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

May 18, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-May-18 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 18 May 2006 Jeudi 18 mai 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY

HEALTH PREMIUMS

FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY

HEALTH PREMIUMS

FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY

HEALTH PREMIUMS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POPULATION COUNTS

MIKE BRIDEAU

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

FRANKIE CHU

MEGAN'S WALK

FOOD SAFETY

WEST SCARBOROUGH

NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMUNITY CENTRE

SMOKING CESSATION

ROAD SAFETY

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (ONTARIO HOME ELECTRICITY RELIEF), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU (AIDE AU

TITRE DES FACTURES D'ÉLECTRICITÉ RÉSIDENTIELLE DE L'ONTARIO)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HEALTH CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS /

COMPÉTENCES DES IMMIGRANTS

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO /

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

HEALTH CARE

HEALTH CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

DEFERRED VOTES

CLEAN WATER ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'EAU SAINE

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD SAFETY

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

OF ONTARIO

GOVERNMENT WEBSITE

AIR QUALITY

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

EDUCATION FUNDING

WATER QUALITY

HEALTH PREMIUMS

AMBULANCE SERVICE

BORDER SECURITY

PROPERTY TAXATION

AMBULANCE SERVICE

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL

AND MARINE HOSPITAL

VISITOR

PETITIONS

AUTISM TREATMENT

RENT REGULATION

ORGAN DONATION

LONG-TERM CARE

CHILD CARE

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

IDENTITY THEFT

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

LONG-TERM CARE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITIES TRANSFER ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE TRANSFERT

DES VALEURS MOBILIÈRES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should continue to support the

increasing solvency and vitality of the farm mutual insurance industry as a key component of the economic and social fabric of rural Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): The Chair recognizes the member from Perth-Middlesex.

Mr. Wilkinson: It is with pride that I rise to debate the resolution I have placed before the Legislature today. We are here this morning to

discuss the farm mutual insurance industry. Many in Ontario would not instantly recognize farm mutuals as the rural bedrock that they are. I hope that my time here today, along with the words of my

colleagues, will shed some light on why we should celebrate this important aspect of rural Ontario through my private member's resolution. I'm most grateful that my caucus-mates the members for

Huron-Bruce, Peterborough and Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington have all agreed to join this debate this morning in support of my resolution.

Today I will speak to a number of different facets of the farm mutual insurance industry. I will touch on the history of Ontario's farm mutuals, as well as the

characteristics that make them uniquely self-sustaining. My colleagues will highlight their importance to both the economic and social fabric of rural Ontario, as well as their many notable

achievements.

First I'd like to share with the House a letter I received from my constituents Brian and Wendy Anderson. They are dairy farmers near Stratford in the former

South Easthope township.

"Just as we finished milking at 6:30 a.m. on Saturday, August 23, 2003, fire broke out in our three-year-old dairy barn. We lost the entire tie-stall barn, the

roof from our milking parlour and about 30 purebred Holstein cows. Even as the flames were still consuming the rubble, we received warnings to watch out for the insurance people -- dealing with

them would only add to our difficulties!

"We need not have worried. Our family has dealt with South Easthope Mutual Insurance Co. for generations for both business and personal insurance. Having just

expanded our business, we were well insured for both loss and business interruption.

"The fire department was still working when the first of the company directors arrived to offer their support. By the end of the morning, about half of the

directors had been to see us. On Monday morning, our agent brought the general manager of the company to meet us and to assure us that their goal was to get Athlone Farms up and running again as

soon as possible. One of the directors, also an adjuster, was assigned to our claim and we worked closely with Murray throughout the planning process for our new barn. All of our plans were

approved with very little discussion -- the company replaced everything that we had lost and we assumed the cost of any extras that we needed for the new facility. During the eight months that it

took for our cows to come home, we met monthly with our claim supervisor to go over our expenses for maintaining the herd and the invoices for the construction project. We were able to keep all of

our accounts current due to the efficient release of funds from the insurance company.

"At the time, our claim of well over $1 million was the largest on record for South Easthope Mutual Insurance Co. and we hope that is still the case! It was a

very difficult time in our lives and an experience that we would not want to wish on anyone. Dealing with our local insurance company, with people who understand agriculture and farmers' needs,

made that part of the re-building as pain-free as possible. If only South Easthope Mutual controlled the weather, the construction would have gone much faster!"

That letter says it all.

I am lucky to have a number of mutuals serving Perth-Middlesex. Middlesex Mutual, based in Ilderton, was formed in 1998 when two local mutuals merged to better

serve Middlesex residents: McGillivray Mutual, formed in 1876, and London Township Mutual, formed in 1882. Middlesex Mutual has served my communities for more than 246 combined years of service.

Tradition Mutual of Sebringville was founded by a merger in 2003. Blanshard Mutual and Downie Mutual combined their more than 100 years of service in 2003. Tradition Mutual serves 6,500

policyholders in Perth-Middlesex, writing $10.5 million in premiums and holding more than $20 million in assets. South Easthope Mutual, based just outside my riding's boundaries in Tavistock,

serves citizens in Perth-Middlesex, like the Andersons. Founded in 1871, South Easthope Mutual was founded by local farmers and businessmen in need of affordable fire insurance for their community.

These are just three of the 45 farm mutuals across Ontario.

Ontario's farm mutuals were fostered out of co-operation and community goodwill. Communities came together in the face of a mutual threat: fire. The prospect of

fire is devastating for a farmer as it can ruin not only their business but also their home. This was a significant concern in the 1800s, when families often cooked, ate and slept all in one room.

Lightning was a hazard, and without modern fire prevention technology it was invariably disastrous. In the 1800s it was nearly impossible to get insurance if you were a farmer. The insurance

companies were based in England, with offices in Quebec. Service was impractical and insurance was not affordable.

It was under this threat that communities banded together to form mutuals. In the spirit of co-operation and mutual dependence, citizens established non-profit

insurance companies that they themselves owned. That is the key: If you're a farm mutual policyholder, you're an owner. Everyone has a vote, and the board of directors is elected by

policyholders.

Farm mutuals were extremely popular because they reflected their communities. They were staffed, operated and directed by farmers themselves. Because the farmers

involved knew each other personally, they were able to underwrite easily. Community benefit was the motive, not profit.

Rural Ontario worked hard to make sure that farm mutuals had the foundations for longevity. Farmers petitioned governments to pass legislation to establish farm

mutuals, and in 1836, 170 years ago, their wish came true. Legislation enshrined the principles of mutual insurance protection. This act allowed the formation of one mutual fire insurance company

in each district -- the beginning of farm mutuals in Ontario.

Farm mutuals have been among Ontario's most successful businesses. The oldest remaining mutual in Ontario is Dumfries Mutual Insurance Co. Dumfries Mutual was

founded in 1856, 150 years ago, in the village of Roseville, and serves 7,500 policyholders in the Cambridge, Guelph and Hamilton areas today.

By the late 1880s, more than 70 mutual insurance companies were offering services in rural Ontario. This led to the founding of the first industry association,

the Mutual Fire Underwriters' Association of Ontario, to promote the interests of mutuals and to help coordinate the industry. Now known as the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association, they continue

to represent the interests of mutuals at Queen's Park and in the communities they serve.

Since that time, mutual insurance has grown enormously, evolving into a modern industry, yet still embodying the spirit of community, co-operation and trust.

Farm mutuals currently have almost 400,000 policyholders and offer a wide variety of insurance services.

Services today go beyond fire insurance; wind and other damage were added in the 1950s. The 1970s saw mutuals offer liability and auto insurance. Commercial

coverage was added in the 1980s.

Farm mutuals have consistently grown with the times, and changes to their mandate are necessary to ensure that the industry can adequately serve their

communities well into the future.

The 2006 budget announced our intention to amend the Insurance Act and to make changes to the Corporations Act by updating investment rules and corporate

governance provisions for Ontario-incorporated insurers, which include farm mutuals. Minister Duncan is responding to the request from farm mutuals for greater flexibility for investment rules,

consistent with those that apply to federally incorporated companies. Most Ontario insurers are now federally incorporated and therefore governed by federal rules of investments, which provide for

a prudent portfolio approach, giving companies flexibility in their investments and supporting strong corporate governance. The prudent portfolio approach to effective regulation is based on the

appropriateness of the entire investment and loan portfolio to the insurer and the management of conflict of interest in investment decisions.

I can tell you that our government is proposing to follow generally the approach taken in the federal act, with some modifications that would take into account

the smaller size of Ontario insurers, as other provinces have done.

Smart, effective regulation of Ontario-incorporated insurers ultimately strengthens the security of insurance benefits for policyholders while keeping costs down

by allowing insurers appropriate flexibility to manage their business affairs.

Farm mutuals have evolved and will continue to evolve. That's why I seek the support of this House regarding my resolution today. The farm mutual insurance

industry has been owned and operated by policyholders on a non-profit basis for some 170 years. Mutuals continue to employ countless residents in rural Ontario who provide non-profit,

community-based service. The mutuals remain intimately involved in their communities as sponsors and volunteers for local events, charities and service organizations. Farm mutuals are a

made-in-Ontario success story. That's why expanding the services they provide, as well as the support of this House today, will go a long way to ensure that farm mutuals remain central to their

communities for years to come. I support the farm mutual insurance industry and believe that it is why I ask all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak on a subject that's dear to my own heart and to those of the residents of my riding of

Perth-Middlesex. They have a tremendous impact on all of rural Ontario. I look forward to the comments of my colleagues on this resolution. I want to say to the Anderson family, thank you so much

for sharing your own personal story with all of our colleagues today. It gives us the best proof that we could ask for as to why we need to support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It's a pleasure to join my friend from Perth-Middlesex this morning, or to join others in

supporting the resolution of the member from Perth-Middlesex with regard to his support for the farm mutual insurance industry in the province of Ontario. It certainly is something that I can

wholeheartedly stand in support of. Mr. Wilkinson has gone through the history and the chronology of farm mutuals here in the province of Ontario, so it's not necessary that we go through all of

that again, but I certainly agree on the benefits it has accorded people in rural Ontario and rural communities.

When it comes right down to it -- and I do support the member. Sometimes we disagree on different things, but we certainly do recognize jointly and severally the

importance of rural Ontario here in this House and how much we must fight in order to ensure that rural Ontario, not only the farm mutual insurance industry in rural Ontario but rural Ontario

itself, remains viable.

I certainly appreciate the hospitality that has been shown to me through the farm mutuals, attending their conferences and breakfasts. I want to thank Gord

Huckabone again for taking me to those events and getting an insight into just how important a service they do provide to farmers and rural people in this province. As Mr. Wilkinson said, there are

nearly 400 policy holders in this province --

Mr. Wilkinson: Nearly 400,000.

Mr. Yakabuski: Did I say "400"? I'm sorry. Let me correct that record before we sit down. I appreciate it. Sometimes heckling is actually good,

you see? It's 400,000. Let me emphasize that: It's 400,000. A number of them serve people in my riding. There's not actually a brokerage established in my riding, but there are some surrounding:

Lanark Mutual Insurance Co. in Perth and the Lennox and Addington in Napanee serve people in my riding with regard to their insurance needs.

