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

November 24, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Nov-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 24 November 2004 Mercredi 24 novembre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIREFIGHTERS

SENIOR CITIZENS

HIGHWAY 69

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

LYNN JOHNSTON

YOUTH GAMBLING

VIETNAMESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

LONG-TERM CARE

HEALTHY LIVING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FIREFIGHTERS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FIREFIGHTERS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FIREFIGHTERS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DEFERRED VOTES

STRONG COMMUNITIES

(PLANNING AMENDMENT) ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS (MODIFICATION

DE LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE)

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA AGREEMENT

CHILD POVERTY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

CHILD CARE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

LANDFILL

ONTARIO FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

FOREST INDUSTRY

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

MINING INDUSTRY

CONSUMER PROTECTION

PETITIONS

PER DIEM FUNDED AGENCIES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

PIT BULLS

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC STATUTE

LAW AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD AND YOUTH SAFETY), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(SÉCURITÉ DES ENFANTS

ET DES JEUNES)

HOUSE SITTINGS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus and our leader, John Tory, I rise today to welcome

the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association to Queen's Park. I see there are a number over here.

The OPFFA represents approximately 9,500 professional firefighters, each of whom is ready to put their life on the line every day to help keep our province

safer.

Firefighters' dedication to serving Ontarians is evident in the OPFFA code of ethics. The code includes the following: "I recognize the badge of my office as a

symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the fire and emergency service."

The OPFFA is here today to raise concerns with MPPs on issues like OMERS autonomy and standards for the fire service. We hope their concerns will be heard loudly

and clearly, especially by Dalton McGuinty and the members of his government.

In a letter to Fred LeBlanc dated May 23, 2003, Dalton McGuinty personally outlined his promises to Ontario firefighters. We expect the Premier to keep these

promises, and as the official opposition, we must hold him accountable for them.

Earlier today, I was pleased to meet with Fred LeBlanc, the association's president, and Brian George, the association's executive vice-president, as well as

Michael Gagnon from the Midland fire service. I was pleased to listen to their concerns and to have John Tory participate in one of our meetings later on.

I thank the OPFFA for coming out to Queen's Park, and I encourage all members to show their support for our firefighters by attending the OPFFA reception later

today in committee room 2.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): Each year in June, the municipality of Chatham-Kent hosts its Seniors' Information Fair. It is also an

opportunity for the community to celebrate and recognize senior men and women who unselfishly contribute to making Ontario what it is today: a dynamic and vibrant province.

I am pleased that the minister responsible for seniors, John Gerretsen, was at this year's ceremony to personally thank the many men and women for their personal

achievement in adding to the growth, diversity and prosperity of our community and for the significant role they have played in building our society.

The McGuinty government is committed to improving our seniors' quality of life. Our budget sets out a plan to provide seniors with the care, respect and dignity

they deserve. We will provide more nurses and more care in our nursing homes and long-term-care facilities. As well, eligible couples who require care will receive priority for placement in the

same long-term-care facility. Our government will provide 2,300 new joint replacement surgeries, 9,000 additional cataract surgeries and a $448-million increase for home care. We will add an

additional $125 to the property tax supplement for seniors. We continue to provide OHIP coverage for eye exams for seniors over 65.

I'm very proud of the McGuinty government's contribution and commitment to our Ontario seniors.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): On Monday, I had the great pleasure to visit Sudbury to tour local mining operations and learn more about

the many issues facing the mining industry in northern Ontario.

When the member from Sudbury was in opposition, he was very concerned about the rate of construction on Highway 69. He even began a billboard campaign to

emphasize the need to four-lane Highway 69. On June 14, 2000, he said, "I demand, on behalf of my constituents, that you begin four-laning Highway 69 from Sudbury immediately." In his re-election

campaign he promised quick action on Highway 69.

You can imagine my shock when, driving along that very highway on Monday, I noticed that there has been no construction. After 14 months as minister responsible

for the northern highway program, the member for Sudbury has certainly changed his priorities. The lack of construction on Highway 69 is just another example of the Liberal government's inaction in

the north.

Four-laning Highway 69 is a safety issue and an economic issue. It is a vital transportation link. In 1996, the minister had 12,000 people from Sudbury fill out

postcards that said, "Highway 69: worth the investment." I guess he lost those postcards in his move to the minister's office.

Earlier this month, the minister did announce some good news, though. He announced a tender for 700 metres of highway just south of Sudbury. At that rate, it

will take 157 years to finish the highway from Sudbury to Parry Sound. We won't even be around to know whether the government kept this promise.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): November is Adoption Awareness Month. Now is the time that we need to act and open up adoption records to

ensure that the health of all adult adoptees is ensured and to respect their human rights.

As you know, a private member's bill, Bill 14, was proposed by the NDP. It provides access to birth registration and adoption records for both adult adoptees and

birth parents. Bill 14 ensures that adult adoptees have access to their family and personal health information, essential to prevent inherited genetic diseases. Nonetheless, either party is able to

file a contact veto.

We were happy to hear on Monday that the Premier still supports adoption disclosure. However, we were troubled that he will not act now. He said he wanted to

review other jurisdictions. That work has already been done; all the homework has been done. We don't need to study this issue further. It shouldn't be watered down. The adoption community is tired

of having its hopes dashed time and time again. We need to implement progressive adoption reform that protects the health of adoptees and guarantees their human rights. I urge the Premier to

reconsider the year's delay he has proposed and to call the member for Toronto-Danforth's original bill, Bill 14, for third reading and a final vote in this Legislature. It will open up adoptions,

and opening adoption records will prevent the stigmatization surrounding adoption and enhance the health of adoptees by providing essential medical information.

The time to act is now. It's in the government's power. Let's get the adoption bill done in Adoption Awareness Month.

LYNN JOHNSTON

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): Last week, one of my riding's and our country's treasures celebrated a milestone. Lynn Johnston, the celebrated

cartoonist and creator of the very popular comic strip For Better or For Worse, celebrated the 25th anniversary of the creation of the Patterson family.

Lynn Johnston is celebrated worldwide but lives in my riding, just outside of North Bay in East Ferris. She and her husband, Dr Rod Johnston, are local heroes --

major contributors to countless local charities and community events.

Many of us have grown up with the Pattersons: watched their ups and downs, their children go off to school, their parents age, their nest empty. Recently, their

daughter graduated from teachers' college. As part of the great celebration, real-life graduates of Nipissing University's faculty of education graduating class received a copy of the comic strip

which illustrated the great day.

I have had the chance to see Lynn Johnston among her fans first-hand. In New York City, I watched at BookExpo America, North America's largest book fair, as

hundreds lined up for her autograph. And just last week I was lucky enough to be at Gulliver's Quality Books and Toys, a fabulous bookstore on Main Street in North Bay, where together with 30 or 40

fans we sang Happy Birthday and celebrated this great milestone. Lynn sang, served cake, and then signed books with her usual smile and humour and a personal caricature.

I am proud to rise today to congratulate Lynn Johnston on 25 years of making Canadians and people who follow her strip in over 2,000 different newspapers in 20

countries smile every day. Thanks for 25 years of smiles, Lynn.

YOUTH GAMBLING

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Speaker, I'm sure you'll agree with me; you were probably as shocked and disappointed as every other parent in this

province when they heard the Premier yesterday simply laugh off when he heard the report that children are gambling in our schools, that there are actually young people who throughout the course of

their lunch hour are spending time gambling. This comes from a Premier and a Minister of Education who felt it important to take their time to tell teachers and principals what can or cannot be in

the vending machines of our schools. This is a government that sees fit to tell parents what their children should eat at school, but they are not prepared to take action with something as

insulting as knowing that our children are learning how to gamble in an environment that should be there for academic excellence.

I believe that every parent wants this Premier and this Minister of Education to show leadership, to hold principals and teachers accountable for what is going

on in the schools. If they can tell kids what to eat, surely they can come to their support and ensure that schools are a place for excellence in learning, not a breeding ground for tomorrow's

gambling addicts.

VIETNAMESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): Next year will mark the 30th anniversary of the end of the tragic war in Vietnam. One of Canada's legacies of

the end of that war was the openness with which Canadians welcomed so many of Vietnam's talented people who fled that country to come to a land of peace and prosperity for them and for their

families.

Last Saturday night, I had the pleasure of attending the Vietnamese Canadian Community Scholarship Fund's 2004 Academic Excellence Award ceremony held at the

Meadowvale Community Centre in Mississauga. This not-for-profit organization, founded in 1992, annually recognizes, supports and encourages talented Vietnamese Canadians whose academic performance

and community contributions reflect the excellence and the work ethic that our Vietnamese community brings to Canada. Since its inception, the fund has rewarded more than 100 Vietnamese Canadian

students through its excellence awards and encouragement awards programs.

I am pleased to recognize two good friends who are members of the association, Thi and Sylvia Nguyen-Huu, who are today celebrating their 25th wedding

anniversary and are in the members' gallery. I'm also pleased to send the congratulations of this Legislature to the association president, Mr Tran Van Dao.

I also send the congratulations of the Ontario Legislature to this year's 10 scholarship winners, all straight-A students: Daniel Nghiem, Cindy Ha, Jennifer

Huynh, Ngoc Nguyen, Cathy Nguyen, Tiffany Nguyen, Lei Chin Cat and Christine Le.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I'm proud today to stand as part of the McGuinty government, which is taking a big step forward in helping

some of our most vulnerable citizens.

All too often, couples who have been with each other for most of their lives are split up when they enter long-term care. These people deserve the dignity of

being able to live together. That's why our government is easing the way for elderly couples to remain together in long-term-care homes so that they can continue to provide love, support and

companionship to one another.

I know this will help people in my riding who have found themselves separated from their loved ones. Many in long-term-care facilities have found themselves in

this situation.

This initiative is part of the government's action plan, announced last May, to reform Ontario's long-term-care homes. This action plan also includes hiring more

nurses and front-line staff, providing enhanced care for residents, giving residents and their families more of a voice in long-term-care homes, a new public reporting Web site, and strengthening

enforcement and accountability.

The overall goal is to ensure that seniors in long-term-care homes are treated with the respect they deserve in a strong culture of dignity and community.

I am especially proud of this plan.

HEALTHY LIVING

Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): Today the chief medical officer of health released a report that says obesity is becoming an ever-growing

problem in Ontario. This government understands the severity of the situation, and that is why we are acting.

We are taking preventive measures to ensure that child obesity numbers go down. We have banned junk food in primary schools, we are ensuring that children in

primary schools have healthy eating options in our schools, and we will ensure that children get at least 20 minutes of physical activity every day.

We have also opened up our schools for community use, because not only does this government encourage citizen engagement in community activities, but this

government supports and encourages healthy, active lifestyles.

Furthermore, we have introduced Active 2010, a comprehensive new strategy to get more Ontarians physically active. Active 2010 will boost total funding to the

sport and recreation sector to more than $20 million annually. The strategy includes Pause to Play, a campaign directed at 10- to 14-year-olds to promote a lifetime of fitness.

Obesity is a disease we can prevent, and this government is committed to doing just that.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its

adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Electricity Act, 1998 and the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de

loi 100, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur l'électricité, la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres

lois.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

The Speaker: Mr Hoy has moved that the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs be adopted. All those in favour, please

rise one at a time and be counted.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Speaker: All those against, please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 44; the nays are 20.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated Wednesday, November 17, 2004, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 70,

An Act to amend various Acts administered by or affecting the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services / Projet de loi 70, Loi modifiant

diverses lois appliquées par ou touchant le ministère des Services aux consommateurs et aux entreprises.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

24, 2004, of the standing committee on government agencies.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FIREFIGHTERS

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): It's a privilege for me to rise in the House today to pay tribute

to Ontario's professional firefighters. I would like to acknowledge that many of them from all over Ontario are in the members' gallery, and you can see them here off to our right.

Today, I'm also pleased to acknowledge the great contribution the valiant men and women of Ontario's fire services make to public safety in this province.

During the past two months, we have seen a number of events that show our respect and appreciation for the firefighters of Ontario.

In October, I was privileged to attend the annual Firefighters' Memorial Day service at the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst. Firefighters who died while on

duty safeguarding their communities are remembered at this ceremony. We do this so that no man or woman who dies while protecting the lives and property of their fellow citizens will ever be

forgotten. In Toronto, the fire service also held a moving ceremony for fallen firefighters.

These services were conducted to honour the fallen, but we cannot forget the living. They are our everyday heroes. They're the people who are so good at their

jobs that the rest of us sometimes forget just how vital they are to the safety of our communities. The government recognizes both the commitment and the contribution of this province's

professional firefighters. We appreciate the hazards they face on a daily basis.

We also recognize that the kinds of emergencies firefighters must respond to can involve anything from fire to chemicals to radiological or even biological or

nuclear threats. That's why our government is providing funding for three key central fire services to maintain their chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear, or CBRN, response units. These

specialized units, based in Windsor, Toronto and Ottawa, can also be deployed anywhere in the province if they are needed.

I began by talking about the valour of our firefighters. Last year, we saw on live television just what it means to be a firefighter. When the Uptown Theatre

collapsed in Toronto, we were all gripped by the heroism of Toronto's firefighters and the heavy urban search and rescue units. I'm pleased to say that our government is continuing to fund

Toronto's heavy urban search and rescue unit, or HUSAR, as it's called. As with the CBRN teams, the HUSAR unit will assist any community in the province that may need its specialized training and

equipment.

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention the Ontario Firefighters' Memorial, which will be located just south of the Legislature. The executive

vice-president of the OPFFA, Brian George, is a member of the memorial foundation. The other foundation members are Neville Murphy of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, and Jim Richards of the

Fire Fighters Association of Ontario. The foundation oversees all aspects of the memorial. It is thanks to their hard work that we will be able to attend the official unveiling of the memorial next

spring. This memorial will honour all those firefighters who made the ultimate sacrifice for public safety, and it will serve as a permanent reminder to all of us that, every day, firefighters risk

their lives and personal health and safety to keep us and our communities safe.

On behalf of the people of Ontario, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our firefighters for all they do to keep our communities and our citizens

safe.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I want to take this occasion to introduce my colleagues in this Legislature to a group of

people who make a great contribution to the unparalleled quality of life that we enjoy in this province. I'm speaking of the members of the Ontario Environment Industry Association, also known as

ONEIA. Today is the ONEIA annual Environment Industry Day at Queen's Park. I want to specifically mention the chair of ONEIA, Mark Vanderheyden, and the Environment Industry Day chair, Anton

Davies. I know that all the honourable members will join me in welcoming the Ontario Environment Industry Association to the Legislature.

Today is an important opportunity for companies in Ontario's environment sector to meet with members of provincial Parliament and senior government officials.

I know that many of you have taken

part in these meetings and that we are all inspired by the accomplishments of an industry that generates an estimated $6.9 billion in annual revenues. Ontario's

environmental companies are succeeding by leading the world in goods and services that protect air, water and land. I'm proud to say that some of the best environmental work in the world is being

done right here in Ontario.

The McGuinty government sees Ontario's environment industry as an invaluable partner. Their work helps meet a commitment that all of us share to ensure safe,

clean, livable communities. We recognize that innovation must be at the forefront when ambitious goals have been set.

I want to echo the words of the federal environment minister, Stéphane Dion. He has spoken of a new industrial revolution where the environment drives

creativity, innovation and competitiveness around the world.

Our government is taking strong action to protect the environment. We have introduced a bold new action plan for cleaner air. It includes air emissions limits

for major industrial sectors that have never had limits before. We have set aggressive targets for diverting waste away from disposal. We have introduced regulations to make Ontario's hazardous

waste rules among the toughest in North America. And we are making significant advances toward the protection of drinking water at every stage, from source to tap.

