do so.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: I simply want people to know what's actually happening here. The new health tax isn't paying for vaccinations. That's coming from

the federal government. And the new health tax isn't going to pay --

The Speaker: Order. The question is to?

Mr Hampton: Oh, to the Premier, of course.

The new health tax is not going to cover people when they need to see a chiropractor or an optometrist, but it's going to cover sewer pipe, according to your

budget.

Let me tell you what I think really happened here. After you made the decision to impose the health tax, you suddenly discovered you were about $200 million

short in health services, so you sent out the communication gurus and said, "Try to find $200 million more that we can somehow relate to health spending." That's how sewer pipe, according to your

government, became a health care service, isn't it, Premier? Your health care spending didn't match up with the new health tax so you had to start counting sewer pipe as a health care service.

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member is wrong again. If he was so committed to ensuring that there were sufficient resources available for absolutely

essential investments in better quality education and health care, then I ask him, why did he vote against Bill 2? Why did he vote against rolling back the corporate tax cuts? Why did he vote

against eliminating the seniors' education property tax credit? Why did he vote against scrapping the private school tax credit? Why did he vote against taking the first step toward raising the

tobacco tax to the national average? If he is so dedicated, not only on behalf of his constituents but to all Ontarians, why is it that he stood four-square in the way of making the necessary tough

decisions to ensure we had the money that was essential to investing in better health care and better education?

Mr Hampton: Premier, it would help the people at home if you'd simply answer the question.

Let me give you another example. One of the things you list as a health service in your budget is money that's going to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation

for something called Active 2010. When we called the communications officials, they said, "Well, this is going to be like the Participaction TV ads that people used to see." What it amounts to is

this: People are now going to see television ads telling them, yes, they should be more active -- I think most people probably know they should be more active -- but do you really expect people to

believe that that's a health care service, that running TV ads telling people, "You should do this, you should do that," -- do you really expect that is a health care service?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I have no idea where the member is getting his information, but I can tell you one thing: It is simply not reliable.

I want to drag him kicking and screaming out of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 21st century and impress upon him that we can't continue to fund

health care in the ways that we have in the past. It's time for us to go a little bit more upstream and invest in those kinds of things that ensure that we have a healthier, more active population.

We should have done that years ago. Public health administrators have been pleading for us to do that very kind of thing. We look forward to talking more about our particular program, to make sure

that more Ontarians are taking a greater interest in leading active, healthy lives.

Mr Hampton: The Premier wants to know where my information comes from. Here it is, page 44 of your budget, at the bottom: Ministry of Tourism

and Recreation, Active 2010 program. Underneath, it says that to ensure there will be funding for this, the government proposes to introduce a health premium.

I simply say to you, how is it that sewer pipe is now counted by your government as a health service, that television ads run by the Ministry of Tourism and

Recreation, according to your government, are now a health service, but things like seeing a chiropractor, being able to see the optometrist to have your eyes checked, being able to see a

physiotherapist when you have a chronic condition with your shoulder or your back or your knee -- none of that is now counted as a health service in Ontario. You are the one who said all the money

was going to go to health services. How can it be going to sewer pipe and television ads?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Never has so much misinformation been conveyed within a single statement as we've just had the painful experience moments ago

in this Legislature.

Just to convey a few facts -- because from time to time I think they are helpful to us -- the premium is raising $1.6 billion this year, yet we are increasing

health care expenditures by $2.4 billion. So we're going as far as we can to make absolutely essential investments.

Again, what we are talking about are the fundamentals. I'm talking about more cardiac procedures, more joint replacements, more chemotherapy, more radiation,

more full-time nurses, more full-time doctors, and family health teams. We think that, together, makes up a modern infrastructure for the delivery of health care at the beginning of the 21st

century.

The member opposite can spin and turn in his place as much as he would like, but at the end of the day the people of Ontario are going to experience better

quality health care and better care for themselves.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is to the Premier as well. I've listened to you in the House today talk about defending the new

order for health care that will provide funding for sewer lines. I want you to stand in your place today and make as strong a commitment to cancer sufferers in this province, an increasing number

of whom are going to Buffalo and Rochester to get treatments that other Canadians currently receive.

Last Thursday, I referenced to you the new drug funding program and that your government has put a $60.7-million hard cap on their program. There is a 4%

growth in the number of cancer patients requiring life-saving and life-palliating treatments, and yet you persist in putting on this hard cap. You referenced last week that there was another $60.7

million. The same amount that they were given last year is just what they are getting this year for a disease that is on a rampant increase.

Premier, on January 28, only four months into your mandate, you put in the cut. I'm asking you again, will you lift the hard cap on the new drug funding

program for Cancer Care Ontario and try to save some additional lives in Ontario?

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

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I appreciate the opportunity to correct a lot of the misinformation that the

honourable member has very deliberately and wilfully been presenting on this issue.

There is no such thing as a hard cap. There is a printed budget number, and the reality is that on a variety of programs in the Ministry of Health -- as the

member will well know as a sometime cabinet minister in the previous government -- as some programs come under considerable pressure and new discoveries in terms of drugs are brought on-line

promptly, there are always in-year adjustments to the funding for cancer drugs.