The insurance business, as we know, is changing. A lot of things are changing in the landscape of Ontario. I think it is fair to say that some of those bedrock

institutions require a certain amount of our support and encouragement to ensure that institutions that have served this province since before Confederation are allowed to continue and prosper in

this province.

This is one of those occasions when you may notice that my voice is more soothing in this House than at other times, because it's one of those occasions when, in

a completely non-partisan way -- and I am not a partisan person, as you know, but I certainly am one who feels it necessary to make significant points at times on behalf of the constituents we

serve and on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario. In the nature of government, you don't always agree. It is absolutely necessary and it is our responsibility to disagree. Not only is

it our privilege, but we are bound to do that when we feel we must. But in situations like this, it is so obvious and so clear that this is something that we can support without reservation. I'm

pleased that the member from Perth-Middlesex has seen fit to bring this to the attention of the House for us on this day for this particular debate. I certainly hope that I speak for all members of

my caucus when I say I'm going to stand here and rise in support of this bill when the vote comes later this morning or early afternoon because this is something I'm looking forward to.

However, there are, of course, other issues that we disagree on. I see that the government, under tremendous pressure from our side, has decided to inject some

sanity into the Minister of Health with regard to the tremendous, terrible draconian measures they were about to inflict on farmers' markets and church suppers in this province. I appreciate that

the government has made a positive move in that respect, but not without some very heavy pressure on the part of the members of this side, particularly my colleague from Leeds-Grenville, who comes

under a great deal of criticism on this side of the House from the members opposite but who carries himself with tremendous comportment. His work and his fight for rural people never go unnoticed

on my part and theirs.

I'm just about out of time here, because there are people who want to speak on this side as well. But I do want to say "congratulations" to the member for

Perth-Middlesex. Well done. We'll be there at 12 o'clock.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I'm very pleased to rise today to not only speak to this motion but to support this motion brought forward by

the good member from Perth-Middlesex. Farm mutual insurance companies provide a vital service in the riding that I have the honour and privilege to represent. They are part of the economic

diversity and prosperity of rural Ontario. There are 45 farm mutual insurance companies across Ontario, and seven are located in the riding of Huron-Bruce. I want to take this opportunity to speak

about all seven that are located in the riding.

The first is Trillium Mutual, which is located in Formosa and Elma. It's the second-largest farm mutual in Ontario. Formosa Mutual and Elma Mutual combined in

2004, and together they have over 200 years of service.

Howick Mutual, which is located in Wroxeter, was founded in 1883 as a result of a public meeting that was held in the home of a local resident. The first annual

report was written in 1873, and it indicated that $114.72 in premiums had been written and no claims were incurred. They offered scholarships to six local students annually, and they sponsored the

Wingham Town Hall Heritage Theatre.

The next, Culross Mutual, is located in Teeswater, and they have total assets in excess of $2.2 million. They were founded in 1872 and they built their first

office building in 1992. That was after starting a fund in 1983.

The next, West Wawanosh, is located in Dungannon. They were founded in 1879, and they write approximately 3,000 farms. They are among the top 10 Ontario mutuals

in premiums written.

Lastly, I have McKillop Mutual, which is located in Seaforth. It was founded in 1876, and it serves not only Huron county but Perth as well. There are

approximately 500 policyholders. They manage more than $16 million in assets.

That is the list of seven, and it is a very strong indication of how important the mutuals are to all of rural Ontario.

As you can see, all the mutual insurance companies in my riding clearly demonstrate the commitment and the dedication to rural Ontario, and they have been doing

it for well over 100 years. It also demonstrates their continuous support of local organizations, fall fairs, festivals and plowing matches, and that's just to name a few. You can't go to an event

in my riding where you don't see the logos. They are so strong in our communities.

All company directors -- I believe this is one of the strengths they bring forward -- are policyholders, and they're elected by policyholders, which ensures

local input. These policyholders live in the communities, so they understand the local issues and concerns. Therefore, their services are customized to their communities.

I, along with the member from Essex, as part of the rural caucus, had the opportunity to work with the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association to strengthen it. As

a result, the 2006 provincial budget announced the government's intention to amend the Insurance Act and make changes to the Corporations Act by updating investment rules. This came from a request

from farm mutuals for greater flexibility in investment rules. We worked on their behalf -- the rural caucus remains strong -- because we felt that these companies needed that in order to remain

strong.

Another unique service the mutual insurance companies offer is called Mutual Protect. They have joined services with the Ontario Provincial Police, and it's a

simple, reliable way to have your valuables permanently linked to your licence plate by engraving your licence plate number on a sticker and placing that on your valuables. That's how they have

worked with the OPP to track all our valuables.

As a member representing rural Ontario, I fully support this resolution. Farm mutuals are a vital part of our rural communities, and I know they will be for

years to come. I just want to say thank you to the mutuals for inviting me to their annual meeting in Toronto. It once again gives us the opportunity to have further discussions and to ensure that

they continue to be a vital part of our communities.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): It's a pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of the resolution "that, in the opinion of this

House, the government of Ontario should continue to support the increasing solvency and vitality of the farm mutual insurance industry," given the fact that with nearly 400,000 policyholders, this

industry, owned by rural Ontarians for rural Ontario, is "a key component of the economic and social fabric of rural Ontario," brought forward by my colleague from Perth-Middlesex.

Certainly in my area, in the riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, we have enjoyed the service of Farmers' Mutual since 1895, so it was soon after it was first

created in 1856. It was to provide insurance to farmers in Victoria county who couldn't find companies to insure them. The only insurance products offered by them back then were fire and lightning

policies to insure farm buildings, chattels and livestock. In the first year of business, they wrote policies for 197 policyholders and collected slightly over $1,200 in premiums.

Today's Farmers' Mutual in Lindsay is the largest farm mutual insurance company in Ontario, and it offers a complete range of insurance products, including

residential, automobile, commercial, farm and watercraft. They employ 75 full-time employees. Last year I was at the grand opening of their new building, a state-of-the-art building, which I

encourage everyone to visit. It's just on Angeline Street, towards Highway 7.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's a beautiful building.

Ms. Scott: It is a beautiful building, my colleague from Peterborough mentions, and it's located right beside the new Lindsay agricultural

fairgrounds that are going to open in the next year. It's a great location and a great tie-in to the community and the services they provide in rural Ontario.

I myself have my insurance with Farmers' Mutual. I try not to use it too much. Occasionally, I do deer hunt with my car, but it's just the nature of the area we

live in and the number of deer there -- not that we're advertising for that.

They have done a great job. They're wonderful community members. It has been mentioned before that they sponsor and support community team projects. I've been

able to go to the big Farmers' Mutual banquet they have each year in Toronto. You just cannot meet a finer group of individuals than you meet at these dinners.

Mr. Leal: Salt of the earth.

Ms. Scott: They are the salt of the earth. The tie-in to the agricultural community is there. They consider families, communities. They are the

epitome of rural Ontario and a great example of what caring about your neighbour is for. That is a lot of their history and why they were formed: strength in unity, neighbour helping neighbour. The

mutuals evolved through the decades to be up to date, to offer people the best insurance, the best coverage they could realize.

They're community-owned and owned by policyholders, and that makes a difference. I know that whenever I meet them in the communities, they are always adaptable

to what goes on in each community. They're not the cookie-cutter approach. They adjust to what's needed in the communities. In this day and age, when you can have that type of service, it's to be

valued. They come to our houses, our farms and take in everyone's situation individually. They are an important aspect of rural Ontario. They're important, with their dedication and their

commitment.

I wholly support this resolution brought forward by the member from Perth-Middlesex. Anything we can do to continue to support the farm mutual insurance industry

so they can remain viable is what we in the Legislature should do.

I know that I need to share my time with another colleague who wants to support this bill. Thank you very much.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I am probably going to be the only speaker today who is a city boy, who has lived his whole life in the

city. In fact, in my entire life I have never been on a farm. But I am going to live on a farm this year for part of my vacation. I have determined that it is important that I get to understand a

farmer's life, waking up in the morning and finding out what this is all about, so I will be spending at least one week on a farm near Creemore, Ontario. I hope to report to all of you how --

Interjection.

Mr. Prue: This is in Ontario, not Quebec. I make sure that when I learn something, I learn it in this province.

I'm going to go there, and I hope to report back to you when the House resumes in September or October what I have learned about life as a farmer, although in

one week I don't think I will be one of the world's great experts. But I do think it's important that city people try to understand the farming community, farmers and the very many difficulties

they're having.

When I looked at the bill, I thought, "Of course we're going to support it," and of course in the end I'm going to support it. But I wonder why, with all

respect, it is here. It's not a bill; it's a resolution.

The resolution says that "the government of Ontario should continue to support the increasing solvency and vitality of the farm mutual insurance industry," given

the fact that it has all the policyholders and is "a key component of the economic and social fabric of rural Ontario." It never crossed my mind for even a moment that this policy of supporting the

farm mutual insurance industry in Ontario was at risk, that anyone was thinking even for a moment of not supporting an institution that has done so much good for so many in this province. Maybe the

mover of the resolution, when he wraps up, can explain why he thinks it's necessary to reiterate that support. Is it somehow under risk? Is somebody trying to do away with it? Are other insurance

agencies perhaps trying to become interlopers? Are they trying to move in on this field and take over from the farmers' own self-regulated and self-owned insurance industry? Maybe that's happening

and I, as a city boy, just don't understand.

I do understand, though, the whole concept of co-ops, because co-ops are not just those on the farms; co-ops exist in many forms, in terms of factories,

banking institutions, farms and farm products right across the width and breadth of the province of Ontario. In fact, I had an opportunity over the last two years to work with the co-op movement

because they're trying to re-energize themselves, to give government a better understanding of what they do and perhaps to change legislation relating to co-ops in Ontario. I was the New Democratic

Party representative in that ongoing discussion. There were members from the Conservative party, of course, and Liberals, but I was the New Democrat who was there and I attended most of their

meetings. The co-op movement, I'm glad to say, is alive and well. They exist to benefit society as a whole and the greater good of the people who live in this province. They also return all the

profits they make back to the shareholders. In some cases, those shareholders are very needy people indeed.

So I support the motion because this is, in part, part of that very co-operative movement that has existed in the province for many, many years. But I have to

ask -- and I guess this is where the debate might become a little partisan for a moment -- what would be the sense of protecting this vital and wonderful industry if there are no farmers left to

use it? In the last few years in this Legislature there have been a great many questions asked and very few answers coming about farmers and the farming community in general. I have to tell you

that it's been a bit of an eye-opener to me. As I said, as I started out in the preface to my remarks, I've never been on a farm, but many farmers come see me in my role as MPP and talk about the

difficulty they are having that continues to exist in this province.