Ontario's environment industry is creating bold and innovative solutions for businesses, municipalities and households that enable them to implement our vision

for a healthier environment. Our government understands that everyone has a role to play in the environment. We know that we can only succeed with the benefit of the expertise and experience

represented by the Ontario Environment Industry Association. Our government is counting on them as we continue to address difficult environmental issues.

The people of Ontario are fortunate that the members of ONEIA are on the job. A quick look at the round tables this afternoon -- I certainly invite you to take

time to visit them -- shows that they are involved in some of the most challenging issues we face, issues like climate change, source protection, air quality standards and hazardous waste

pre-treatment.

The track record of Ontario's environmental sector should give all of us confidence that we can meet these challenges. I would like to ask the honourable

members to join me in expressing appreciation to the Ontario environment industry today.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased again -- I had a chance in members' statements -- to talk a little bit about the firefighters

today.

I really want to zero in on something the minister said and bring to the attention of this House some of the promises made to the firefighters by the McGuinty

government in a letter dated May 23, 2003. That, of course, was before they were elected as a government. There were four key items -- some of the issues they're lobbying for today. Here's what Mr

McGuinty said:

"I would be pleased to outline my commitments to Ontario firefighters. First, as you know, a McGuinty Liberal government will ensure an increased supply in

thermal imaging equipment for fire departments. I understand that more of this equipment would be a great asset to our firefighters in their work.

"I am also acutely aware of other needs within our firefighter services. Second, I will ensure that an independent audit of the fire marshal's office (FMO) is

carried out. Jury recommendations following inquests into fire-related deaths have highlighted a lack of monitoring and intervention by the FMO in municipalities where public safety is threatened.

An audit of the office is clearly in order."

Interjections.

Mr Dunlop: I didn't heckle him.

"Third, I am committed to working with the OPFFA and fire departments across Ontario to develop standards for fire suppression. `Guidelines' and `points of

reference' are simply not good enough. It is essential that our firefighters have clear standards in place to follow. My team and I will work to improve these standards, which would ... reveal

staffing and response deficits within our fire services....

"Fourth, as outlined in my letter to the OPFFA earlier this year, I have openly expressed my support for OMERS autonomy. In my view, by amending the OMERS plan

despite the board's objections, the government is abusing its power. Ontario Liberals have repeatedly urged the government to implement autonomy for OMERS. I continue to support that

autonomy....

"We look forward to the opportunity to put our plans into action...."

These are all quotes from a letter dated May 23, 2003, by guess who? The man who has broken more promises than anybody in history: Dalton McGuinty.

So, to the professional firefighters, I wish you all the best. We on this side of the House -- John Tory and the PC caucus -- will continue to press the

government to make sure that Dalton McGuinty keeps his promises to the professional firefighters of Ontario.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I'm pleased to welcome the Ontario Environment Industry Association to Queen's Park on behalf of

our leader, John Tory, and our PC caucus. I would like to urge all members to attend the reception this evening. This is the fifth reception hosted by this group.

The Ontario Environment Industry Association represents over 1,500 companies and generates $1 billion in economic activity. Overall, our environment sector

employs 60,000 people, generating in total $7 billion in economic activity.

I'll mention that as we move forward we rely on this sector increasingly as we struggle to meet the demands of something in the order of four million people

arriving in this province over the next 20 years -- we think of increasing air pollution, water pollution, use of vehicles, generation of waste and runoff, just to name a few of the impacts that

we'll have to manage as population numbers shoot skyward.

Like the PC Party, ONEIA members are concerned with pollution prevention, reduction and management. They work for a cleaner and greener Ontario, and they

recognize the importance of continuing to attempt to remove regulatory hurdles, barriers to the introduction of new technology in this field.

It's too bad that again the McGuinty Liberals are too busy breaking promises to be proactive on issues like this. The government recently introduced a spills

bill -- this wasn't mentioned in the list of government accomplishments just now for some reason -- that would increase penalties and make companies guilty until proven innocent. I ask the question

to the minister, what good are sanctions if you do not increase prevention, monitoring and enforcement? It raises the question, is this merely a cash grab under the cloak of environmentalism?

The minister's own industrial pollution action team said, "Ontario's environmental management framework is largely reactive, not preventative." In that

context, I again welcome the Ontario Environment Industry Association to the Ontario Legislature.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats are proud to welcome professional firefighters from across Ontario to this chamber and to join

in the applauding and saluting of them for their incredible commitment and contribution to the safety and welfare of people across this province.

The New Democrats want to make it very clear that we unequivocally support the right of professional firefighters to belong to an association, to develop their

own constitution and to create bylaws that they are allowed to enforce without interference by any level of government, bar none. It is critical to professional firefighters, to the safety of

firefighters across this province and to the welfare of communities that those standards that professional firefighters create for their sisters and brothers in their association are capable of

being maintained and enforced by those same firefighters.

All the talk of memorials and memorial services is moot if we don't go beyond mere lip service to firefighters. Good words are not enough. Day after day after

day in this province, from small towns to big cities, firefighters put their lives on the line and, indeed, far too often lose their lives in the course of protecting people and, yes, property.

It is imperative, if we truly value the role that firefighters play, that we as a province, as a Legislature, will enact minimum standards, enforceable

standards, for firefighting services across this province, standards that address minimum staffing, standards that address resources and training available to firefighters, whether it's in the city

of Toronto or the small community of Attawapiskat up in the riding of Timmins-James Bay, whether it's rural Ontario or urban Ontario.

This province has got to become responsible for ensuring that firefighters have the tools and the training to do the job that they're called upon to do day

after day after day. If we don't give them the tools and the training, if we deny them those resources, we are insulting them, we are expressing disdain for them, and we are showing the highest

disregard for firefighters who have given their lives in the pursuit of their professional duties.

Furthermore, we owe it to firefighters to ensure there is a fire marshal's office in this province and a fire marshal that support professional firefighters;

that there's a fire marshal and a fire marshal's office in this province that support professional firefighters' goals; that there's a fire marshal and a fire marshal's office that build morale and

build unity, rather than being disruptive and driving wedges between firefighters.

I say to you that we take great pleasure in applauding our brave women and men in fire services across Ontario. We should then commit ourselves to ensuring

they have the resources, tools, training and staffing to do the difficult, demanding, dangerous, challenging job they're called upon to do.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On behalf of New Democrats, I would like to welcome the environment industry representatives to Queen's

Park today and certainly salute the work they are doing. There are many talented people working in the industry, I know, working very hard to come up with innovative solutions to solve our

environmental problems.

However, the Liberal government is lagging behind the EC with introducing carrots or economic incentives to help industry introduce these new technologies and

materials that are less toxic to the environment and initiatives to shift toward cutting pollution at the source.

Currently, in typical Liberal fashion, a small measure has been proposed in the carrots category through the environmental leaders program, but it is more

cosmetic than substantive in nature. Companies that take the initiative to go beyond compliance levels receive recognition on a Web site and preferred customer status at the approvals branch.

I want to give one example, because there are many incentives in place, which could be in place here in Ontario, that would make a difference. I want to refer

to a specific example that I raised earlier this fall when the government announced new standards for treating hazardous waste before it goes to incineration. There is actually an Ontario-born

solution right here. A firm called Eco Logic developed a process of thermal reduction that has very low emissions to eliminate hazardous materials like vinyl chloride and PCBs. But because there

are no incentives offered to them, incineration still reigns, simply because it's cheaper.

Without the kinds of incentives they're offering in the EC and other places, like low-rate loans, grants and other incentives to encourage the use of ecologic

solutions, we will go on having the old kinds of technologies in use. We have to change that and bring more carrots to the system.

DEFERRED VOTES

STRONG COMMUNITIES

(PLANNING AMENDMENT) ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LE RENFORCEMENT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS (MODIFICATION

DE LA

LOI SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE)

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Planning Act / Projet de loi 26, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aménagement du

territoire.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1417 to 1422.