The assurance that the member is looking for is an assurance I am very pleased to provide, and it is this: This government will stand behind a program that is

designed to make sure that the people of Ontario struggling against the --

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Weasel words.

Hon Mr Smitherman: That member calls it "weasel words." To give an answer in this House that says that we will as a province stand behind

those people who have cancer by ensuring that the best, most reliable, effective and available drugs are there to help people in those crisis times is the commitment of this government. Those

aren't weasel words, but you'd know a weasel word, wouldn't you?

Mr Jackson: Premier, your minister can stand in the House and say that he is committed, but the fact of the matter is that an increasing

number of Ontario residents are not gaining access to cancer treatment in this province under your watch as Premier. That is a fact. For the first time in Cancer Care Ontario's history, we've

witnessed the delisting of life-saving drugs and the denial of life-saving drugs in this province under your watch as Premier.

I brought in the issue of Rituximab, which prolongs progression-free survival of patients with advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In New Brunswick, PEI,

Saskatchewan and BC, citizens get this drug. They don't in Ontario. Yet in BC, the clinical evidence is clear. It results in 58% fewer deaths from this disease.

I ask you once again: Are you prepared to lift the hard cap, or the budget -- you can call it what you like, but Cancer Care Ontario has withdrawn these drugs

for the first time in our province's history. Will you save these lives, lift the cap and make the commitment instead of talking about all these extracurricular things you talk about?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The first thing the member needs to know: Any decisions that were taken, were taken by Cancer Care Ontario, with no

direction or involvement from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. In one case, officials at Cancer Care Ontario put a drug on the formulary list which is provided to hospitals, even though

it hadn't come through their board. They might have made some effort to correct that. They did so with no direction whatsoever from the Ministry of Health.

On the issue at hand, which is about the member continuing to raise this idea of a hard cap, there is no such thing. The fact of the matter is, we've clearly

conveyed to our partners at Cancer Care Ontario that this Minister of Health and this government will always work with Cancer Care Ontario to make sure that the best, most efficacious drugs are

available to the people of the province of Ontario.

The member will well know -- and should be reminded, though -- that we depend on expert advice around these things. We look to the Ontario drug quality

therapeutics committee to provide some evidence around the efficacious nature of drugs. I repeat the essential message here, which is: That member needs to cease and desist from the suggestion to

the people of the province of Ontario that there is any hard cap on the amount we will spend to help people to stay alive if they're fighting cancer in our province, because that is a fundamental

contribution --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Premier. During the election you promised there would be no cuts to health care.

Then after the election, and with your budget, you cut essential health care services like eye exams, physiotherapy and chiropractic services.

If that wasn't enough, it appears that you're prepared to make even more cuts to health care services. In a media interview on Friday, "McGuinty raised the

prospect that the government may consider dropping other services from medicare."

What else did you intend to cut, and how does that compare with the election promise that you made not to cut health care services?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to remind the member opposite that we're proud of putting an

additional $2.4 billion into health care in the province as a result of this particular budget. That may come as bad news to the member opposite, but we think it's good news on this side of the

House.

Did we make some difficult decisions with respect to those services that we think we can no longer afford to provide? You bet we did, but those are the kinds

of decisions that we're going to have to make from time to time. We've been very progressive and balanced in terms of who is going to able to get optometry services, chiropractic services and the

like. The important point we are making is that this year, as a result of this budget, we are providing more than $2 billion in additional health care services for the people of Ontario.

Ms Martel: May I remind you of your election promise, which was that you were not going to cut health care services? You see, when you cut

access to OHIP-funded services, it means that those who can afford to, pay for care buy quality care, and those who can't, just do without. You and your government are contributing directly to

two-tier health in Ontario, despite all the rhetoric in the election and despite all the rhetoric with respect to Bill 8.

Eye exams, physiotherapy and chiropractic services are essential health care services. They should continue to be covered under OHIP.

I ask you again, very specifically: What other cuts to health care do you intend to make? How does that compare with your very specific election promise, that

being "no cuts to health care"?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member will know that the services we have delisted are not deemed to be essential under the Canada Health Act. What

motivated us to do that was the same thing that motivated the NDP government to delist the following formerly insured services: acne removal, tattoos, skin lesions, varicose veins, reversals of

vasectomies, tubal ligations, routine circumcision, and many, many more. They used to be covered before the NDP decided they were going to delist those kinds things. Just so we're clear about

delisting and who has done what, they have done more than their share of it.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade about an issue that is so important to

my own riding of Oakville as home of Ford of Canada. It's a question about the automotive sector.

Today in Niagara, the Paul Martin Liberal government announced $500 million over five years for the auto sector. Last April, Premier McGuinty and yourself

announced the Ontario automotive investment strategy, which was another $500 million over five years for the auto sector.