The tobacco farmers came maybe two weeks ago to see me with tears in their eyes. They know that their day is done. They know that the tobacco industry in

Ontario is not going to survive. They know that the monies they have spent, the millions of dollars they have put in tobacco harvesting equipment and the flues and the cures and all the things that

are on the farms today, probably are all for naught. Society has made the decision that tobacco is going to be phased out. I put my hand up to phase out tobacco because I know that it is a

carcinogen. I know that society has changed its attitude towards the smoking of tobacco in public places. I'm hoping that before I die, and I hope that's a long time from now, tobacco will be a

thing that used to happen, just like spittoons used to be on the floor for chewing tobacco. You don't see that anymore. I'm hoping you won't see the lighting up of cigarettes anymore as well.

But the tobacco farmers know that, and what they're looking for is not unreasonable. They're looking for fair and just compensation. They're looking for the

government to do something for them, to assist them in getting into another line of work and perhaps getting out of farming altogether. As one farmer explained to me, again with tears in his eyes,

his land on sandy soil is probably not good for a great range of anything -- not vegetable farming or anything. Before that it was forested land, and he suggests that perhaps he should go into the

tree business because that might be the only thing that is growable there. I don't know what kind of a market there is for the sale of trees, save and except those that you pot and transplant.

I also have to ask the whole question about the longstanding farmers and the number who appear to be on the brink of bankruptcy. They have come to see me. They

have asked why the government doesn't have a risk management program, exactly like what the member from Perth-Middlesex is talking about today. Farm mutual insurance is a program developed by

farmers for farmers. What they are asking is, why hasn't the government developed a plan that mirrors that, which will help farmers to keep themselves and their families firmly in the realm where

they have lived, many times for generations?

There are many farm crises out there. We have to ask the question, in support of the farmers who ultimately will use the service of the farm mutual insurance

industry: What needs to be done first? The Manitoba government has shown some considerable leadership. They've decided that they will help their grain farmers survive the punishing US subsidies. We

haven't done that here in Ontario; we haven't done anything of the sort. In fact, for those who grow corn -- and we're talking about all the wonders of ethanol these days -- we have no protection

in Ontario that we will use home-grown corn in our ethanol. In fact, farmers in their fields full of corn watch the US corn coming in by truckloads across the border to go to the brand new ethanol

plants, and they wonder why. It is becoming extremely difficult for them to continue in the face of that giant behemoth to the south, that giant country which subsidizes its farmers and makes it

almost impossible for them to compete.

It's not just Manitoba that is doing something; Quebec is doing something. Quebec has a whole farm insurance program, a whole farm subsidy program for its

farmers. Alberta has subsidy programs for their farmers. Ontario does not. I've heard what the minister and the Premier have to say about this, and it seems that the focus always goes to blaming

the federal government for not doing enough. With the greatest of respect, agriculture is one of only two jurisdictions that are shared under the former British North America Act, which is still

extant because it sets out the roles and privileges of the provinces and the roles and privileges of the federal government. There are only two shared jurisdictions. One jurisdiction is

agriculture, in which each can do its own thing, both the province and the federal government. They can do it mutually; they can do it apart; they can do it severally; they can do it. The only

other one is immigration, and this government and previous governments in this Legislature took a long time getting into the immigration field. It took a very long time before we were doing what we

should have done 20, 30 or 50 years ago and certainly what other provinces, most notably Quebec, have done in that field.

We need to understand that we have an obligation to those farmers. We have an obligation to the people who are still on the land, to the dwindling numbers of

families who make their living on the land. We in cities, people like me, know where the food comes from. I don't grow my own. I wouldn't know how to grow my own. I know how to go to the

supermarket and I know whence that food comes. Whether it be Ontario or elsewhere in Canada or the United States, or Chilean apples, we know that a farmer somewhere has done the right thing.

Farmers have grown the crops and produced the food, and we need to protect them.

But in Ontario we need to protect more than that. Although times are good and there are no problems in importing products from South Africa, Chile, Argentina

or Israel -- and I can see products from all over the world on the supermarket shelves -- we need to know that there is food security and that our farmers are capable of producing adequate food

supplies should anything happen to us, to our country or to our province. Should it sometime be difficult for us to gain food access from other countries, we need to know that we can produce our

own. We need to make sure as a form of national security. I don't want to overblow this, but it is a form of national security that, in the end, we can produce our own food and we can make sure

that our own food is safe and can be consumed by us in times of national emergency.

Farmers need something from this Legislature. Farmers need a long-term commitment in order that they can put the crops in the ground and produce and make us

safe. The question has been asked, and some people have talked about why there are lower and lower numbers of families willing to work on the farm. The question is a financial one, quite bluntly.

There are not a lot of profits to be made by most farmers today. They stay on the land because it is theirs, because it is their way of life and because they love it. But all too often, their

children are reluctant to stay. All too often, the children move away to the cities, to the factories, to the lure of bright jobs, to technology, to whatever people want to do. I don't blame them,

because that is what they want to do with their lives.

Increasingly, it has become difficult for farmers to maintain their land. Is it because they're not efficient? I don't think so. Is it because the land is not

good? I don't think so either, because we in Ontario have some of the most fertile and wonderful farmland in the entire world. The problem is that we don't do enough in this Legislature for our

farmers, we don't do enough to help them, and we certainly have not listened long and hard enough to them.

I've talked about the tobacco farmers. I've talked about the grains and oilseeds farmers who have been here. There was also a dairy farmer who camped out in

his car in front of this Legislature for nearly a month. He was fighting, I think, for his livelihood, for himself, for his industry. His name was Stephen Webster, and he lived there for a month.

In the end, all that happened to Stephen Webster was that he finally had to give up, and he went home and back to his cows and back to his life. I'm sure he is a very frustrated man, because he

came here looking for help and he went home with absolutely nothing.

I believe that the McGuinty government, through this resolution, has to get very serious and implement a risk management program. Grains and oilseeds farmers,

dairy heifer producers and tobacco farmers all need farm mutual insurance, but first they need to be protected against the unfair subsidies of American farmers. They need to be protected by this

government because, in the end, if we don't protect them, they will not be the users of the institution we're trying to save today.

Mr. Leal: It's a delight for me to have the opportunity to speak to this resolution this morning. We know that farm mutuals provide wonderful

service and indeed are part of the framework for rural Ontario. I want to thank the member from Perth-Middlesex this morning for bringing this resolution forward from his riding, one of the great

centres in Ontario for hog and dairy production. I know the member is certainly in touch daily with the individuals in the rural community in his riding.

I think one of the reasons this resolution is here this morning is that it really highlights one of the great success stories in Ontario: the work of farm

mutuals. If you don't take the time every once in a while to profile some of the success stories in this province -- indeed, for people who are tuning in here today, this is an opportunity to hear

not only the history of farm mutuals in Ontario, but the success that they have providing insurance for some 400,000 policyholders in the province.

A little bit of history: During a period of time, from 1919 to 1923, under the Premiership of Mr. Drury, the United Farmers of Ontario were in power in this

province. During that particular time, one of the key policy initiatives for that government, the United Farmers, was to expand the farm mutuals in the province, actively nurturing that business

throughout rural Ontario. At a time when Ontario was still basically a rural province where most of the individuals were living during that period of time, bringing people together through farm

mutuals made a great deal of sense.

In my particular area of Ontario we have two farm mutual operations. We have the Farmers' Mutual of Lindsay, Ontario, which was founded in 1895. Today, they

have assets in excess of $152 million and investments of $101 million. The other one that's in my area is the Hamilton Township Mutual, headquartered in Coburg, Ontario, in the riding of my friend

Mr. Rinaldi, the member for Northumberland. One of the active directors for the Hamilton Township Mutual was an individual who had a very distinguished career as a member of the Ontario

Legislature: Mr. Howard Sheppard. Many people would know Mr. Sheppard. He was a real advocate for the farm community. Indeed, since his career as an MPP for the riding of Northumberland closed, Mr.

Sheppard has devoted a lot of time to the Hamilton Township Mutual board of directors.

One of the great things about farm mutuals is that they're operated by their members themselves. Their directors are elected from their policyholders. There

are no stockholders, and any surplus either remains in the company surplus account or may be refunded to the policyholders at the discretion of the policy directors.

Since they're owned and operated by policyholders, the services of farm mutuals are customized for their communities. I think that's a very important point, an

opportunity for people to get the kind of insurance that they need. I know that in the city of Peterborough there are many individuals who have policies through the operation in Lindsay, Ontario,

and, indeed, the operation in Coburg.

In 1998, there was the famous ice storm that hit eastern Ontario and through into Quebec. After that ice storm in 1998, the eastern Ontario farm mutuals paid

more than $11 million to their policyholders. I'm told, of all the insurance companies, it was the farm mutuals that reacted the quickest to help out their farmers.

It's indeed a very important resolution here today, and we all need to support it.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm pleased to stand in the House today in support of the private member's resolution from the member for

Perth-Middlesex, that the government should continue to support the increasing solvency and vitality of the farm mutual insurance. Again, I commend him for bringing forward this resolution. I have

the offices of three different farm mutual companies in my riding: the Oxford Mutual, the South Easthope Mutual and the Blenheim Mutual. I say "the offices of three," but we have many more farm

mutuals that look after the needs of the farmers in Oxford county, and I want to commend them all for their work.

On June 3, 2003, I had the opportunity to attend the 125th anniversary of the Oxford Mutual Insurance Company. Imagine, they had been around 125 years -- 128

years now. In the celebration, they had a part of the program where they gave out grants to community organizations who were in need of funding to help build a strong rural community in Oxford

county, and we want to thank them for doing that.

The other thing I wanted to say -- and I'm sure members of the Legislature and members of the public have seen the ad on television where we have a father and

son getting into the car because they're going out to get together with their neighbours to set up a farm mutual insurance company. The little boy says to the father as they're driving away, "Dad,

does this mean we won't be farmers anymore?" And the father says -- and I've paraphrased it a little -- "No. This will mean that all the community will help us to remain farmers, because we will

work collectively to make that happen." I think that really explains the principle of the farm mutual.

The problem I have with the resolution is the terminology "the government will continue to work for the farm mutual insurance companies." What has been

happening since this government was elected -- and again, this isn't negative to the resolution before us -- is that the people in rural Ontario have been having real concerns as to whether the

government really is working with them to build strong rural communities.

I will just quickly go through some of that. In the May 2004 budget, this government removed $128 million from the agriculture, food and rural affairs budget.

That would not indicate to me that they are looking to help build a strong rural community, because the support is diminishing. As was mentioned by the member from East York, the best way to

protect and help the farm mutual companies is to help and protect the farmers in Ontario, who are the policyholders and indeed own the company. Of course, by cutting the budget, that doesn't do

that. Incidentally, in that year, that was the largest cut of any ministry in the provincial budget.

Again, in the 2005 budget, the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs was cut by 23.1%. It's written right in the budget: "We are proud

of the fact we were able to find ministries where we could find savings. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will be cut by 23.1%." And here we go again, in the budget of 2006: one

more time, no help for rural Ontario. Again I say, if we helped rural Ontario, we would indeed help the farmers.