The Speaker: Mr Duncan has moved third reading of Bill 26,

An Act to amend the Planning Act. All those in favour, please rise one at a time

and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Hardeman, Ernie

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 17.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On reading Christina Blizzard's column today, we know why

the Minister of Health is absent, but we were provided with the Premier's

schedule and were told he would be in attendance in question period today. We're looking for direction and advice.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I presume that the government House leader has a comment.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Will he be attending? Because you can stand your question down until later.

Mr Runciman: They said he's not going to be here.

The Speaker: So I understand he won't be here.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Right Honourable Ian Scott, the former Attorney General of Ontario,

wishes to pass on his greetings to this House, to tell us all that he misses this place greatly, and to give his best regards to all the members of this House that he served so well as MPP for

Rosedale.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. May we proceed now to oral questions.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): To the Acting Premier, Mr Phillips: Yesterday, Premier McGuinty couldn't answer a simple

question about why doctors voted against your offer to them. That may be why Mr McGuinty isn't present today, but hopefully you've been briefed on this issue.

It's become clear to the people of Ontario that the McGuinty health scheme is out of touch with the health care priorities of Ontarians. It's another McGuinty

botch-up. The Premier set out five priorities in health care which he claims to have wide support for. He said he wants more MRI and CAT scans performed, yet the radiologists who perform these

scans voted 95% against Mr McGuinty's failed deal. Are you working with these people or not, and how can you explain this rejection?

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Just to refresh, I guess, the public's memory on this and that of the

opposition, let's recognize that the proposed agreement between the government and the OMA was the result of nine months of discussion and negotiations between the OMA and the government. The OMA

had nine people there discussing how we can revamp an agreement with the OMA. Those nine people representing the OMA voted unanimously in favour of this agreement. It was a proposal that would meet

the needs of the public of Ontario, a proposal that would help to revamp the way health care is delivered in the province of Ontario and, frankly, a proposal that attempted to meet the needs of the

medical profession. It was done in a spirit of goodwill and co-operation, and I would just say to the member opposite that that is the tone that we will continue to set with our doctors.

Mr Runciman: This is Liberal spin. There was no agreement. There was an offer from the McGuinty government. The OMA negotiating team did not

recommend. They were frustrated, after nine months, at not getting further and they referred it to their membership. That's what happened. Those are the facts. It's been proven a sham with respect

to this argument the government is putting forward.

There's more evidence proving that this government, the McGuinty government, is the gang that can't shoot straight. The Premier said providing more cancer

treatments is a priority; 61% of cancer physicians voted against your failed offer. The Premier also said he wants more hip and knee replacements; 62% of orthopaedic physicians voted against your

failed offer.

Acting Premier, those who have the responsibility for implementing your priority list have said a resounding no. You're a rational person; you have the respect

of this House. Tell us today that you will go back to the drawing board, talk to the people who have to carry out this important work and admit that the McGuinty health scheme is an unqualified

failure.

Hon Mr Phillips: Again, I would say that the proposed settlement with the OMA was negotiated with, I think, nine members of a negotiating team

from the OMA, and they supported the proposal. I think the Leader of the Opposition would recognize that that was done in a spirit of co-operation over those nine months. The Minister of Health

indicated in the House, I think just yesterday, that he will sit down with the president of the OMA, which is what I think the public would expect, and discuss the next steps.

Again, I repeat for the people of Ontario, this was not something that came out of the government without nine months of intense discussion with the

representatives of the OMA, attempting to reflect their needs and also, importantly, the needs of the health care system of Ontario. That proposal has now been rejected and, as I said, the Minister

of Health will be meeting with the president of the OMA over the next few days to discuss it.

Mr Runciman: There are some quotes in the Toronto Sun this morning -- Dr John Rapin, the president of the OMA: "Rapin said the ... negotiating

team signed off on the deal because it felt there was nowhere else to go at the bargaining table. He noted that the OMA board refused to endorse the deal." That's the reality, despite what the

Acting Premier and his colleagues may wish to say otherwise, trying to portray this as a deal that was endorsed by the negotiating team. It was not. They could not support it, and they did not

support it.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): As they did last time.

Mr Runciman: Yes.

Premier McGuinty's inability to rein in his bully-boy Minister of Health -- the high-handed, Liberals-know-best approach -- has not been helpful, to say the

least.

There's more proof in the details of this failed deal. The Premier said Ontarians would receive more cardiac procedures, yet 69% of cardiologists voted against

your offer. McGuinty said there would be more cataract surgeries performed in Ontario; 85% of ophthalmologists voted against McGuinty's deal. The health system is getting worse, yet the Premier is

forcing people to pay more in taxes for the health care services you've privatized and the misplaced priorities. Clearly, the Premier and your swaggering Minister of Health are completely

ill-equipped --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you. Acting Premier?

Hon Mr Phillips: Again, I say to the public and to the member, this was the result of, I think, 120 sessions where the government's

representatives and the OMA sat down to reach a settlement. The OMA negotiators agreed with the proposal.

I would say also, in terms of what's happening in health care, that just a few days ago the Minister of Health announced substantial incremental funding for

hospitals. Hospitals this year received about $1 billion more than they would have received under your Magna budget. Twenty-one thousand more individuals are receiving long-term care; substantially

more full-time nurses in the health system; substantial progress being made in the health area.

Finally, I would say that this agreement, the result of nine months of work, 120 sessions, attempting to work with our doctors to fundamentally restructure the

way health care is delivered in Ontario, was an attempt to deal with issues that frankly, dare I say, for eight years you simply didn't deal with.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Acting Premier. I say to the minister that families, hospital workers, nurses and

the many health care executives who have had to submit plans to close beds, lay off nurses and increase waiting lists will take cold comfort from the lines that you just gave to this House.

Try as we might on this side of the House, we've been unable to get any answers from your government on the overwhelming rejection of your plan for health

care. You're on the front bench of your government, you're the man who is the guardian of the public purse, so I know you'll have been very intimately involved with these discussions as a senior

member of this cabinet. I have a very simple question that I'd like to direct to you personally: Why do you think Ontario's doctors voted so overwhelmingly against this deal?

Hon Mr Phillips: Again I go back to the fact that we spent nine months negotiating with the OMA doctors. I think the Minister of Health has

articulated clearly in this House, and I think the people of Ontario understand, that there have to be some fairly fundamental changes in health care. This agreement was a creative step to address

that. Whether it be to deal with doctors in underserviced areas -- and I dare say that probably half the members in this Legislature, at least, have problems in finding family physicians -- whether

it be dealing with waiting lists on cataracts, MRIs and other things, this was a creative attempt to deal with those issues.

Frankly, I think that when you are trying fundamental change, it often takes some time. I would again say that nine months of co-operative negotiations went

on, 120 sessions, and the OMA negotiating team agreed with it. I'd just say that perhaps it's indicative of why you never tackled this problem. It isn't easy. But we are attempting to deal with

some fairly fundamental reform in health care. It may take some time.

Mr Baird: The member opposite's response is one of the reasons this hour is called "question period," because it certainly isn't called

"answer period," from the content of that response. I'm once again astounded.

Neither the Premier yesterday, the Minister of Health the day before, nor this minister today will stand in their place and acknowledge any reason why 60% of

the physicians in this province voted so massively against you and your deal and your policy. I'll tell you why; I'll tell you what some of the physicians said. They disliked your attempt to be

sneaky and to back-end-load this deal. Many physicians in this province were insulted by the attempt to give a kickback to physicians if they cut prescription drug coverage for the poor, for the

disabled and for frail seniors. Many physicians in this province were astounded by the lack of recognition of the reality of experienced physicians who are close to or beyond the age when most of

us would retire.

Acting Premier, will you commit to us today that none of these three terrible initiatives will be contained in any future negotiations on behalf of the

government with our doctors?

Hon Mr Phillips: Just so the public understands, this is a page from the agreement. It says, "The undersigned representatives of the parties

hereby agree to unanimously recommend acceptance of this agreement to their respective principals." It's dated September 16, 2004, and it lists nine members of the OMA.