Minister, how does your strategy differ from the one the federal Liberals announced, and what do you think this will mean for the auto sector in Ontario?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Let me thank the member for the question. Today's announcement means great

news for Ontario's auto sector. It's good news for Ontario's economy. It means the federal Liberals get it; they understand the auto sector is vital to Ontario's economy. In fact, they realize

we're facing unprecedented competition south of the border, and they are investing in the auto sector and matching what the Ontario automotive investment strategy is all about.

They are investing in key areas: skills training, energy efficiencies, environmental technologies, public infrastructure and innovation. These are essential

legacy commitments that we've made in the Ontario automotive investment strategy, and the federal government is matching those because they recognize the vitality necessary for the auto sector to

move ahead and be competitive in the world.

Mr Flynn: Last week we all heard Mr Stephen Harper, while unveiling his corporate policy, refuse to invest in the auto sector. He would simply

focus on tax cuts. That policy, or lack of policy, is incredibly short-sighted and neglects Ontario's auto industry. It appears Mr Harper does not want good, high-paying, high-value jobs or skills

upgrades for Ontarians, and would rather export those jobs to the southern US. For every one job created in an assembly plant, eight more are created in the community. What do you think Mr Harper

has against Ontario and Oakville's economic prosperity?

Hon Mr Cordiano: Mr Harper wants to impose the same Harris-style tax cuts that were imposed on Ontarians and saw 19 new plants located in

North America, but not one of them come to Ontario. That has been rejected. Those are failed policies.

I want to quote from Christina Blizzard, who wrote in the Toronto Sun --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Those members in the front row here -- the member for Leeds-Grenville and the member for Nepean-Carleton --

I'm going to ask you to come to order.

Hon Mr Cordiano: I want to quote from Christina Blizzard from the Toronto Sun, who said: "Sometimes you need to invest in an industry if you

want to keep jobs in this province. You can't hold your biggest industry hostage to political ideology."

Let me say to the member from Nepean, who is the co-campaign chairman for the federal Conservatives: Get on the phone now to Mr Harper and tell him in no

uncertain terms that he should support Ontario's auto investment strategy. He should come to the table with a similar strategy and show some support for Ontario's important automotive sector, show

that he cares about Ontario. Will you do that?

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Minister of Education, and it concerns some of the most vulnerable people in the

province of Ontario: children with special needs. A promise made by the government when they were seeking office was, "We will help the children who need the most help, those with special

needs."

In fact, the minister has announced holding back a promised $102 million in approved special-ed funding. It was confirmed by the MPP for Kitchener Centre to

the Star on June 9 that Mr Kennedy ordered a hold on these payments. One of the consequences of this is the inability of school boards to plan for the fall semester, the fall school year. We are

now almost in the middle of June. The chair of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board's special education advisory committee said, "The government's holdback of special education funding is a

recipe for even more instability to the lives of our special-needs students." Minister, why are you breaking your promise to special-needs students in Ontario?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I find it not just passing strange but almost bordering on the ridiculous that this member

opposite, representing the government that subjected vulnerable children in this province to not one year, not two years but four years of delay to provide for them any of the supports that they

require, had to be forced, with their backs against the wall and Dr Rozanski's metaphorical gun, to give up even a portion of the dollars that were owed.

What we have done, in fact, is release to the people of this province, the parents and students, $63 million this year. We have a system put in place by the

last government that needs verification. We're working with the boards. I'll give you the assurance that we, distinct from that government, will make sure that every single special-needs student in

this province receives the help they require. We're doing that in a way the member opposite wouldn't recognize: co-operatively, working with the boards and making sure those students finally get

the help they deserve.

Mr Flaherty: I'm sure there's no comfort taken by special-needs parents in the province of Ontario to that kind of partisan attack. When

you're a parent of a special-needs child, Minister, you need to have the assurance that your child will be taken care of in the fall, when the child goes to school.

You're creating instability in the school system, as confirmed by the chair of the committee in Waterloo. More than that, they've already started layoffs. Now

we have special assistants who are working with children with special needs in the province being laid off as a result of your holdback of funding for them. This is happening in Brant-Haldimand,

where notices have already been sent out in the Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk Catholic District School Board, cutting services to special-needs students for the autumn of this year. Shame on you. Get the

funding out the door for these children with special needs in the province. Enough of the partisan nonsense; get the money out.

Hon Mr Kennedy: I'll take no instruction from the member opposite on how to have regard for these same kids who lost four years in their

education system, thanks to him.

I would say to all the people watching that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Flaherty: You should be ashamed. Get the money out to the kids.

The Speaker: Order, member from Whitby-Ajax.

Minister.

Hon Mr Kennedy: While the member opposite would relegate his responsibilities as a member of this House to fearmonger --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to warn the member from Whitby-Ajax.

Hon Mr Kennedy: He would relegate his responsibilities to these vulnerable families, and what he should do instead is repeat what every board

in this province is now aware of: that no layoffs will take place that will affect children whatsoever; that legal notices, once budgets are filed, will be rescinded. In fact, anyone who stands in

their place in this House and tries to say that a child's future is in jeopardy because of this is putting their political advancement ahead of the needs of those kids.