If you don't believe me, it was written in the Sudbury Star on March 27, 2006, right after the budget: "If there was ever a budget that made it more clear

where a government's priorities lie, we have yet to see it. This is pandering to the urban majority and virtually ignoring the breadbasket of the province. It is an insult, a slap in the face for

small-town Ontario." I think that sums it up. I know the members on the government side would suggest that that isn't what happened, but that indeed is the view of the people in Sudbury who wrote

that

article in the paper, that this government was not standing up for rural Ontario but was letting it go by the wayside.

Very quickly, I just want to mention -- and I have spoken to the minister about this before. As we look at the infrastructure in rural Ontario, we presently

have a real problem with the viability of the farm co-ops, which are having great difficulty because of insurance and pension liabilities that were created through the sale of one of the largest

co-ops in the province, and now all the smaller ones are being held liable for that. In fact this spring, many of them are having trouble paying for their inputs, and they can't get inputs unless

they come up with the money first. I'm hoping the minister will be looking at that and keeping one of those rural entities alive and flourishing in rural Ontario.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'm delighted to have an opportunity to speak to the private member's

bill that has been introduced by the member for Perth-Middlesex, who himself is a great advocate for his constituents and particularly for rural Ontario and farmers.

I have to say that before I address my remarks to the resolution on the floor, it's important that I correct the record. It's really quite surprising that

members of the opposition and the third party don't understand the budget, particularly that the former minister wouldn't realize that our government in fact increased the budget at the Ministry of

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Given the very serious circumstances that farmers have found themselves in over the course of the last year, we committed $125 million in extraordinary support;

new money that was not in my budget. We committed 125 million new dollars, we increased the budget at the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and both the opposition and the third

party voted against that. So I think it's very clear in this Legislature who is really working for farmers.

I do want to talk about farm mutuals and how important they are in rural Ontario, in the many communities that benefit from the services they provide. The

resolution before us speaks to the fact that we would support increasing solvency and vitality of farm mutuals. I think it's important that we understand that when farm mutuals increase their

solvency and vitality, that's returned to the community; that's returned to farmers. This is an industry that is owned and operated by farmers -- 100% Canadian. It commits their surpluses to a

fund. This fund guarantees that, should a farm mutual become insolvent, 100% of the claims in that farm mutual will be covered by this fund. They're looking out for each other.

I want to talk a bit about an individual from my riding who was very key to introducing this provision. A driving force behind the guarantee fund was Bruce

Caughey, who is a dairy farmer from Amherst Island. For more than half a century, Mr. Caughey was a director of the Amherst Island Mutual Fire Insurance Co. I just want to explain a little bit

about what that kind of commitment would mean. Mr. Caughey lived on Amherst Island. Amherst Island is serviced by a ferry. Ferry service stopped at 6 o'clock at night. So when Mr. Caughey was out

working on behalf of his community, for the good of farm mutuals and their costumers, his road closed at 6 o'clock and it meant that he had to go home either on the ice or he had to arrange his own

boat transportation back and forth after hours. That demonstrates the commitment of these early folks who were involved in farm mutuals.

The member from Oxford talked about the commercial that runs on television. I have to tell you, the nature of that individual is very much in keeping with the

people who I know in my riding are connected with farm mutuals.

According to Farm and Country magazine, not only did Mr. Caughey receive little remuneration for countless hours of community service; he did it on days when

he had to deal with this challenge of transportation. But he was rewarded in a manner of speaking in that he was inducted into the Ontario Agricultural Hall of Fame in 1999.

There are other good folks in my riding who work so very hard on behalf of the people who are part of the farm mutual industry. Rick Walters from Napanee is

always very good to ensure that I get my invitation every year to their annual luncheon. He wants me to sit down and break bread with them and understand the circumstances of their industry every

year. I see Rick in our community. As was already indicated, they provide much support within our community. Also, Don Martin from Tweed, a good friend of mine: His family hosted the Hastings

county plowing match last year. These are people who reflect what it is that we do in rural Ontario, and that is, contribute and work hard for our neighbours, for the benefit of our community. I

can't think of any better group than farm mutuals to demonstrate this ethic.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Perth-Middlesex has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Wilkinson: I'd like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the members' gallery. I want to welcome five representatives of the farm

mutual industry who have joined us here this morning: Joe Facey, Joan Schmidt, Bill Horvath, Don Brubacher and Lawrence Diamond. Here they are right here. I'd like to say, welcome to urban Ontario

and gridlock.

I want to commend my colleagues for speaking in support of the resolution today: the members for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Huron-Bruce,

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Beaches-East York, Peterborough, Oxford, and of course our own minister of rural affairs, the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.

I also would like to close by thanking my legislative intern, Mark Peverini, who I know has been with the member from Timmins-James Bay for half of his term,

and now he is with me. The member from Timmins and I both agree that Mark is a wonderful intern. He had a lot to do with preparing the remarks today for all members, and I want to thank Mark.

I want to close by having members recall what it is that Brian and Wendy Anderson told me in the letter that I shared with the House. What they were able to do

was to clearly state how very, very important it is that there is a farm mutual industry in this province. It is a wonderful part of our economic and social life in rural Ontario, but when times

are tough, when there's a fire, it's your neighbours coming to help you. Despite the massive amount of damage and the wonderful experience they had, as someone who comes from the insurance industry

-- insurance does not take away the pain, but it takes away the insult. That is what the farm mutuals do right across rural Ontario at their core: neighbours looking after neighbours and sharing a

risk. I would ask all of the members to support my resolution at noon today.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): I'd like to move the following: That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should

immediately eliminate the illegitimate health tax, beginning with serving military personnel and senior citizens.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): The member has moved ballot item number 38. The Chair recognizes the member.

Ms. MacLeod: It's my pleasure today to introduce and debate my first private member's resolution. I hope to receive cross-partisan support

today, because this is the right thing to do for our seniors and our soldiers. This is a promise I made to my constituents in Nepean-Carleton during the recent by-election. I believe it is

motherhood and apple pie.

Today is a sober day of thought for all of us in Canada when we think of our men and women in the armed forces. Yesterday, Canada lost its first-ever female to

a combat battle death. Nichola Goddard was only 26, and my thoughts and prayers are with her family. I want to reflect on her sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our soldiers during this dialogue

today.

There are over 30,000 serving military personnel living in Ontario. They are Brian Nelson of Nepean, they are Shawn Hoopey of Ottawa and they are Adele

Donaldson of Barrhaven. As someone who has the fortune of sharing a riding with the federal Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Gordon O'Connor -- the general, as we sometimes like to call

him -- I can tell you that the military is in our hearts and minds in Nepean-Carleton, as I am sure it is with every constituency across this province. In Nepean-Carleton, home to many soldiers of

the Canadian Armed Forces, I see many soldiers who make daily sacrifices for us. We know they are put in harm's way, especially now, while they serve in Afghanistan to protect us.

That brings me back to my resolution. I don't believe that anybody who protects this country or who built this province should pay the health tax. In a few

short weeks I have been able to accumulate thousands of signatures from across Ontario on a petition calling on the government of Ontario to immediately eliminate the province's illegitimate health

tax, beginning with seniors and serving military personnel.

There is widespread support from across Ontario for this resolution. I have received encouragement from the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Gordon

O'Connor. I have received support from Senator Michael Forrestall, the Vice-Chair of the Senate standing committee on national defence and security. I've received support from literally thousands

of Ontarians, including veterans like retired Captain Bill Donaldson and retired Lieutenant Colonel Graham Baskerville, and I hope to count on the support of my colleagues in this Legislature

today.

I know that eliminating the health tax for soldiers has been raised before in this Legislature. The leader of the official opposition, John Tory, does not feel

it is appropriate to charge the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces this health tax, especially since they do not use the health care system in Ontario. I am also proud that John Tory has

made the commitment to phase out the health tax for everyone once he becomes Premier. My colleague the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, who has a large military base in his riding of

Petawawa, has stood up for our soldiers and has demanded that this health tax be eliminated for them as well. I'm very pleased he will be joining us in this debate today.

Other provinces, such as Alberta and British Columbia, have exempted military personnel from health care levies and taxes because their health care costs are

covered by the federal government. I think we ought to do the same in this Legislature. I think it is imprudent to make our military men and women pay more and get nothing, absolutely nothing, in

return.

I also think we must protect our seniors who are on fixed incomes. According to the ministry's website, 52% of seniors who file taxes are paying this health

tax. I don't have to tell you that many Ontario seniors are living on fixed incomes. For many of these seniors, rising costs such as property taxes eat into their fixed incomes.

A report from the Ontario Health Quality Council says that low-income people are the ones not getting health care, yet they are paying a greater percentage of

their income toward the health tax. This scares me. It means that seniors who are on a fixed income and coping with increased costs -- higher fuel costs, mounting property tax increases and

delisted medical services -- are arguably paying a greater percentage of their income to this tax.

To add insult to injury, the Ontario home property tax relief for seniors, which ensured that every eligible senior homeowner or renter would receive an

average property tax rebate of $475 -- for up to one million senior households -- was rolled back by the McGuinty government when it assumed office. Now Ontario seniors have been twice bitten --

once by a rollback of $475 and now with this new tax, taking at least $450 out of their fixed income.

I think we ought to do something about this. We must respect those people who have built this province. Thousands across this province agree. Vera Collier from

Nepean, a woman who has worked tirelessly for seniors in my community, has added her voice to call for the elimination of this tax for seniors on fixed incomes; so have Helen Byers and Shirley

Mahoney, both volunteers with Nepean Seniors' Home Support. They agree that approximately 1.6 million people over the age of 65 who are paying this tax should see some relief.

If this resolution is successful, we could be responsible, together, for giving close to $390 million, in my humble estimation, back to Ontario's seniors and

soldiers. This, of course, is a little more than the $200 million of health tax funds allocated to the Ministry of the Environment, not to our hospitals, in 2004, and substantially less than the $3

billion in unbudgeted revenue in the 2006 budget. Our seniors and soldiers deserve this relief.

I will expect today normal pushback from opponents of my philosophy. They will ask what I am going to cut. They will say, "This is a tax that applies to every

citizen equally," and they will use an example, I'm sure, of a wealthy senior -- one of the few -- to try to make their point for this tax grab. My response to all of the above will be that

according to the recent Liberal budget there was $3 billion in unbudgeted revenue that could have helped us give back to our seniors and soldiers, those people who have built Ontario and who

protect Canada. I will say, on the point of equity, I think it is unfair, unjust and inequitable that those in the military must pay this tax yet they receive nothing for it because their health

care is provided for by the federal government. I will say too that most seniors I know live on modest means, especially as they grow older. With fixed incomes and increasing taxes, fees and costs,

the extra costs of delisted health care services and this health care tax, it's making it more difficult for seniors to make ends meet.