So I say to the Legislature, and very much to the public, recognize what the Premier has attempted to do and what the Minister of Health is attempting to do,

and that is some fairly fundamental restructuring of health care to solve some of the problems that desperately have to be solved. This agreement was a creative attempt at that, and there are the

nine OMA negotiators who unanimously signed the agreement.

I'd just say again to ourselves, this is creative, with some new ideas in it. Sometimes new ideas take a little time to find acceptance.

Mr Baird: I say to the minister, if he thinks this disgraceful deal with doctors will somehow improve like a good bottle of wine, he is sadly

mistaken. Let me tell the member opposite, the president of the OMA refused to recommend this deal, the board of the OMA refused to recommend this deal, and last weekend 60% of Ontario physicians

refused to sign off on your plan for the future of health care in Ontario.

I say to the minister, doctors and working families are starting to question the competence of your government to handle this file. They're increasingly coming

to the conclusion that Dalton McGuinty's government can't be trusted to manage our health care system. Senior members of your cabinet don't seem to understand basic elements of the deal and are

closing their minds and ears to listening to why Ontario physicians so massively voted against this deal.

I say to the member opposite, why, again, does he believe 60% of physicians voted so massively against your plan for health care?

Hon Mr Phillips: I appreciate the rhetoric, but let's deal with the process. I think the public understands that fundamental change in health

care is required. We are dealing with serious health needs out there.

For nine months, nine individuals selected by the OMA, who understand this issue, spent 120 sessions dealing with it. Then, after that nine-month process, they

said this: "The undersigned representatives of the parties hereby agree to unanimously recommend acceptance of this agreement...." Nine signed it. You can say, "Well, why didn't it happen?" and

whatnot. I would say that those nine individuals, who spent all that time to understand the needs of the doctors, unanimously signed it. I repeat: This proposal fundamentally reforms. It perhaps

takes time for all of us to fully understand it.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. Today Campaign 2000 released its annual report on child poverty

in Ontario. In 1989 the House of Commons committed to end child poverty. Today, in Ontario, child poverty is worse. There are now 373,000 children living in poverty in this province, 100,000 more

than in 1989. Acting Premier, it is a disgrace to have 373,000 children living in poverty in a wealthy province like Ontario. When is the McGuinty government going to find the will to tackle

poverty in Ontario?

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'll refer this to the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

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

the question. Notwithstanding that this report was based on 2002 data, the McGuinty government believes that even one hungry child is one child too many. We have taken leadership to eradicate this

poverty. For the first time, we've increased the minimum wage. We reinstated social assistance. We've increased ODSP. We've also doubled the nutrition programs. For the first time in over a decade,

we've increased monies to child care. We're taking steps. It is a tragic situation in a country like Canada, but we've taken leadership to address child poverty.

Mr Hampton: In fact, the policies of the McGuinty government are making it worse. The McGuinty government's failed health, hydro and social

policies mean that people who are already struggling now have even less to live on. Your regressive and unfair health tax, a tax on modest- and low-income Ontarians: Someone with an income of

$200,000 a year sees his income tax rate go up by only 2% as a result of your health tax, but for a single mom with an income of $30,000 a year, her provincial income tax goes up by 23%. Your

wrong-headed hydro policies force low-income people to pay up to 27% more for an essential service we all need every day.

Acting Premier, why is the McGuinty government taking more money out of the pockets of low- and modest-income Ontarians who are already finding it difficult to

live?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I thank the honourable member for the question. Indeed, we have also allowed free immunizations for children, which

will save families about $600 a year. The McGuinty government has also instituted the emergency energy fund for low-income families. And, for the first time in a decade --

Interjection.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I hear the honourable member opposite from the Tory caucus yelling. It was you who made social assistance cuts. We have

put them back. It was you who didn't increase ODSP in over a year. We put it back. It was you who didn't spend one penny of federal child care money on child care. We're doing that. We're taking

real leadership. We're not going to take any lectures from the Tories across the way. We are addressing child poverty in a vigorous way.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you should be ashamed of that response. Your increase of $3 a month in social assistance, your so-called increase in the

minimum wage -- all you did was increase it from 1995 levels to 1997 levels. Families are being forced to use food banks because, while you promised during the election to end the clawback of the

national child benefit, you haven't done that.

Here's what children say about living in poverty: Poverty is, "feeling ashamed when my dad can't get a job ... being teased for the way you are dressed ...

pretending you forgot your lunch" because you don't have one.

Campaign 2000 said today, "All that is lacking is the leadership and the political will" to really tackle child poverty.

Acting Premier, why is the McGuinty government failing the poor children of Ontario? Is it because you lack the political will or the leadership to do the

job?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I guess the honourable member doesn't want to accept the fact that we're taking concrete steps to address this very

tragic situation.

The honourable member has an interesting recollection of the facts and of history. In 1992 and 1993 -- remember those years? -- the NDP raised income taxes on

working people. A single person making $20,000 a year saw their income taxes increase by $160. The NDP increased tuition fees for college and university students by over 50%. And, under the NDP,

hydro rates increased by over 40%, and gas taxes by over 30%.

I will not get any lectures from the honourable member on what they did to working families and what we are doing.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. Today's child poverty report card gave your government a

failing grade on affordable housing. The Toronto Star confirmed what we've been saying all along: "The Liberals are not keeping their promise to build some 20,000 affordable housing units for

`needy Ontario families.'" The Star calls claims that you've invested $65 million to build new units "bafflegab." Why? Because Ottawa, the federal government, is paying for those housing units, not

the McGuinty government, and because what little money you have put in isn't your money; it was money committed by the previous Conservative government.

Acting Premier, when are you going to keep your promise to build 20,000 new affordable housing units for Ontario families and children who are waiting, who are

living in poverty? When are you going to keep your promise?

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'll refer this to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I'll deal with various other aspects in the other two supplementaries, but I'd

like to quote former New Democratic Party cabinet minister Anne Swarbrick, who said in response to today's announcement by my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in relation to

a new partnership providing incentive funding and an innovative new housing program, "This partnership demonstrates that when community partners work together, we can create innovative, practical

solutions that improve Toronto's quality of life."

This housing allowance program, announced today by my colleague John Gerretsen, is an example of that kind of partnership. I know that the member wants to be

fair-minded and acknowledge the work that John Gerretsen has done, the work that our federal colleagues have done and the work that Anne Swarbrick has done in supporting Toronto's working

families.

Mr Hampton: This is about 20,000 housing units you promised to build. That piddly announcement today amounted to 400, as compared to 20,000.

What's actually happening is that you're standing in the way of building affordable housing because right now, as we speak, there's $300 million of federal money committed for affordable housing in

Ontario. But where is it? It's gathering dust in a bank account while 150,000 Ontarians wait for affordable housing. Why is it gathering dust? Because the McGuinty government will not come up with

the matching funds that are needed to unlock that money and put it to use.

Here's some advice from a self-described housing expert: "Don't pretend that taking weak measures and recycling other people's money are housing strategies."

So said David Caplan. Why is $300 million of federal money gathering dust in a bank account while 150,000 Ontarians wait on a list for affordable housing?

Hon Mr Caplan: I appreciate the quote, but the member is, of course, quite wrong in his facts. Monies are not gathering dust. We have unlocked

over $63 million and put it into much-needed affordable housing. Yesterday, the Premier outlined 597 units in Waterloo, 104 units in London, 94 units of affordable housing in Wellington county and

895 units here in the city of Toronto, and I could go on. In addition to the already-mentioned 2,700 units of affordable housing, there's an additional almost 400 new, affordable ownership units

which have come on stream -- over $65 million in new housing.

Our government has done more in eight months than the previous government did in eight years. If the member wants a review of history, I can assure the member

that we have learned the lessons of your failed housing program and we're not going to repeat it to the point where the Provincial Auditor urges the government to shut it down.

Mr Hampton: In everything you just announced, the money was actually committed under the former government. That's why the Toronto Star is so

critical of you. You take federal money and try to take credit for that, and then you take money committed by the former government and try to take credit for that.