It is finally time in this province to arrive at a consensus in this House that those children will receive our penultimate attention and that the dollars they

deserve will be there.

HYDRO DEREGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Bay Street's major law firms are licking their chops over your new

private hydro scheme. They want to skim a fair amount of money off the top of what they believe could be $40 billion worth of new business. That's big money. It also means huge increases in hydro

rates after you've already increased hydro rates twice, after saying you would freeze them.

Could you tell us, Premier, why you're adopting the Mike Harris plan to enrich your friends on Bay Street and why you're going to make the average consumer

across Ontario pay for their enrichment?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We're not adopting the previous government's plan, nor are we adopting

the first choice of the leader of the third party. We're bringing a balanced, pragmatic, responsible approach to deal with our generation needs.

I want to remind the member opposite that he, on his watch, raised hydro rates on behalf of the good people of Ontario by 40%. We're taking a balanced,

responsible approach, and we look forward to delivering on that.

Mr Hampton: I just want to read you a letter. This is a letter of October 31, 2001, sent by Dalton McGuinty to the private energy sector. It

says, "Throughout Ontario's electricity restructuring process, Dalton and the Ontario Liberals have been consistent supporters of the move to an open electricity market in Ontario." Now I want to

jump ahead and quote Chris Portner, a partner at Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, a leading Bay Street firm, who talks about how much money firms like his will make off your new hydro scheme: "It's huge

numbers, absolutely staggering numbers," he says.

Those huge, staggering numbers are going to be paid for by working families, the same working families whom you now want to pay for your new health tax. Why

are you adopting the Mike Harris hydro agenda and forcing Ontario consumers to pay and pay, and pay again?

Hon Mr McGuinty: If we're going to get into the record, then perhaps the people of Ontario will be interested in the following statements made

by my good friend opposite. Mr Hampton said, "There will be important roles for the private sector to play in the future of our electricity system." He went on to say, "I'm not ideologically

opposed to private power any more than I'm opposed to private restaurants, clothing stores or car dealerships." He said, "Not sending consumers clear price signals discourages conservation and

energy efficiency."

Those are all things said by my friend opposite. Again, notwithstanding his very best efforts to frighten the people of Ontario, in particular the consumers of

hydro, we're bringing a balanced and responsible approach.

IMMIGRANTS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Recently you signed a letter of intent with

the federal government to begin negotiations on a federal-provincial immigration agreement. This is an important and long overdue first step. As I understand, Ontario is the only province that does

not have an immigration agreement with the federal government.

For too long, Ontario's immigrants have not received the same attention as immigrants in other provinces because the previous government did not want to, for

whatever reason, forge working relationships with other levels of government. However, as you're also aware, Ontario receives many highly educated immigrants who, unfortunately, are unable to find

jobs in their chosen professions. In fact, many can't even find a job, can't make a living and, in their desperation, many are driving taxis or delivering pizzas. I'd like to ask the minister, how

would this federal-provincial agreement address the problem of immigrants finding jobs?

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

the excellent question. He's right, there are far too many foreign-trained professionals being underutilized in this province. The signing of this letter of intent is a major accomplishment, for it

is a redefining of the vision of a future immigration and settlement policy in Ontario, something that is a priority for the McGuinty government.

This letter sets us on the path toward achieving better outcomes for newcomers to Ontario and optimizing all the economic and social benefits of immigration.

I'm committed to improved processes so there can be a seamless integration of services, a comprehensive one-stop shopping for newcomers and prospective immigrants in accessing settlement

supports.

Minister Chambers and I are working earnestly to improve outcomes for newcomers to Ontario and help them gain better access to meaningful employment

opportunities. This is just the beginning, but I'm very proud of this achievement. It's historic, and it is the first one that includes municipalities in the federation.

Mr Ruprecht: We made a commitment to the people of Ontario during the election campaign to negotiate an agreement with the federal government

to improve support for settlement services and language integration for immigrants. Immigrants enrich Ontario communities and strengthen our economy. I am glad to see that we're moving in a

positive direction to helping our newest citizens. One-stop shopping is a great idea.

While our federal government has immigration agreements with many other provinces, I understand that this letter of intent is unique, in that it involves

cities and other municipalities. In Ontario alone, about 80% of the over 130,000 newcomers each year settle in the GTA. Another 22,000 immigrants settle in cities such as Hamilton, Ottawa, Windsor,

London and the greater Niagara area. Could the minister please tell me, what kind of involvement will cities have in this process?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: Fully understanding the impact that municipalities have on immigration, for the first time in Canadian history we

consulted with municipalities on the immigration agreement, and in the letter of intent, it's right there that they will be consulted in part of this agreement. In fact, I'm very concerned, with

the upcoming federal election, that this and other federal-provincial agreements will be sabotaged, and I tell the people of Ontario to consider this come election day.

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is also to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. A $24-million capital investment

in children's treatment centres was included in your budget. This is actually on page 16. They acknowledge that CTCs "help parents obtain and coordinate a range of services for their children with

disabilities."