Before I conclude, I'd like to touch briefly on the health tax, and I'm sure my colleague the member from Erie-Lincoln, the PC finance critic, will have more

to add when he joins the discussion. But we must remember that this is a tax. Even the finance minister is now referring to it as a tax, or at least he did on Wednesday, April 5, even though we

were promised during the 2003 election that there would be no new tax increases. Yet that promise was somehow forgotten, and now this government will have collected a total of $4.1 billion since

the inception of this tax to the end of fiscal 2005-06, and they are forecasting $2.6 billion in health tax revenue for next year. The chart in the expenditure estimates document reveals that this

government plans to collect a staggering 8% more from the health tax in 2006-07 than in the current fiscal year. Let's compare this 8% increase with a few other tax revenues: Income tax revenues

are expected to go up by 3%; sales tax revenues are expected to go up by 4%; the employer health tax -- yes, that's another health tax -- is expected to go up 2.6%; and sales tax revenues, at 4%,

are the next-highest increase to this health tax.

According to these numbers, I think we can, with good, clear conscience, do the right thing in this Legislature today and salute our soldiers and our seniors

by eliminating this tax for seniors and serving military personnel and putting $390 million back into their pockets, not into general revenues.

I urge all colleagues today to support this resolution for the good of our seniors and for the good of our soldiers because, as I have said, this is the right

thing to do. It is motherhood and apple pie, and it can be done.

I look forward to debate and will be happy to respond to any questions or comments.

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I'm pleased to stand today in the House and speak to this resolution brought by the member for

Nepean-Carleton.

The resolution reads, "That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately eliminate the illegitimate health tax, beginning with

serving military personnel and senior citizens." This isn't a resolution about our respect for the military. Of course, every member of this House has the utmost respect for our men and women

serving the country. I have a military base in my riding, and those constituents of my riding are of the utmost importance to me.

What I want to speak to today is the fact that this member is proposing we phase out the health premium and, in that, we bring back the Mike Harris days. As

those of you in the House will remember, when we came into government, we inherited a number of deficits, including an infrastructure deficit, a health care deficit, an education deficit, and of

course a whopping $6.4-billion financial deficit.

I would like to know what the member for Nepean-Carleton and her leader, Mr. John Tory, would like to cut when we cut $2.4 billion out of health care. Would

you like to cut the wait-time strategy where we've had such success and seen our wait times reduced across the province? Would you like to cut our investment in hospitals?

Interjection.

Ms. Smith: I know the people in North Bay are looking forward to the groundbreaking on our new North Bay hospital, which we've been waiting

for for years and for which, I might add to the member for Erie-Lincoln, we've had a poster in our hospital showing a finishing date of 2005 with former Premier Mike Harris in that photo announcing

the hospital. Unfortunately, the former Premier never came up with the money for the hospital. So if you were to cut the two --

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): You delayed it.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Member from Erie-Lincoln, the member from Nipissing was very respectful to Ms. MacLeod when she was

speaking. Can you pay her the same courtesy?

Ms. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just remind the members opposite that the hospital in North Bay did not go forward under Mike

Harris because the money wasn't there. If we're to cut $2.4 billion out of our health care spending, where will the money come from?

Our family health teams, an initiative our government has introduced, are seeing many more patients having family docs in our various communities. This is an

important initiative in North Bay. We have one of the first family health teams in the province. We are seeing more of our residents having a family doctor. These family doctors are able to provide

more care to more people, including our seniors. They are able to spend more time with our seniors, and that's incredibly important. If we slash $2.4 billion out of our health care budget, are we

taking away family doctors from our seniors? That's a question I have for the member from Nepean-Carleton.

More nurses in hospitals: We have invested in nursing across this province. We are seeing more full-time nursing in the province than ever before. We're up to

almost 60% full-time nursing. This is a huge improvement over where we were. We are showing much more respect. We are investing in our nurses. We don't want to go back to the days of treating the

nurses like hula hoop workers, as the Mike Harris government I think referred to them. We don't want to see a slash of $2.4 billion out of our health care budget in order to treat our nurses badly.

We need to invest in nursing across the province. We need to provide quality health care where it's needed across the province.

Home care is another issue where we've seen a record investment of $1.4 billion. This is direct care for seniors in their homes. During the previous campaign

in 2003, while I knocked on doors in my riding, I met with seniors who had recently experienced cuts to their home care that was going to mean they were going to have to move into a long-term-care

home. That's not where they wanted to be or where they needed to be. With a little bit of home care they were able to stay at home.

We've reinvested in home care. We are seeing our seniors age in place in more places across the province, and that's what they want. With a cut of $2.4 billion

out of our health care budget, we would see that slashed and we would see our seniors losing those services that they so dearly need.

We would also see cuts to the funding that we've flowed to mental health in our communities and to our long-term-care homes, which I know are incredibly

important to everyone in this House.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): You're making that up. Is that parliamentary?

The Acting Speaker: I'm glad that the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has joined us, but we want to hear from the member from

Nipissing.

Ms. Smith: It is amazing that the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke can find something to say when he hasn't actually been here to hear

what I was talking about. I'm talking about the $2.4 billion that your party wants to cut --

Mr. Yakabuski: You don't have to be here to know what you're going to say.

The Acting Speaker: Member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, come to order.

Mr. Yakabuski: She referred to my absence, sir.

The Acting Speaker: Member, one more outburst and that's it.

Member from Nipissing.

Ms. Smith: I seem to have hit a nerve this morning, perhaps because they are sensitive to the fact that they are proposing a cut of $2.4

billion from our health care budget. We all know that health care is the most important issue for Ontarians. People in Ontario want to see quality health care close to home, and that is what our

government is providing.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this resolution. As I've indicated, I will not be supporting this resolution today.

Mr. Yakabuski: I'm glad to join the debate. I hope the member for Nipissing will stay to hear what I have to say, but it's highly

unlikely.

This resolution on the part of my recently elected colleague from Nepean-Carleton speaks to an issue which I raised in this House shortly after the disastrous

budget this government brought forth, bringing forward the largest tax increase foisted on the people of Ontario in the history of this great province. I remember sending a letter to the Minister

of Health, to which I got no good response. I did get a response, thank you very much, but I did not get a good response.

It is an issue that we have raised repeatedly in this House, not only in the context of debate but in the context of questions as well, and not only myself but

the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, John Tory, has also raised it in the context of questions. So I commend the member for Nepean-Carleton for bringing this

forward in the form of a resolution to this House so that perhaps -- unlikely, but perhaps -- the members opposite will have the freedom to make a decision on this without being whipped or without

being told by the Premier's office that this is the way it's going to be, that they might actually be able to make a decision based on what is right and fair.

When we talk about our military personnel, they don't get their health care from the provincial government. This government can call it a health care tax, they

can call it whatever they want, but it is just another hand in the pockets of the hard-working people of the province of Ontario. Over 25,000 military personnel from Ontario have that dip into

their pockets on the part of the McGuinty government.

They don't get their health care from the province of Ontario. The federal government is solely responsible for providing health care to our military

personnel. In fact, they don't get an OHIP card. They have a DND card that provides them with health care. This shouldn't surprise people when it comes to this government, but what it amounts to is

the old double-dip. They want to get them on the tax, like they're getting everybody in this province, and how much longer they can take that, I don't know. But they want to get them on the tax and

then, when the military personnel go and procure medical treatment of any nature, they send the bill to the federal government as well. It's the old double-dipping routine on the part of this

government.

Mind you, when you see some of the appointments they've been making, we can understand how they feel so in tune with the phrase "double-dipping." I think we're

going to see a few more in the next couple of weeks, some nice, plum appointments made by this government before we recess for the summer, which is their habit: hoping that as the press sort of

takes the focus off the Legislature -- you who sit on the government agencies committee will see that there will be a number of plum appointments to the friends of the McGuinty Liberals coming in

the next few weeks.

This is an issue of fairness, and the Premier has had it placed straight in front of him. His responses have been absolutely brutal, and then he has passed it

What they said was how much they respect and care about our military personnel. I want to take a moment to say that I'm sure all members of this assembly,

indeed all Ontarians -- our hearts go out to the family of Captain Goddard, who was our first-ever female casualty of war of our country ever in history, in Afghanistan yesterday, defending

democracy in that torn country. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her family and also to our serving military personnel who have lost one of their own.

Again I say, this is a fundamental issue of fairness. The member for Nipissing, babbling on over there about what she says this government is doing or not

doing, talking about this party talking about taking money out of health care -- that, I categorically state here right now for the people watching on television and for our friends in the gallery,

has never been said by this party. What we are going to do through the course of our first term in office is eliminate this regressive, punitive health tax because we will manage the affairs of

this province in a prudent fiscal manner that will make that unnecessary. In fact, if this government had any fiscal bones in its body, they could have balanced this budget without instituting this

health tax, but they chose not to for purely political reasons. That is what is truly unfortunate about this government. Everything they're doing has a partisan, political reason behind it. It is

not about serving Ontarians; it is not about serving citizens; it is not about being fair to those men and women who are defending our interests and the interests of democracy around the world; it

is about the Liberal Party's partisan plan and will to be re-elected at any cost to anybody in this province.

I'll say again that I'm pleased and most thankful that my colleague from Nepean-Carleton has brought forth this motion to ensure that fairness will be on the

table for military personnel in our armed forces across this province. The McGuinty government has to show some interest in fiscal responsibility because they can balance the budget in this

province without that punitive tax. That is only one, and I'm sure that my good friend from Erie-Lincoln, our finance critic, is going to probably touch on some of the other disgraceful moves this

government has made to take more money out of the pockets of working families and seniors across this province.

My time is just about up, but I do want to thank you for this opportunity and assure you that for the rest of the day I'll be on my best behaviour, because the

last thing I'd want is to be sent home early on a Thursday.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's certainly my pleasure to speak to this resolution put forward by the member for Nepean-Carleton. I

wanted to start by saying that absolutely, definitely, New Democrats have been on the record time and time again -- and being a New Democrat, that makes me in agreement with that position --

opposing the McGuinty Liberal government's regressive health tax that they chose to introduce in the province of Ontario. I'm going to speak about that at some length in a few minutes.

But I also have to state -- with quite an ironic lilt to my voice, I guess -- that I also oppose the irresponsible actions of the former government in the way

they dealt with Ontario's tax system in the first place. They made decisions and chose to cut taxes in a way that has forever reduced Ontario's fiscal capacity. I think everyone would agree that

that's the case. Regardless of what party you happen to belong to or what position you happen to take on any particular issue, that party over there, the member for Nepean-Carleton's party, when

they were in government, made real decisions that reduced the fiscal capacity of the province of Ontario to meet the needs of the people of Ontario. From my perspective, that was extremely

irresponsible and has ended up with disastrous results in this province.

I was sitting on municipal council at the city of Hamilton during that time frame -- not quite the entire time frame, but almost the entire time frame -- when

that party was in government, and I can tell you, today we are still reeling at the city level with the results of their decisions from a fiscal perspective. It started off with their illusory tax

cuts. Ask anybody who lives in a city and get them to tell you that those tax cuts really had any results on the pocketbook; they did the opposite. They might have gotten a couple hundred bucks

from the Tories, but when it came to everyday life in their cities, in their communities, they paid through the nose and they're still paying through the nose.