You mentioned the announcement you made about the 400 rent-supplemented units in the city of Toronto. Let me remind you that you promised 35,000

rent-supplemented units in the election. If you do the numbers, at the rate you're going, it will take you 87 and a half years to provide the 35,000 rent-supplemented units.

Is it going to take 87 and a half years? Is it going to take more homeless people being arrested on the steps of Queen's Park? Is it going to take more

embarrassment of your government? When are you going to keep your promise to build the affordable housing units so that people who are desperately waiting for affordable housing will have a place

to live?

Hon Mr Caplan: Now we know why the member's housing policies were a failure: He's got a basic problem with mathematics. We have unlocked over

$65 million of housing dollars, not money announced by the previous government. They didn't spend any money; they cancelled affordable housing programs. You were there.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Caplan: That's what you said for a lot of years, I say to my friend the leader of the third party.

We have unlocked those dollars; we are building the units. In fact, we have gone farther in a few short months than the previous government did in their entire

eight years, and there's much more on the way.

I would say to the member, tone down the rhetoric and look at the facts. You will see that the McGuinty government is back in the housing game. It is welcomed

by housing providers. We have a new partnership. In fact, we are negotiating a new arrangement with the federal government to access fully the federal dollars that will be available. I look forward

to a renewed housing program here in Ontario, both the kind that my colleague announced today relating to housing allowances, as well as a new capital program.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is for the Attorney General. For the last few months, you've been preoccupied with developing pit

bull legislation for the province. Perhaps, Minister, you can turn your attention to protecting children who are trapped in sexual exploitation and prostitution in this province. Two years ago,

legislation was passed to protect these children specifically. The Office for Victims of Crime worked directly with your seatmate and cabinet colleague the member for Sudbury, who championed this

cause -- he worked directly with the Office for Victims of Crime -- and resulted in Bill 86. You have been the Attorney General now for well over a year. Why have you not proclaimed Bill 86, and

why have no funds been allocated to get these safe houses for these children victims in Ontario? Why has it taken you so long to act in the interest of these vulnerable children?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): The minister of

children's services.

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

member for the question, and indeed this is an issue of great concern to all of us in this province. The exploitation of children in this way has got to be one of the lowest acts of humankind. We

are not proclaiming the former bill -- first of all, you didn't proclaim it -- and if you're asking me why we're not proclaiming it, it's because it's not comprehensive enough. We are taking a very

serious look at Mr Bartolucci's bill, and I want to congratulate my colleague for his comprehensiveness on his bill.

Mr Jackson: I think it's disgraceful that the Attorney General of this province has no opinion on this important issue. He offs it to a

minister who doesn't have the budget, the resources or the mandate. I'm talking about a report that the Office for Victims of Crime, through their victims' justice fund, financed. Some $50,000 went

into this fund to come up with Martin's Hope -- the Martin Kruze incident. The minister will be aware of that. This man committed suicide in desperate reflection upon the inadequacies of the

justice system in this province, a system you are responsible for, both at federal table discussions and within this province -- not that minister over there; you're the Attorney General of this

province.

You are sitting on over $45 million in the victims' justice fund in this province, funds you're not applying to these vulnerable children in our province. So

don't off your question to a minister with no budget. Do your job and stick up for these people. Frankly, they're more important than pit bull legislation. It's about time you got it.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: Well, it might not have been much of a budget under his government, but we have a very healthy budget in the Ministry

of Children and Youth Services.

One of the reasons we have not gone forward on this bill is that stakeholders were telling us, "Make sure you have the services in place when you proclaim or

introduce a new bill," which is what we are doing in our first year of our mandate. For the first time in a decade, we increased spending on children's mental health. Without these services, you

can have the strictest laws, but if there aren't the services to help these children who are sexually exploited, you will be defeating the purpose. We are working hard on this issue -- very

hard.

CHILD CARE

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. There is a crisis in child care funding

right across the province. Regulated child care is becoming a luxury in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario. Your election platform promised $300 million in new provincial funding for child care, which you

said would serve an additional 330,000 children. To date, we've seen not a penny of new provincial funding for children. Minister, my question is simple: When are we going to see the $300 million

in new provincial funding for child care that you promised more than a year ago?

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

member from Hamilton for the question. Indeed, child care was one of the main promises of our platform. I'm glad to see so much interest in our Best Start plan. We will be announcing our Best Start

plan tomorrow, and it will be a comprehensive plan, one with a seamless transition to school age. We're very proud of it, and that's all I'm going to say about that at this moment, but I want to

reassure the member that I have taken all her concerns under consideration.

Ms Horwath: Well, Minister, you promised you would devote $300 million in new provincial funding to regulated child care and you haven't done

it yet. It's a mystery, Minister: the case of the missing $300 million, worthy of a Sherlock Holmes investigation. It's gone AWOL; not one penny of the promised new provincial funding for child

care has seen the light of day.

Don't you think it's time that you honoured at least one of your election promises? Will you confirm right now that you will commit the $300 million in

provincial funding that you promised during the election and use it in its entirety for a comprehensive, not-for-profit system of quality regulated child care? Or would you prefer to be known as

the minister who breaks promises to children?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I would like to remind the honourable member that for the first time in a decade we increased funding to child care in

this province by over $60 million, and we have never hidden the fact that that first allotment was federal money.

That government didn't put a penny extra into child care. They did not believe in it; they were ideologically opposed to it. But the research is in: The early

years are the most important years in a child's life, and we will invest.

I know it's hard for you to accept that we are actually fulfilling this very important commitment, but we are. And stay tuned for tomorrow's announcement.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Our government has made a

commitment to provide direct assistance to families in greatest need of housing. We promised to help people with low incomes, many currently living in shelters or spending more than half their

income on rent. We promised to help them find safe, decent, affordable places to live.

Minister, today you made an announcement about a very innovative program that demonstrates the McGuinty government's goal of promoting affordable housing in

Ontario. Can you please inform Ontarians of some of the details of this announcement and describe how our government is delivering on our commitment?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I thank the member for her question and also

for her involvement in helping to bring all the various parties together.

Today, in partnership with the city of Toronto, the Toronto Community Housing Corp and the local landlords, the McGuinty government, our government, is

reducing the social housing waiting list here in Toronto by 400 individual families and members. The pilot project that was announced today, in the amount of $3.6 million over five years, will help

approximately 400 low-income households, and we don't think that's piddly: 400 individual families that are either living in shelters or paying more than 50% of their income on rent are going to be

helped in this regard, to remove them from the waiting list.

We believe this is a great program. Let's just see what David Miller had to say about this: "This pilot program will help hundreds of deserving Torontonians

find a place to call home. It also creates a framework for co-operation that will help us push forward with other initiatives to address this city's affordable housing crisis."

It's a start, and it's a start in the right direction, to help 400 families in this city.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): My supplementary question is to the same minister. Minister, your announcement illustrates

our government's ability to work with communities to try to help improve Ontario's quality of life. Can you please inform Ontarians and constituents in my riding, Scarborough Southwest, which has a

large percentage of people on affordable housing or in need of assistance, as well as those across Ontario, how you plan to continue to assist in making this program work so that people can

function properly in low-income situations?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: I hear a lot of catcalls coming from across the House, but we think it's an excellent example in which government can work

together with the private sector -- the landlords, in this case -- the Toronto Community Foundation, the Toronto Housing Corp and the city of Toronto. It's a start in the right direction. We are

helping 400 families in a pilot project.

This is the first time that a housing allowance program of this nature has ever been accepted and endorsed by a government in Ontario. The NDP didn't do it.

They didn't create one housing allowance program. The Tories certainly didn't do it. We're on the right way of solving the affordable housing program in this province.

LANDFILL

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of the Environment: While you've been attempting to put out garbage fires,

Ontario's landfill crisis continues to grow. My question is about the Edwards landfill in Haldimand county, specifically about the application for a provisional certificate of approval to expand

the Edwards landfill to receive Toronto area garbage.