Parents of the approximately 23,000 children with disabilities in Simcoe county and York region are without a children's treatment centre, and 6,000 of the

children need multiple rehabilitation services such as speech, physio, and/or occupational therapy. Can you indicate to the House and to the parents of York region and Simcoe county who have

children with disabilities that the $24 million includes funding for them?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I will respond to the Simcoe

situation in my supplementary. I'd like to reiterate that not only will we be giving $24 million for badly needed capital funding for the treatment centres, but we will also be giving a 3% increase

for their base funding as well. We will continue to work with all service providers, including our children's treatment centres, including the community in Simcoe-York on these issues.

Mr Dunlop: Children with disabilities and their families access ongoing rehabilitation services at children's treatment centres everywhere in

the province except in Simcoe county and York region. As you know from your previous experience and your previous work, access to these rehabilitation services is considered critical to the optimal

development of children with disabilities.

The proposal for a children's integrated rehabilitation service system to deliver these services in Simcoe and York has received internal approvals from the

different ministries. That's my understanding. When will the government provide the capital and operational funding to deliver core rehabilitation services to the children and youth in Simcoe

county and York region? I reiterate, it's the only area of the province that does not have a children's treatment centre.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I am aware of the Simcoe York District Health Council's proposal for integration of rehabilitation services for

children and youth of your county, and I understand the increasing pressures faced with that growing region. In fact, my ministry will be working with the district health council to find solutions.

To begin the dialogue, my ministry staff have contacted the health council and they are in the process of setting up a meeting to discuss the proposal. It is an innovative proposal. It deals with

the coordination and integration of services, which is the direction we want to go, generally speaking, with children's services in this province. I would like to assure the member that we're

taking a very serious look at this issue in your region.

TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Premier. There's a story in today's Globe and Mail that says Norm Gardner

billed $50,000 worth of junkets to Paris and other glamorous places to the Toronto Police Services Board. Former board vice-chair Gloria Lindsay Luby says, "He wouldn't ask for permission to go, he

just went. We'd find out about it later, if we found out about it at all."

It's bad enough that Gardner refuses to resign after being suspended, thereby paralyzing the board, but now we find that he's been jetting all over the world

at taxpayers' expense, approving these expenses himself. Premier, I've told you before: If you need to pass legislation to get rid of Norm Gardner, let's do it. What are you waiting for?

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

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I'm sure the member knows that Mr Gardner was appointed by the

previous government, but he was appointed to the police services board as a member only. It's up to the police services board themselves to elect their own chairman, which is what they did. So he

serves as chairman because his fellow members elected him chairman.

I'm sure you also know that at the present time, he is under suspension because of a ruling by OCCOPS. He is under suspension until the end of his term, which

is in December. What has happened is that because he is appealing that, we have no ability to remove him. Having said all that -- I just wanted to give you that as background -- the budget of the

Toronto Police Services Board is provided by the city. He is accountable to them and to them only.

Ms Churley: It's not a good answer.

Premier, I'm going to come back to you, because that minister gives me the same answer every time, and it's not an appropriate response. You need to take

responsibility. It's very clear that Norm Gardner has got to go. Let me say to you, Premier, despite what the minister says: You're the only one now who can do this. Either you're going to live up

to your responsibilities, or you can continue not doing it. You have to help get the Toronto Police Services Board back on its feet. I've told you before: If you want to bring in new legislation,

we will give it quick passage.

I'm going to ask you again, Premier. I've researched this; I know you can do it. Are you going to continue to wash your hands of this situation, or are you

going to finally do something about it?

Hon Mr Kwinter: The member opposite is really extending her sphere of trying to implicate people. She has been trying to get me to abrogate

due process, to interfere with due process. Now she's asking the Premier of Ontario to do the same thing.

I can tell you that, notwithstanding that you think this is something that she should do, there is a process. It's called due process. It's under the review of

the courts, and there is no minister of the crown -- Premier or otherwise -- who is going to interfere with that process.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is to the Minister of Education. As you're well aware, for the past number of years, small and rural

schools have struggled to stay open in Ontario. This is due, in large part, to insufficient and flawed funding to help them with their unique circumstances. There are small and rural schools in my

riding that are very anxious about their ability to remain open in the near future. Harrow high school, as you know, is one of these. Just recently I had the opportunity to attend the school's

100th anniversary.

Minister, what is our government going to do to ensure that schools like Harrow high in my riding are not threatened with closure in the near future?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I want to reply to the member, who has been a strong advocate for rural schools and indeed for

good schools everywhere in this province, that that has become possible because of the commitment of this Premier and this Minister of Finance to an $854-million increase to try to correct some of

the skews that have been built into the system that effectively painted a bull's eye on the roofs of small rural schools all around the province regardless of what they did to students, and

deleterious to our objective of seeing every student in this province have the same kind of opportunity to go forward.

So we've been able to give the boards more confidence that they can meet their own payrolls. They're not going after rural schools in quite the same fashion.