We just have to look at the big mess of the property tax system to see what that group over there did when they were in government. It is a mess, and now

they're scrambling, through this bill and a bill from another one of their members, to fix the problems that they messed up in the first place. So it's ironic that we're here talking about this

current government's fix, which, again, I oppose -- and I will speak about that in a few minutes -- but let's face it, it was the Tories who messed up the fiscal issues in the province of Ontario.

They reduced the ability of our provincial ministries to meet the needs of Ontario citizens, and that includes the Ministry of Health. I think that's something we all have to acknowledge as an

underpinning of this debate, and that means senior citizens and working families and young people and older people; it means everybody. Yes, it's appropriate to debate this issue, and yes, it's

appropriate to pay positive respect to our senior citizens and to our serving members of the military. On behalf of the New Democrats, I too want to say that we mourn the loss of the woman killed

in action on the front lines, the first Canadian woman to be killed in action in battle. We certainly do mourn her loss and have the greatest of condolences to her family and to her colleagues on

the front lines in Afghanistan.

But I have to say that this debate is not about those issues; it's more about the choices that governments make in attempting to meet the needs of the people

of Ontario. I have to say that previous governments, in the way they dealt with the choices in front of them, decided on illusory tax cuts that led to property tax increases at the municipal level,

which are through the roof as a result of downloading and as a result of a messed-up MPAC system, the municipal property assessment system, which, we know, we've had some stinging criticisms of

recently. It included a number of local-level user fee increases that were foisted upon users of various municipal services because municipalities were unable to deal with the provision of service

at the local level under the crushing burden of downloading that this previous government, the Tories, decided to foist on municipalities. It put local governments in chaos, and they are still

struggling to get through that chaos. Quite generally, they made a mess, and now, through private members' bills here and there, they're trying to pretend that they didn't make a mess or that they

have the solutions. Well, they didn't have the solutions when they were in government, and they don't have the solutions now, I would submit to you.

However, having said that, I actually don't disagree with the fact that the Liberal McGuinty government made a big mistake when they decided to foist a new tax

on the people of Ontario, when they decided that a regressive health tax was the right way to go to raise some of the money that the Tories, the previous government, so recklessly cut out of our

ability to meet the needs of Ontarians.

The Tories decided it was the best thing to do, to cut health care, to cut education, to cut social assistance, to cut affordable housing, and to ignore

crumbling infrastructure and crumbling transit systems. That was their legacy: at the same time pretending to give people money in their pocket while really increasing all the other taxes and user

fees they had to pay.

This government, the one we're dealing with now, decides, after promising -- this must have been, if not the first broken promise, certainly the worst in terms

of broken promises. It is arguably the most odious of the broken promises of the McGuinty Liberal government. Why do I say that? The McGuinty Liberal government had choices when it came to their

decisions about how they were going to redress some of the transgressions of the previous government. They had some real choices. But what did they choose to do? They chose to introduce a

regressive health tax. Why do I call it a regressive health tax? Because it quite obviously is, if you do the math and figure out in real dollar terms who's paying what amount on their health

tax.

Let me give you an example. A family with two income earners, earning maybe a little over $36,000, will be paying $900 annually for their health tax; $900 on

$36,000. Two income earners with $50,000 in income are going to pay about $1,200. You figure, well, you know what? That's kind of going in the right direction. You earn a little more, you pay a

little more. But a multi-millionaire in the province of Ontario, an individual making millions of dollars, is not going to pay $1,200. You thought maybe $1,500, maybe $2,000, maybe $2,500, based on

the fact they're making so much money. What is that multi-millionaire going to pay? It's $900, the same as a family with two incomes that's earning $36,000 a year. That is a regressive system. It's

a system that New Democrats at every stage have said is inappropriate, just wrong-headed and the wrong thing to do.

So yes, the McGuinty Liberals had choices. If they were going to break their promise on taxes, they could have introduced progressive taxation. They could have

done all kinds of things to make our tax system in Ontario more progressive, meaning that the people who earn more money pay proportionately more in their taxes to help cover off the costs of the

services that are required to keep this a thriving, competitive, healthy and environmentally sustainable province. But no, they chose not to do that. They chose not to raise these revenues that the

previous government so callously cut out of the provincial revenue capability. Instead of introducing progressive taxes, they introduced a new regressive health tax that they said they weren't

going to do.

What could they have done? They could have made some incremental increases in income taxes for those who are earning over $100,000, for example. There are

choices they could have made. They could have chosen to do something that would be less harmful to middle-income Ontarians, middle-income people, working families, that they like to talk about now.

They could have done something to make sure those hard-working families in Ontario weren't hurt financially by their revenue-raising policies. But no, the McGuinty Liberal government chose very

clearly: Bay Street over working families; Bay Street over Main Street.

That's what the government decided to do. The McGuinty Liberals decided they weren't going to look at high income earners in Ontario. In fact, in this last

budget, what did they decide to do? They accelerated the capital tax elimination, losing $3 billion over the time frame of the full implementation of that move. What does that do? Well, that helps

the banks. It helps the insurance companies maybe. But it doesn't help working Ontarians. It doesn't help middle-income families who are the ones being disproportionately hit by this McGuinty

Liberal health tax. That's the choice they made.

They didn't choose to cut the loopholes, for example. Right now, large corporate sectors have got a lot of loopholes in terms of employer health taxes that are

not being paid, but they didn't go after ensuring that employer health taxes are being paid consistently across all employers in Ontario. No, they didn't choose to do that. Instead, they chose to

hit moderate-income and low-income families and senior citizens and everybody else with a very regressive tax.

What else did they do? You know what? You could almost fall into some of the arguments the member from Nipissing was raising a little earlier on. She liked to

talk about all the things they're accomplishing in the health care sector, but she also made it sound like they had no choices. I've just clearly indicated that they had many choices. Instead, they

chose to implement a regressive health tax.

What else did they do? We know they haven't hired all the nurses they said they were going to hire. We know there's still a crisis in hospital care. We know

that elderly patients in hospitals, particularly in long-term-care facilities, are having a very poor quality of life because of lack of investment by this government, notwithstanding the

regressive health tax they've foisted on the people of Ontario.

We know there have been increased user fees as well as the new tax. We now see optometry, routine eye exams, having a new user fee, no longer covered by OHIP,

and physiotherapy, chiropractic, all of those things, no longer covered. We have to pay for those things out of our own pocket, except those who are lucky enough to have a health plan at work, and

some people do and that's great. But those fees used to be covered under OHIP. Now you're paying for those out of your own pocket, as well as paying your health tax out of your own pocket.

This doesn't help the ability of Ontarians to receive the kind of health care that they need and that they want. It doesn't help working families to afford all

the other things they are faced with in the province of Ontario when it comes to increased cost of living, when it comes to things like hydro rates, when it comes to things like increasing gas

costs, when it comes to all of those regular, daily expenses. Then on top of that, working families are faced with a health tax that penalizes, that proportionately they have to pay more for than

the high income earners and wealthy people in Ontario.

The government had many choices when it came to how to deal with the previous government's mess in terms of reducing the fiscal capacity of the province of

Ontario. The McGuinty Liberal government chose not only to break a promise on taxes but to implement a regressive health tax that is disproportionately burdening working families and lower-income

Ontarians compared to others, when they could have had all kinds of other measures put in place that didn't include a health tax but that did include a fairer taxation system that was much more

progressive.

New Democrats stand soundly against the health tax.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I'm pleased to spend four or five minutes joining the debate today. I must say that it's an

interesting resolution, a tax-cut resolution. I shouldn't be surprised. This really falls back to the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves days, where tax cuts were the solution to all of our problems.

I must say to the member from Nepean-Carleton, it may be the only opportunity during the balance of this mandate to bring forward a private member's bill or

resolution. Often, it's an opportunity to bring forward something on behalf of constituents or those interest groups or stakeholders in the province to move an agenda forward. That's a progressive

approach, and, unfortunately, although they're trying to recapture the Progressive Conservative moniker through Mr. Tory, this tax-cut resolution is clearly anything but progressive.

It would seem to me that Mike Harris ran as the Taxfighter in the early 1990s. No one really rose to that particular agenda, so he reframed it and became the

defender of the Common Sense Revolution. It was another tax cut agenda. This really is just one further step in that regard.

This particular item has already been certainly discussed, if not debated entirely in this Legislature, over the past little while, but let's just remind

ourselves what it was that the former government did with their tax cuts, what they did to health care during that period of time, and what would happen if we removed from the health system at this

point in time some $2.4 billion, since that's what's being asked for: the elimination of the health tax. Let's just remember that there were some 28 hospital closures; that over 5,000 hospital beds

were eliminated in just two years during the early Mike Harris days; that there were 8,000 fewer nurses working in Ontario from 1995 to about 1998; and that underserviced communities in this

province ballooned from some 63 to 142. So we know where that agenda took health care, and we clearly know why it is that we need to invest in health care in this province.

I know that in my neck of the woods, both in my own riding and those constituents who have to get service within the area beyond my riding, they very much

appreciate the investment we're currently making, and will need to make, on the operating side of our capital investments in places like Lakeridge Health, the Rouge Valley Health System, the Sam

McLaughlin cancer care centre and the newly announced west Durham health team, and in expanded dialysis for those in our communities. To make those investments that my constituents can take

advantage of within a reasonable geography, if not within their own riding, requires an investment in health care beyond what this resolution would achieve. This resolution would achieve the

elimination of some $2.4 billion from the health care system.

I want to talk about what we're doing for health care in the province of Ontario with the money that we're raising from the health premium. What is it doing?

It's bringing down those wait times; it's bringing down wait times for cataracts, for those seniors in our communities who, more often than not, are the ones getting cataract surgeries.

It's improving health care through the establishment of 150 family health teams. Well ahead of the target for the mandate, 150 have been announced to allow

those health teams to get themselves established and begin providing that primary health care to begin filling the void created by that astronomical leap in underserviced communities during the

Mike Harris days.

We're paying for more nurses in our hospitals, in long-term care and in home care. It's providing the opportunity to guarantee places for newly graduating

nurses here in the province of Ontario so that they don't have to look elsewhere. We can guarantee them a future here in Ontario.

It's helping to move health care from hospitals to communities. It's driving a primary care agenda. It's getting care closer to home, it's getting care quicker

when it's needed, and it's getting care from physicians and support workers who know the patient, not in an emergency room.

It's providing increases for the first time in more than a decade in mental health, certainly a sorely neglected agenda for so long for those in our community

with so much need.

We've added new vaccines, free of charge, for young children. That's a savings to families of some $600 per child, often from families who are least able to

afford those out-of-pocket expenses for those particular needs.