Given that this C of A application calls for a 5,000% increase in the daily fill rate and changes the allowable waste to now include residential, commercial,

institutional and industrial waste, and given that under

section 30 of the Environmental Protection Act, the director is compelled to conduct a hearing before issuing a C of A in these kinds of

situations, it appears you have no choice but to require a hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal. Minister, can you tell the people of Haldimand county when the hearing will be held?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I appreciate the question. It's an opportunity for me to clarify the process. The

honourable member mentioned in his remarks that it is the director who plays a very important role when there are amendments to a certificate of approval, and it is the director who would make

those determinations.

With regard to the proposals that have been put forward for the Edwards landfill, I think it's also important that the members of this House understand that,

as the ministry is considering this application to amend the certificate of approval, people who live within a two-kilometre radius of the site have been informed. There has been a public open

house; it was held in June. There has been information in the local paper. A public liaison committee has been created. Three members of the public were appointed to that public liaison committee.

Our government believes there are processes in place that ensure the concerns of the public have a venue to be heard.

Mr Barrett: I'm not dealing with the problems in consultation. Minister, under

section 30 of the EPA, the director is compelled to conduct a

hearing before issuing a C of A where the application is made for enlargement of a waste disposal site, and I quote in part, or "any other waste the director ascertains is the equivalent of the

domestic waste of not less than 1,500 persons." If you feel the director is not compelled to conduct this hearing under

section 30, it still would be a factor in favour of exercising your

ministerial discretion under

section 32.

Minister, there is a significant change in the nature and the daily volume of allowable waste -- as you know, from letters coming in -- at Edwards landfill.

Surely this is enough to convince a government minister to exercise her discretion under

section 32 and order a public hearing. Again, when could a hearing be held?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I think it's important that I clarify for the honourable member and the members of this House that the director has a

responsibility to make a determination. If, within the community, people object to the decision the director makes, they can appeal that to the Environmental Review Tribunal. The Environmental

Review Tribunal then considers that, and if people continue to be unhappy with the determinations that are made around the Edwards landfill, then that decision comes to me. That is appealed to me

as the minister.

It's totally inappropriate for me to interject myself into the process prematurely and I have no intention of doing that. I am a strong proponent of following

the process. I believe there's an adequate one in place and I think it is totally inappropriate that it would be suggested that the minister influence the process in this way.

ONTARIO FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. If you looked at the news clippings today, you would

have seen in the Star and the Sun items about the film industry crisis in Toronto. One reads,

"Hollywood Needs Carrot to Film Here, City is Told."

Production firms say tax incentives aren't competitive. Toronto may lose place as `preferred destination.'"

I raised this question with my colleagues last week and I'm going to tell you again what's at stake here. Over 50,000 jobs depend on the industry. Most of

these jobs are located in Toronto and most of the film studios are right in my riding. This is a crisis happening in jobs in my riding. The industry stopped growing in absolute terms four years

ago, and according to your government's own Ontario Media Development Corp, foreign projects filming in Ontario declined a stunning 36% in 2003.

Minister, I'm going to ask you today, what is your government planning to do to reverse the decline in foreign television and film productions in Ontario?

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I think the Premier has commented on this several times. First, to restate what

he has said, that's to tell the film industry and indeed the public of Ontario that we fully understand the importance of this industry. It is an important industry for Ontario. We have an enormous

infrastructure developed around it. It brings a lot of jobs to the province of Ontario, there's no doubt, and the Premier has been crystal clear on that.

The Premier has also indicated, during the campaign, the commitments that we've made. We intend to honour those commitments. We've said that we will deal with

this over our mandate, and we will do that. This year's budget contains some modest improvements. The Premier has indicated that over the four years of our mandate we will do exactly what we said

we would do in our campaign commitment. I think that will be of significance to the Ontario film industry.

Ms Churley: I guess that was a more positive answer than I got from the finance minister the other day. But I would say this to you: You

promised during the election that you would increase the tax credits to the film industry. That's what you promised. The film industry can't wait over the mandate of four years to get this

increase. They need it now. Other jurisdictions have been cutting into Ontario's share with higher tax credits.

In an

article that appeared today in the Toronto Star, Ken Ferguson is quoted as saying he is reconsidering building a major film and media complex in the port

lands in my riding, partially because of provincial policies toward film. Mayor David Miller has also come out saying that more needs to be done on the tax credit.

Minister, I've spoken with the finance minister, who at least has now agreed to meet with the film industry. That's a positive move forward. Will you commit

today to keep the promise that you made in the election to give the film industry this increased tax credit, and do it immediately so that they do not continue to lose their market share?

Hon Mr Phillips: I'd say what I said earlier in my first comments, and that is, I fully appreciate and understand the importance of the

industry, and we've made commitments which we will honour during our mandate.

I also would say to all of us, we're all dealing with a fiscal reality that the province cannot do everything in the first year. What the Minister of Finance

has said is that we must ensure that if we want to guarantee long-term economic well-being in Ontario, we have to do things in the health care and the education areas, but we also must make

absolutely certain that we have our fiscal house in order.

We'll do that. We will deliver on the commitment we made to the film industry. We'll do it in a way that ensures that we indeed get our fiscal house in order.

My judgment is, if you want to know what perhaps provides the most important long-term economic well-being, it could very well be that.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. A blockade of six lumber mills in

Timmins and Cochrane --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. The member from Toronto-Danforth, will you just come to order, please?

Member from Thunder Bay-Superior North, would you start the question again.

Mr Gravelle: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. A blockade of six lumber mills in Timmins and Cochrane by independent

truckers has been ongoing for two weeks now. The driving issue behind the blockade is how much the truckers are being paid by the harvesting contractors to haul logs from the bush to the lumber

mills. Unfortunately, this blockade has already started to slow the flow of lumber and its by-products from the mills. As a result, mills are preparing to lay off workers because they don't have a

large enough supply of logs to keep running. While I understand that the Ministry of Natural Resources doesn't have a direct role in the dispute, can you tell the Legislature what you've done to

help resolve the situation?

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): As with the local member, it has been a big concern for all of us to see this action take

place. As the member correctly points out, this has been an action not involving the government but between companies, contractors and independent truckers who haul the logs into the mills, and

it's starting to have an impact on the sawmills in northeastern Ontario.

On Tuesday, I asked my parliamentary assistant, Michael Brown, MPP for Algoma-Manitoulin, to go to Timmins as a fact-finder, to start to sit down with the

truckers and the companies. He had a very successful day doing that yesterday, and he has already reported back to me today with some suggestions as to how we can facilitate this. He's going to

continue that work.

I am very confident that the companies understand our concern and are working very closely with the independent truckers.

Mr Gravelle: I'm certainly pleased to hear that we're doing everything we can to address this difficult situation.

You mentioned in your response the importance of forestry to the northern economy. You know as well as anyone that forestry is the main driver behind the

northern economy and a huge contributor to Ontario's overall economic prosperity. Ontario's forest industry employs about 80,000 workers and generates annual sales of $18 billion. More than half of

its sales are exports, principally to the United States, and almost 50 communities in northern Ontario, many in my constituency, are heavily dependent on the forestry sector to sustain their

economies. As Minister of Natural Resources, could you tell the House what you're doing to ensure that the forestry industry deals with the difficult challenges it's facing and remains strong into

the future?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I do have an answer for the member opposite. This morning in Thunder Bay, I announced the establishment of a minister's council

on forest sector productivity. This council is comprised of the top CEOs of the major forest companies that do business in Ontario, municipal representation and two of the main union reps who head

the unions involved in the wood products industry in this province. Also, I've asked First Nation communities that have forest product industries in their communities to be part of this. We all

know the incredible challenges the industry faces right now, whether it's the softwood tariff dispute with the United States, all the other costs or the rising Canadian dollar. I know they have

ideas about how government can help them. I expect to have an action plan in place by April of next year so we can help the industry be more productive.