But more than that, we've identified $31 million specifically to help keep good schools open. We're now working with school boards to ensure that that $31 million will help the viability of every

rural school in this province. A funny thing happened under the previous government, where only some rural schools were recognized and many others with exactly the same conditions were treated as

if they were in the middle of large cities. That will change in the near future.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Could I ask members who are standing between myself and the speaker of the next supplementary question to sit

down.

Mr Crozier: I appreciate the fact that it takes time to develop sound and sustainable policies to help keep small and rural schools open.

However, in the case of Harrow high school, they don't have much time left before some really tough decisions are going to have to be made. Can you tell me when individual school boards will know

what assistance they can expect from our government that specifically addresses the needs of small and rural schools?

Hon Mr Kennedy: The people of Harrow and the people of the rural community in general should know that the member for Essex and members in

this House have been fierce in advocating for them to finally be seen on an equal footing. What we want to say to the anxieties that were stoked by the inequities in the funding formula that have

made rural schools like Harrow worry year after year is that we're making a different kind of connection with school boards and we're saying these are long-term decisions. Notwithstanding the

challenges faced by rural areas, these should not be made in haste. We have given boards until August 30 to make their financial decisions, and we're working with them so that by the end of June

they are going to know the kinds of dollars that are coming to them, or at least a very good idea about how they can be applied.

We say to all members in this House, you need to get behind the complexities of this, but these dollars are there. Finally there is a better future for rural

students and rural schools in this province.

ANNUAL REPORT,

OFFICE OF THE

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Office of the

Integrity Commissioner for the period April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2004.

ANNUAL REPORT,

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION OFFICE

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I further beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the fifth annual report from the

lobbyists registration office, Office of the Integrity Commissioner, with respect to the administration of the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998, for the period April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2004.

PETITIONS

TAXATION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty said that he would not raise taxes; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government has announced in their budget that they are imposing a new tax or premium on health care;

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

"That the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government reverse their budget decision to charge an Ontario health premium."

I support this and affix my signature.

TRANSITION BENEFITS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads:

"Yes, Peter Kormos, I agree with you, the Liberal government must enforce our rights for transition benefits.

"Whereas HOOPP is presently funding retirement benefits for those who have less than 20 years of service and are 55 years of age or older;

"Whereas HOOPP is proposing to eliminate the availability of these transition benefits beyond 2005;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, will have in excess of 30 years of service and will not be entitled to these benefits because we have not reached the age of

55;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enforce our rights to receive these transitional funds extended until December

31, 2008."

It's signed by hundreds, and I've signed it as well.

ONTARIO HERITAGE DAY

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, believe that the people of Ontario deserve a day to celebrate our province's rich history and heritage. We encourage the government to

declare the second Monday in June as Ontario Heritage Day, the ninth provincial statutory holiday."

I affix my signature.

TAXATION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition 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."

I sign my name in full support.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition signed by a number of people from the Kapuskasing-Opasatika region that reads as

follows:

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I have signed that petition.

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

chiropractic services in the health insurance plan, which I file on behalf of constituents.

"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 --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Mr Qaadri: -- in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I regret there's no specific provision for the member from Nepean-Carleton. Nevertheless, I present this to Vivienne.

TAXATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition 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."

I've signed this.

PENSION PLANS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Stelpipe Ltd and Welland Pipe Ltd are currently operating under the protection of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), as part of the

restructuring process being undertaken by Stelco Inc; and

"Whereas there is a significant unfunded liability in the Stelpipe and Welland Pipe pension plans for hourly employees; and

"Whereas there will be a significant negative impact on the pensions of both active employees and retirees in the event of a windup of these pension plans;

and

"Whereas the pension benefits guarantee fund (PBGF) does not protect the entire amount of accrued pension benefits; and

"Whereas the PBGF may not have sufficient assets to provide such protection;

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

"(1) to amend the provisions of the PBGF in order that it provides complete coverage and protection for the accrued pension benefits of all pension plan

members;

"(2) to amend the financing provisions for the PBGF in order to ensure that sufficient funds are available to provide for the complete protection of all

accrued pension benefits;

"(3) to take interim action as required in order to provide immediate protection of the accrued pension benefits of both active employees and retirees of

Stelpipe and Welland Pipe."

It's signed by hundreds. I've signed it as well.

PROPERTY TAXATION

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

"Whereas recreational trailers kept at parks and campgrounds in Ontario are being assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corp (MPAC) and are subject to

property taxes; and

"Whereas owners of these trailers are seasonal and occasional residents who contribute to the local tourism economy without requiring significant municipal

services; and

"Whereas the added burden of this taxation will make it impossible for many families of modest income to afford their holiday sites at parks and

campgrounds;

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

"That these seasonal trailers not be subject to retroactive taxation for the year 2003; and that the tax not be imposed in 2004; and that no such tax be

introduced without consultation with owners of the trailers and trailer parks, municipal governments, businesses, the tourism sector and other stakeholders."

There are nine petitions from various parts of Ontario, and I'll affix my name.