The premium is necessary, quite frankly, because of the actions of the previous government. They not only left us with a fiscal deficit, but they clearly left

us with a substantial health deficit. Our choice would not have been to have a health premium in the form of a tax. Having said that, the agenda for health care is more important than the neglect

that would have occurred without the health premium.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. Hudak: I'm pleased to rise and debate the private member's resolution of my colleague, the new member from Nepean-Carleton, and I

congratulate her on bringing this issue forward. I think members who have gotten to know the member from Nepean-Carleton know she's not one to simply dip her toe in the shallow end to test the

water but instead is someone willing to dive right into the pool with a thoughtful, well-reasoned, meaningful resolution before the House today, standing up for her constituents in Nepean-Carleton.

I encourage members of the governing party to stand up for their constituents and against Dalton McGuinty and support this resolution here today.

I'd say, as a priority, I commend the member from Nepean-Carleton, who, today, on the very day Canadian soldiers, men and women over in Afghanistan, fighting

for Canadian values of freedom and liberty, bringing those values to the country of Afghanistan -- my colleagues have mentioned the tragic passing of Captain Goddard just yesterday. The notion that

those soldiers, those women and men overseas, have to pay this Dalton McGuinty health tax when they don't benefit from the Ontario health care system directly is an affront to those courageous

women and men. I commend my colleague for saying that the first act should be to take the health tax off the backs of our soldiers here in the province of Ontario.

Secondly -- the member is exactly right -- seniors, those who built our province and made it strong, who constructed our highways, who built hospitals like the

Port Colborne general hospital, Douglas Memorial and West Lincoln Memorial Hospital, to name but three, now into retirement on fixed incomes, looking forward to enjoying their retirement, who for

five, six, seven, sometimes eight decades have paid taxes into our health care system, now get whacked with a massive tax hike courtesy of Dalton McGuinty, despite solemn campaign promises to the

contrary.

Think of seniors today in the province of Ontario, those in Glanbrook, those living in upper Stoney Creek or Beamsville. Every time they turn around their

costs are going up: new user fees brought in by Dalton McGuinty's Liberals, higher home heating costs, higher gas prices, steadily in the high 90 cents to over a dollar, and, despite promises to

the contrary, Dalton McGuinty hiked taxes on our seniors and he hiked hydro rates by some 55%.

It is hard to imagine how Dalton McGuinty can sleep at night when he looked into that camera and said solemnly to seniors, looked them in the eye when he was

campaigning and told them he would not raise their taxes, he would not raise their hydro bills, and then his first acts in this Legislature were to do just the opposite and break those

promises.

The other thing I'd say to my colleagues is that this notion that this health tax goes into the things my colleague from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge listed is

nothing but one big pile -- and I'm conscious of the young students here today, Mr. Speaker -- of horse feathers. It's nonsense. This goes into that big revenue pool collecting over at the Ministry

of Finance. Those taxes you pay if you purchase tobacco, if you lose some money at the blackjack table down at Casino Niagara, the sales tax you pay when you buy clothing: It all goes into the same

place as the health tax, and that's the giant pile growing at the treasury under Dalton McGuinty. It doesn't go into health care. Not one dime of this goes directly to health care. This is nothing

but a massive income tax on the backs of working families and seniors as part of a gluttonous and greedy attack by Dalton McGuinty on your pocketbooks.

Do you know how much revenue Dalton McGuinty has taken out of your pockets if you're a working family in Ontario, a senior citizen or a small business trying

to get by? He has taken $17 billion. It's the biggest tax hike in the history of the province when people can barely make ends meet -- $17 billion.

Let me tell you this: This notion that the Ontario Liberal Party is some big defender of health care is nothing but more horse feathers.

I remember them campaigning, saying they were against public-private partnerships: "No way; that is the privatization of health care." My friend from

Ottawa-Orléans said that during the campaign. But instead, they have increased the number of public-private partnerships and increased the number of privately financed hospitals in this

province more than we dared. It would probably make Nelson Rockefeller blush, these 3P hospitals across the province -- not that I disagree with the philosophy, but I wish you had told the truth

during the campaign and said you were bringing in those 3P hospitals.

At the same time that they raised taxes in a gluttonous attack on pocketbooks, they delisted chiropractic care, they delisted physiotherapy and they delisted

optician services in the province, effectively creating two-tier health care for the people who need these services. To this day, despite the $17-billion increase in revenue, they still make

patients of those services pay out of their own pocketbooks.

We have an unsatisfactory announcement by the province for the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital. There's a great staff there; great patient service. People in

Grimsby, Smithville and Beamsville all depend on this hospital. But the announcement that it won't be until 2009 at best that this government plans on breaking ground with a very unsatisfactory

level of provincial funding is a shame. I suspect that this is just one more promise by Dalton McGuinty to try to sneak through the next election, which he plans on breaking if he is successful. I

certainly hope that is not the case.

Then health card clinics, which we benefited from in Beamsville, Fort Erie, Port Colborne and Dunnville for years, so seniors wouldn't have to drive to St.

Catharines, so mothers and fathers taking care of their children, trying to run them around to sports and school -- now they can no longer get their health cards renewed at the Beamsville seniors'

centre because they're cutting out health card clinics. They probably don't cost that much: The space is provided voluntarily, for example, in Beamsville by the seniors' centre.

I want to bring to the attention of the members of the Legislative Assembly the cut in the TBT procedure, an important women's health issue, to attack stress

urinary incontinence, increasingly affecting women as they get older. It has now been substantially reduced at our local hospital, despite Dalton McGuinty's promises to the contrary.

I'd say, in conclusion: Congratulations to my colleague. This is a sensible, well-thought-out and important resolution reflecting what I think all of us hear

from our constituents on a regular basis. This is not connected to health care; it is nothing but a massive tax increase on the backs of seniors and working families. They should reduce it,

beginning with those in the military and our hard-working senior citizens.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'm pleased to speak to ballot item number 38, the elimination of the health tax for military

personnel and seniors. It's quite coincidental that today we're mourning the death of Nichola Goddard, who made the supreme sacrifice: She gave up her life for Canada.

I'd like to thank the member from Nepean-Carleton for bringing this motion forward, but I wonder how the member can do that -- suggest that the health premium

be slashed -- when our government has spent its mandate cleaning up the mess that the Tories left across Ontario and particularly in the Ottawa area.

Under the Harris and Baird government, the Ottawa area suffered immensely from the cuts to health care. The Tories closed two hospitals, Riverside and Grace,

and they tried to close the Montfort, except they lost the court case. Thank goodness for Gisèle Lalonde; they won the court case. Our community hospital in Orléans is not only there --

the Montfort is doing well -- but it's going to be doubled in size, and includes a whole wing for the military. That was the legacy left by the Tories in Ottawa, people who were supposed to be

supporting us.

We had the 14 th -longest wait times out of 14 in the province. That's according to the report from Access to Health Services in Ontario, April 2005,

the ICES report. We were the worst-serviced in the province of Ontario. All you could get out of the member from Nepean-Carleton or the member from Lanark-whatever was, "Well, it's because of

Quebec." Minister Smitherman has changed that. Minister Smitherman has put money into Ottawa. We have increased the capacity and we've increased MRI exams by 43% in two and a half short years and

we're continuing to provide the health care that we in Ottawa deserve and that the member for Nepean-Carleton wants to follow her predecessors and destroy.

The honourable member suggests eliminating the health tax for senior citizens. As a senior citizen, I need that, and as a high-earning senior citizen I'm

pleased to pay the health tax. It's important. I'm going to need those services and my family is going to need those services. Seniors come to me and tell me they want better health care services.

They don't want to save those dollars. They want to make sure the health care services are there.

What about our military personnel? I think this is a different situation. I support that part about the military. It is a situation where the federal

government is paying. But when you were down in my riding on Tuesday instead of being in this House, members for Nepean-Carleton and Erie-Lincoln, you should have talked to Royal Galipeau, the

federal member. We should get those transfer payments. There's a major gap, and we can't afford the health care in Ontario that they can afford in other provinces across the country because we

support every province, other than Alberta and maybe British Columbia, through the inequity, that gap that we talk about. When you're down in my riding next time, talk to Royal Galipeau, who hosted

your meeting, and make sure --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Time for a response.

Ms. MacLeod: I really appreciate the members from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Hamilton East, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, Erie-Lincoln and

Ottawa-Orléans. This is my first foray into private members' business. It is something that is very important to my constituents. I have a lot of seniors and military personnel who expect this

premium, this illegitimate tax, this broken promise, to be cut. I find it highly ironic that the member from Ottawa-Orléans, whose riding is affectionately called CFB-Orléans, with the

amount of military personnel there, would speak against this resolution. I have -- right in front of me, in fact -- petitions, signed, from his riding when I attended his riding.

I've got a letter from Cornwall that says, "I've written and spoken to my MPP Jim Brownell on a number of occasions about this" --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Member from Huron-Bruce, we're close to being finished. Can you please be quiet?

Ms. MacLeod: I have petitions from the army, navy and air force veterans' unit in Stratford. These are not Conservative ridings; they're

Liberal ridings. The people of Ontario don't want to pay this tax, because it's not going to health care. They don't want to pay this tax as seniors or serving military personnel. I find it highly

offensive that they don't support our military, but I do and my colleagues do and the Conservative Party of Canada does. Thankfully, last night they continued to support our mission in

Afghanistan.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, something that should have been motherhood and apple pie earlier today. But you're going to sit down. You're going

to vote against it because you don't know how to do the right thing. You'll just break another promise. You've lost your moral compass. I'm just shocked and appalled. I'm upset. The people in

Nepean-Carleton will be disappointed today if this does not pass.

The Acting Speaker: The time for private members' public business has now ended.

FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): We'll deal with ballot item number 37, which is a resolution by the member from Perth-Middlesex,

Mr. Wilkinson. It reads:

"That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should continue to support the increasing solvency and vitality of the farm mutual insurance

industry as a key component of the economic and social fabric of rural Ontario."

Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We'll defer the vote for a few moments. Now we'll deal with ballot item number 38.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): Ms. MacLeod has put forth a resolution:

"That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately eliminate the illegitimate health tax, beginning with serving military

personnel and senior citizens." Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We'll call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell, and we will deal with both ballot item numbers.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE INDUSTRY

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): Mr. Wilkinson has moved ballot item number 37. All those in favour, please rise and remain

standing.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brownell, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Mitchell, Carol

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are zero.

The Acting Speaker: I declare that the resolution by Mr. Wilkinson, ballot item number 37, has passed.

The doors will now be open for 30 seconds.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): Ms. MacLeod has moved ballot item number 38. All those in favour of the resolution, please rise

and remain standing.

Ayes

Chudleigh, Ted

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

MacLeod, Lisa

Miller, Norm

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Wilson, Jim

Yakabuski, John

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the resolution, please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arthurs, Wayne

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brownell, Jim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Hoy, Pat

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

Patten, Richard

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ruprecht, Tony

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 11; the nays are 21.

The Acting Speaker: I declare that the resolution is lost.

Private members' public business is now completed. The House will resume at 1:30 p.m. of the clock.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POPULATION COUNTS

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I rise today to provide my colleagues with notice of a forthcoming proposal so they can consider its merits.

Substantial population growth in Ontario, particularly in the greater Toronto area, has created more than the usual number of headaches for local government.