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm pleased to bring many more petitions to keep Muskoka as part of the north, and I shall read it

them.

"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 would 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.

I would also like to deliver the first 3,000 across the Premier on the other side of the Legislature.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have more petitions sent to me by Dr Gary Bovine in Welland.

"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;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

It's signed by thousands and by myself.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from a group of residents in the Meadowvale area of

Mississauga. It reads:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada,

raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and

managerial talent from practising the professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

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

have and wish to use;

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

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the other institutions and agencies of and within the

government of Ontario, undertake specific and proactive measures to work with the bodies regulating access to Ontario's professions, trades and other occupations in order that newcomers to Canada

gain fair, timely and cost-effective access to certification and other measures that facilitate the entry or re-entry of skilled workers and professionals trained outside Canada into the Canadian

workforce."

I'm pleased to sign this and to ask Jason to carry it down for me.

TAXATION

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to present a petition, one of literally thousands that have been put through my office, 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."

I'm pleased to add my name to this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition signed by people from Hallebourg, Hearst, Mattice and Constance Lake, and it reads as

follows:

"Whereas elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractors 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 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 sign that petition.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the so-called Tenant Protection Act of the defeated Harris-Eves Tories has allowed landlords to increase rents well above the rate of inflation for

new and old tenants alike;

"Whereas the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal created by this act regularly awards major and permanent additional rent increases to landlords to pay for

required one-time improvements and temporary increases in utility costs;

"Whereas the same act has given landlords wide-ranging powers to evict tenants;

"Whereas before last October's elections Premier McGuinty promised `real protection for tenants at all times';

"Whereas our own MPP ... called for a rent rollback...;

"We, the undersigned residents of Dovercourt Square Apartments in Toronto, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To immediately scrap all Tory guideline and above-guideline increases for 2004, as an elementary gesture of goodwill toward tenants, who voted massively

against the Tories in last year's election;

"To shut down the notoriously pro-landlord Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal; and -- "

Interjection.

Mr Ruprecht: I'm just reading this petition.

"To abrogate the Tory Tenant Protection Act and draw up new landlord-tenant legislation in consultation with tenants and housing rights campaigners."

Since I agree with the petition, I'm delighted to sign my name to it. I've signed my name, but remember, this is a petition. I'm not adding anything or taking

anything away.

The Speaker (Mr Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Mr Ruprecht: It's my duty as a representative to read this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 7, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 83,

An Act to implement Budget measures / Projet de loi 83,

Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures budgétaires.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Pursuant to the order of the House dated Thursday, June 10, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Sorbara has moved second reading of Bill 83,

An Act to implement Budget measures. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1534 to 1544.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise 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

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Speaker: All those against, please rise and be recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Yakabuski, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 27.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order dated June 10, the bill is ordered referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 9, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 86,

An Act to amend the Election Act, the Election Finances Act, the

Legislative Assembly Act and the Representation Act, 1996, to provide for provincial general elections at intervals of approximately four years, to govern the timing of writs, close of nominations

and polling day, to make modifications relating to the electoral readjustment process, and to make technical amendments / Projet de loi 86, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale, la

Loi sur le

financement des élections, la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative et la Loi de 1996 sur la représentation électorale en vue de prévoir la tenue des élections

générales provinciales à intervalles d'environ quatre ans, de régir le calendrier relatif à l'émission des décrets, à la clôture du dépôt des

déclarations de candidature et au jour du scrutin, et d'apporter des modifications au processus de révision électorale ainsi que des modifications de forme.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member from Toronto-Danforth will have questions and comments.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Oh, are there questions and comments?

The Speaker: There will be, I understand, further debate, and I think I am still with the member for Toronto-Danforth.

Ms Churley: The rats seem to be deserting the sinking ship here. Where did everybody go?

I don't think you heard what I said, Mr Speaker, or you probably would have called me on that, but I think it was quite appropriate.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Just take that back.

Ms Churley: Take it back that I said the rats are deserting the sinking ship? You want me to take that back? I won't take it back, because

that's what's happening.

I just noticed that a certain number of Liberals did not applaud your budget, I would say to the finance minister. Not everybody's happy. See, they're still

not applauding.

Applause.

Ms Churley: Some of them still aren't.

He's going to leave now. He can't take it. The chief rat is deserting the sinking ship now. I say that, of course, with great affection, because I was born in

the Chinese year of the rat.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is, of course, addressed to the member from Toronto-Danforth. If she turns

back she will see who is abandoning the ship right now.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order, but I just want to ask the member for Toronto-Danforth --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Toronto-Danforth, I presume you will now direct your comments to this.

Ms Churley: I will, Mr Speaker. I'd just like to say that I was born in the year of the rat, under the Chinese symbols, and I've personally

got nothing against rats, but they do desert sinking ships.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: I'm so wounded by the comments from the member for -- I forget his riding.

To the bill we're debating today: We're talking about democracy.

Interjection.

Ms Churley: High Park, that's right. No, Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: Davenport.

Ms Churley: Davenport. Whatever. You're distracting me here.

A good rule of thumb is, if something is not broken, don't fix it. In this case, the declining number of votes being cast by Ontarians signals that something

is very broken with our electoral process. That something is people's trust in the process. I believe that we do need to move with great urgency to repair and restore citizens' faith in the

provincial democracy. A number of parties and people across this land, across this province, have been saying that for some time.

The New Democratic Party, both in Ontario and the federal party, has spent a number of years with a citizens' committee from the New Democratic Party and

others involved. Others with expertise -- university professors and lay people who have done a lot of work in this area -- have come together over a number of years and come forward with possible

designs and models for some form of proportional representation in this province. I know that Jack Layton and the federal party under Lorne Nystrom have also been, for a number of years, working on

proportional representation. Equal Voice, the group with Rosemary Spiers, Doris Anderson -- our own Frances Lankin, is involved in that, as well as Janet Ecker. It is a non-partisan group that has

come together to try to make sure there are more women in Parliament.

There are a number of organizations and groups out there that have been working on these issues for a long time, so when the minister responsible for

democratic renewal stood up the other day and said he was moving forward on democratic renewal, I was expecting some kind of momentous announcement, that at last we're going to set up the process

for reviewing and ultimately bringing to a referendum some form of coming forward with some kind of proportional representation model that will suit today's democracy in this global economy, far

better than the archaic system we have now, which really doesn't work that well for people any more in this province. We've seen that by the decline in voter turnout in this province.

This broken trust is the sum of a whole bunch of factors, not just some of the logistical problems we can cite, and that I will cite, with the system we have

today. The Liberal Party, in this last election and now in this Legislature, has contributed greatly because of the broken election promises, because of a government that went out and made over 200

promises to the people of Ontario. They were told they could have all of those things with no increase in taxes. Indeed, the Premier, then the leader of the official opposition, stood and looked

straight in people's eyes on TV and signed a pledge saying that he would not raise taxes. It was a pledge, a solemn pledge to the people of Ontario. He promised those new programs and to restore

all the damage created by the previous government, and also that he wouldn't raise the deficit. Looking straight into people's eyes, he solemnly pledged this over and over again, while we, the New

Democrats, told the truth in the election. We knew, and we didn't pretend otherwise.

My leader, Howard Hampton, is sitting here beside me. I remember our talking about this, as well as proportional representation and ways to change the system,

preparing for the election and saying we'd like to go out there and say to people we can restore all the damage done by the Tory government after tax cuts to the richest in this province, over 30%

in tax reductions for the wealthy and for big corporations in this province -- with the result being a lack in faith in our democracy any more. People were promised under the Tories that they could

have everything -- the moon and the stars. There was so much waste in government that they could give all these tax breaks and it wouldn't hurt the vital programs to our people.

Then Walkerton happened. We saw all the other damage throughout every program. Every system in this province was hurt as a result of the Harris-Eves cuts, as a

result of the tax reductions for mainly rich people. We knew then that what Mike Harris was saying was not possible.

Before Walkerton happened, I stood up in this House, and it was cited. Mr Hampton was there with me when then-Premier Mike Harris was being questioned at the

Walkerton inquiry. He was told that there were five direct warnings given, that something like Walkerton could happen because of the downloading, the cuts and getting rid of the public water

testing labs. He cited two questions -- not one, but two separate questions -- I had asked in this House, one to him and one to a Minister of the Environment, that these things could happen as a

result.

There were other warnings by others, and nobody listened. We said then that what Mike Harris was saying couldn't be done, and we were right. Look at the damage

that was caused to our education system and to our health care system. The poor got poorer and the rich got richer, and we're in this mess today.

Then we had Mr McGuinty, the leader of the official opposition, who was desperate to get elected, desperate this time to get the Liberals elected because

they'd been up in the polls ever since 1990 and the election would come and they'd lose. So this time Mr McGuinty went too far. No wonder people are cynical about the democratic process.

We New Democrats knew, and many people out there who were paying any attending knew, that there was going to be at least a $5-billion deficit. I figured it

out, and I'm no economist -- I think my leader would say that's not necessarily one of my stronger points. Even I remember going to a press conference when then-Minister of Finance Ecker held a

rather desperate press conference to show -- because the word was out there by then -- that there was going to be a big deficit and tried to show that there would only be one or two billion, which

is what the Liberals went with eventually. Hidden in that, if you read the fine print and added up what were supposed to be asset sales, which weren't identified, and some other things -- it was

Charlie Campbell, who has now moved on but was then the director of research for the NDP, and I who pored through this. We went out and spoke to the press and said, "Well, she says there's only a

$2-billion deficit, but we can see, reading between the lines, that there's an over $5-billion deficit." If I could see that, anybody could see that.

I can tell you, the Liberals at the time had a much bigger research department than we did. Gerry Phillips, then the finance critic, was quoted a couple of

times. I have the quotes. He said, "There's a chance of a $5-billion risk." There was another time that he said essentially what I said. His quote was very similar to mi