The province of Ontario provides funds to a number of partners based on population counts. Just as a stopped clock is correct twice a day, using census data from Stats Canada means the population

counts are correct only twice a decade.

The town of Milton, which I represent, has a current population of 62,000 people, according to municipal planners, but receives provincial funding based on its

2001 population of only 32,000.

Out-of-date population counts are causing a real problem for the people in growth municipalities when it comes to funding for their hospitals, roads, potential

gas tax sharings and other projects.

My motion addresses this problem. I will suggest that the government of Ontario immediately move to utilize more accurate population counts. Further, I will

suggest that the method already in use to determine if an area is underserviced by physicians be adopted as the model for instances where the province uses population counts to determine funding.

That method is to use household counts available through the municipal property tax rolls, which are very current, and apply a multiplier to account for children.

While no method of determining the population is 100% accurate, my proposal is fair, up to date, and simple to understand and use. I invite my colleagues to

provide their input on this issue three Thursdays from now.

MIKE BRIDEAU

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise today in the House in support of Mike Brideau. He is a resident of the great riding of Nipissing and

a finalist in the TSN/Lay's Greatest Canadian Hockey Fan contest.

Mike is a father of two and a devoted community member who spends his entire winter in rinks around our area and around the province, coaching hockey. When

he's not coaching, he's watching. But he doesn't just watch hockey; he doesn't just collect hockey paraphernalia. He does. He coaches. He is the consummate fan who is taking his ability and putting

it into action. He is coaching his son Zachary's Novice hockey team and his son Michael's Peewee team. He has taught through the Tim Hortons hockey for beginners program for seven years, and this

past year he was the head instructor. Not enough to devote a whole, long, northern winter to hockey -- he's now coaching ball hockey in the summer.

In his submission to the Hockey Hall of Fame Greatest Canadian Hockey Fan contest, Mike noted, "I always instil fair play in my players and tell them at the

beginning of the season that our main goal is to go out and have fun."

If he wins, Mike will receive a trip to Toronto to be honoured at the Hockey Hall of Fame as the first inductee as Canada's greatest hockey fan. I encourage

all residents of Nipissing and across Ontario to go to www.tsn.ca/contests or www.lays.ca before June 2 to vote for Mike Brideau -- not only Canada's greatest hockey fan, but one of the province's

and North Bay's unsung heroes. Thank you to Mike.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): We are all committed to ensuring clean drinking water for all Ontarians. Unfortunately, the

Clean Water Act is just another McGuinty government broken promise.

The Liberal broken promise water act simply does not deliver. It does not deliver on their promise to implement all of Justice O'Connor's recommendations. It

does not deliver on any financial support for municipalities and landowners. It does not deliver on substantive details; the bill lacks clear

definitions.

It does not deliver on a proper appeal process. It does not deliver on a consultative approach, instead favouring punitive, sweeping powers of a permit

officer. It does not deliver compensation for expropriated land. It does not deliver a strong, realistic business case.

Justice O'Connor clearly states, in recommendation 78: "The provincial government should ensure that programs relating to the safety of drinking water are

adequately funded."

The McGuinty government must have missed that part. You can't responsibly provide $67.5 million for plan development and then not one red cent to help

communities bear the cost of that plan.

The Liberal government's Clean Water Act pits neighbour against neighbour and smaller municipalities against their agricultural communities. They're playing a

zero-sum game when we should be working together to create viable, sustainable solutions to protect our drinking water supply. The Clean Water Act is just another broken promise.

FRANKIE CHU

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): On May 12, school trustee Chris Bolton and I attended a memorial service for an 18-year-old Harbord

Collegiate student, Frankie Chu, who died while playing a rugby game, a game he loved. The ceremony was very moving, as student after student and teachers spoke about the way Frankie touched their

lives and whose absence they will forever miss.

He was a member of the so-called five musketeers. They were inseparable and there was much love between them. Frankie was in Canada for only four years, yet he

made incredible strides socially and academically. I should point out that he benefited greatly from the ESL programs he was taking -- a program that is in great demand yet in such short

supply.

I congratulate the principal, the teachers, the students, and the Northern Secondary rugby team for showing up and for helping to create a touching memorial

and a memorable day for the Chu family.

MEGAN'S WALK

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I rise in the House to commend over 100 people who joined me this past Sunday to pay tribute to a

brave and inspirational young girl. My wife Anna-Marie, my son James and I participated in a fundraiser put together by Tracy Gusdal in Orleans. Ms. Gusdal was inspired to organize what was called

Megan's Walk, in memory of four-year-old Megan Bebenek.

Megan passed away on June 17, 2001, after struggling with brain stem glioma, a rare and often inoperable form of cancer. Megan's mother, Denise Bebenek,

organized a five-kilometre walk on Mother's Day back in 2001 around the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto to help raise money for brain stem glioma research. That first year, over 900 people

participated in the fundraiser, and together they raised over $90,000 for this worthy cause. Last year over 1,800 people took

part in Megan's Walk, raising $180,000 for cancer research.

When Tracy Gusdal heard Megan's story and found out about Denise Bebenek's caring fundraiser in Toronto, she decided to bring Megan's Walk to Orleans. Ms.

Gusdal met with Denise, who wanted to bring the walk to Ottawa but could not be there at the time, as she was organizing the same walk here in Toronto. Tracy decided to take on the task, and as a

result held the first walk in Orleans this past Sunday on Mother's Day. The walk was extremely successful, raising nearly $3,200 for cancer. Twenty-five per cent of the net proceeds will go to the

CHEO cancer unit, while the remainder will help fund pediatric brain tumour research.

I was proud to participate in Megan's Walk in Orleans this year and hope to be there every year supporting the struggle to beat cancer.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A couple of verses here to share with my colleagues:

Simple Dalton met a pie man

Going to the fair;

Says simple Dalton to the pie man,

"Let me test your wares."

Said the pie man to simple Dalton,

"My pies are good, made fresh today."

But said the Premier, "Dalton knows best

And I might just tax you along the way."

No doubt, people across the province of Ontario are thrilled with the notion that Dalton McGuinty is going to hire inspectors to go to farmers' markets across

the province in the time ahead. Lord knows we need the help.

Is that pepperoni stick hot, extra hot or just a spicy form of mild? Who doesn't worry that they may be slipping a little too many apples into those apple pies

or, heaven forbid, a little boysenberry slipped in there?

We need Dalton McGuinty's inspectors to make sure that that strawberry-rhubarb pie has the right amount of rhubarb and the right amount of strawberries.

Church suppers are under attack as well. This proposal to ensure that all potluck dishes are cooked in a central location kind of defeats the purpose, I think.

Perhaps the geniuses in Dalton McGuinty's office are having too much luck with another kind of pot and not the one we're talking about.

Let me say this: Let's resign this idea to the trash heap of bad Dalton McGuinty ideas like the sushi police, the gummi bear inspectors, and that soup and

salad tax.

WEST SCARBOROUGH

NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMUNITY CENTRE

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I'd like to take this opportunity to rise and congratulate the West Scarborough

Neighbourhood Community Centre on the occasion of their 50th anniversary. This valuable multi-service neighbourhood centre is located in the riding of Scarborough Southwest but also provides

services throughout the former city of Scarborough and east Toronto.

The West Scarborough Neighbourhood Community Centre is a natural outgrowth of the West Scarborough Boys and Girls Club, which was initiated by the Scarborough

Civitan Service Club through community action. Originating in 1956, the organization grew to the point where, in 1965, after incorporation, it relocated and assumed all functions at the present

location at 313 Pharmacy Avenue. In co-operation with the city of Scarborough and now the city of Toronto, the club has provided programs and services to both boys and girls throughout its history.

In 1976, fully integrated co-ed programs and services were implemented.

The primary mission of the West Scarborough Neighbourhood Community Centre is to offer neighbourhood programs and services designed to enhance the well-being

of people in the context of their community, culture and environment. The centre has evolved over the years. From very humble and meagre beginnings has sprung an entire complex serving an

ever-evolving community. From infants to seniors and everything in between, the West Scarborough Neighbourhood Community Centre has truly become a welcoming place where there is room for everyone,

a safe harbour where, in an inclusive environment, people help and people learn to help themselves.

Once again, I'd like to congratulate the West Scarborough Neighbourhood Community Centre on its 50th anniversary.

SMOKING CESSATION

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I rise in the House today to offer my sincerest congratulations to Lynn Marchand from

Cornwall, Ontario, the recent grand prize winner of the Ministry of Health Promotion and Canadian Cancer Society's Driven to Quit Challenge. Ms. Marchand won the challenge, the grand prize being a

brand new 2006 Honda Civic hybrid, by successfully quitting smoking after more than 20 years. What an accomplishment. I credit my good friend the Honourable Jim Watson and his innovative Ministry

of Health Promotion for the contest's success. In Ms. Marchand's words, "The Driven to Quit Challenge was a great motivator for me."

Our government is encouraging Ontarians to quit smoking because we understand the power of preventive health. Tobacco-related diseases cost our health care

system at least $1.7 billion annually. Through the landmark Smoke-Free Ontario campaign, we are tackling our province's number one cause of premature death and disease: smoking. The campaign ranges

from public health education and tobacco control to smoking cessation programs, programs that will assist constituents in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh and all Ontarians.

Today in this House I am certainly proud to salute Lynn Marchand on her courage and willpower and commitment to lifelong health. She has tackled her smoking

problem. She is a model to all Ontarians that it's never too late to quit.

ROAD SAFETY

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): It takes a split second for your life to be forever altered. It takes just a split second of poor

judgment or distraction to take you from that lovely long holiday weekend that you were anticipating to tragedy.

I rise today to highlight the importance of driving safely and responsibly this Victoria Day weekend. So many accidents and deaths happen on long holiday

weekends. People need to make the appropriate preparations for their road trips. Their vehicles have to be safe and in good working order. They need to be sober and well rested. The OPP will be out

in full force to remind you of that. So beware and be prepared for that.

Public safety is a paramount concern of this government, and that's why we passed Bill 169, the Transportation Statute Law Amendment Act. We want people to

know that if a car part detaches from your car, you and the person who installed it are liable. So be aware of that. You have to be safe.

The government also responded to the safety concerns of mothers, fathers and the police by requiring the use of booster seats for children who have outgrown

the car seat but aren't quite ready for a regular seat belt. That is because a properly installed car seat does reduce the risk of serious injury or death by as much as 75%.

It only takes a second to kill or maim yourself, a loved one or a stranger. Do not forever alter your life, the life of a loved one or the life of someone else

by poor judgment or distraction. Be careful out there. Take care and make sure that everybody else does, too.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Joseph N. Tascona): As today is the last day in the House for this group of pages, I know that all the members will

want to join me in thanking them for their assistance over the last four weeks.

Applause.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (ONTARIO HOME ELECTRICITY RELIEF), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU (AIDE AU

TITRE DES FACTURES D'ÉLECTRICITÉ RÉSIDENTIELLE DE L'ONTARIO)

Mr. Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 117,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for an Ontario home electricity p