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to ask a question of the Acting Premier, who is also the Chair of Management Board

and the minister responsible for the Ontario Realty Corp. You promised the working group that is trying to help save the Frost Centre that the Ontario Realty Corp would not be moving or selling

anything that is still at the Frost Centre. Last night, one of my constituents was driving by the Frost Centre and was surprised to see a couple of workmen who identified themselves as being with

the ORC. These workmen were removing the Frost Centre sign.

What kind of signal are you sending to the working group? What sort of signal are you sending to the people who have been trying to keep the Frost programs

alive? Minister, will you keep your word? Will you put the sign back up?

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): That's a good question. I would just say to the residents of Haliburton -- and

I'm there many weekends, so I have to handle this very carefully -- that the policy of the ORC is that when a building is declared surplus, they take the sign down and store it. So they're

following policy. I don't fault them, but in this particular case, I don't think it's a good idea. I'm not faulting the ORC, but I think the sign should stay up. They were following policy, but

this is a unique circumstance. I'm going up there, perhaps this weekend, so I want to make sure the sign is back up.

Ms Scott: Thank you, Minister. I'm sure that you will drive by when you travel up there this weekend.

The sign has tremendous symbolic significance. It has long remained up there, and it has weathered many a winter. Could you please tell us when the sign will

go back up?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): Bring your hammer.

Hon Mr Phillips: There is a community group of terrific volunteers working on this, trying to finding what's called a financially viable,

locally driven solution, and I'm anxious to see that happen.

I assume that those workpeople kept the nails and that we can get it back up fairly quickly -- certainly by the weekend, I would hope.

I'm not faulting our officials for doing it; they were following policy. But in this case I think there's a unique relationship with this facility. I'll even

bring my hammer up there, if need be, for the weekend.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to say to the Chair of Management Board that the golf

course at Blairhampton is closed at this time of year.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): To the minister: I'm sure that all our sign crews have nothing to do right now, so you can put them to

work.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, you will know that a number

of people in your ministry have been advocating map staking for years. To explain it to members of this Legislature, what that basically means is that if we move to a map staking situation, large

mining companies would be able to sit in their boardrooms down on Bay Street and decide which claim they want to bring in for their own company, putting out of work local prospectors and people in

the mining industry who work on the ground in the bush in northern Ontario.

You will know that there is a huge campaign going on right now in northern Ontario.

Whereas major companies had said there was no gold to be found at Hemlo,

Don McKinnon, an individual prospector, went in the bush with John Larche and found the largest gold deposit in Ontario in a very long time. Now Mr McKinnon is heading up a campaign asking you to

say no to map staking and to say no to those people in your ministry who are advocating that. Are you prepared today in this House to say, "No. There will be no map staking in northern

Ontario"?

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Thank you for the question. Do you know what? This is a huge, huge,

contentious issue. Clearly, the Mining Act advisory committee is looking at the pros and cons with regards to map selection and map staking. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion between the

PDAC and the OPA, the group of prospectors in Timmins that advocates against it. In direct answer to your question, at this point in time there is absolutely no consideration being given to map

staking in northern Ontario.

Mr Bisson: I've got the supplementary; I may as well use it. I don't know how to take "yes" for an answer.

I just want to make sure that we both understand each other and we're both very clear. At this point you're saying there will be no map staking, but will you

commit that in the life of this government you will not go to map staking anywhere in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Bartolucci: To the member or to the industry, I'm not going to do that. What I am going to commit to is to ensure that the reports and

the studies that are going to be brought back from the Mining Act advisory committee will be studied very, very carefully. They will be shared with my critic in the third party, because I think

that's important as well.

I want to reinforce that at this point in time, there is no intention to move to map staking in northern Ontario.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Minister, last week, our government

launched Consumer Awareness Week to educate consumers about their rights, protections and responsibilities in the marketplace. As part of the message communicated to the public, you discussed the

growing issue of identity theft, which has also been highlighted in the media in recent months. For example, as reported by the Globe and Mail, in March of this year a massive identity theft

occurred involving over 1,400 citizens. These files were stolen from the largest credit bureau in Canada, Equifax. According to the Attorney General, identity theft is at a record high and

increasing at an alarming rate. What steps should consumers take, and what measures should our government implement, to ensure that consumers don't fall prey to theft or fraud?

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): That's the best question I've heard from a member from Toronto today. I want to

thank the honourable member for Davenport. He has expressed a great interest in what is commonly known as the fastest-growing crime in North America, that being identity theft.

Members of the House may remember that in March we launched a new program called Keep Your Identity Safe. Because new Canadians are often victims of identity

theft, we've distributed a brochure and a communications campaign in eight different languages, which advises individuals how they should take action, first, to protect themselves from identity

theft, and secondly, if they are victims of identity theft, how to go about reporting it.

We've also introduced an on-line identity theft statement that can save precious time when an individual has had credit cards or their identity stolen. I'm

very proud of the work the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services has provided. I look forward to the honourable member's supplementary.

Mr Ruprecht: I really appreciate that answer --

Interjections.

Mr Ruprecht: Speaker, I can't ask my --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member for Davenport, if you have a supplementary, please present it.

Mr Ruprecht: I have another very serious question, actually, if you could all pay attention to this.

I have received complaints from some of my constituents who are concerned about inaccurate information on their individual credit files -- you may check your

own credit file. This incorrect information greatly affects their ability to apply for credit cards and purchase consumer goods -- even for routine banking. Literally thousands of Canadians are

denied credit due to erroneous, derogatory information on their files with the credit bureau. In fact, a major study was done by the Consumer Federation of America in 2003. Over half a million

people were surveyed, and guess what they found? They found that erroneous information was on the credit files of more than 47% of the people who were surveyed.

What protection do consumers have to ensure that inaccuracies on credit files are verified by the consumer and changed promptly by credit agencies?

Hon Jim Watson: The member has been very persistent in dealing with the issue of credit reports. As individuals of the House may be aware, and

if they're not, the federal legislation, PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, requires that credit reporting agencies must make corrections to mistakes

identified in credit reports within 30 days of the request. That's the law. Consumers have this right. They also may contact the registrar of consumer reporting in my ministry.

The member is quite correct: Individuals should, on a regular basis, check their credit rating. It can be done free of charge via mail. The information is

available on our Web site, at cbs.gov.on.ca. A number of articles have been written about this -- Linda Leatherdale in the Sun and Ellen Roseman in the Toronto Star -- urging individuals to contact

their credit rating agencies to ensure that the information is correct, because that will affect one's credit history.

PETITIONS

PER DIEM FUNDED AGENCIES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over 4,000 vulnerable children, youth and adults are provided with high-quality services in residential care and treatment homes in the province of

Ontario, including those individuals who are medically fragile, developmentally handicapped, autistic, physically abused, neglected, conduct-disordered, young offenders and emotionally disturbed;

and

"Whereas over 4,000 child and youth workers are dedicated in their profession to work with vulnerable children, youth and adults in the provision of an

accepting, safe, supportive, therapeutic environment; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government's 2004 budget promised $38 million to children's mental health services or otherwise a 3% operational increase to those

agencies who have not received an increase in several years; and

"Whereas the government" of Dalton McGuinty "has excluded the 93 agencies and more who serve this vulnerable population under a funding structure referred to

as `per diem funded agencies'; and

"Whereas, by excluding these children of the province and the dedicated staff who serve them from the 3% increase promised in the 2004 budget, agencies will

close down, thereby handicapping government with respect to the delivery of service and costing the government far more by placing those hard-to-serve clients in more costly facilities,

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario do the right thing, help and assist the lives of the many, many vulnerable people in Ontario and include per diem agencies

(Ontario Association of Residences Treating Youth) in the 2004-05 provincial budget. Keep your promise and commit to the 3% increase in staff and client funding. The Parliament of Ontario should

recognize that the clients and staff are all citizens of Ontario and should not be penalized by virtue of where they reside or where they may be placed" in our province.

I've attached my signature of support as well.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition signed by thousands of Ontarians. It reads as follows:

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

they need;

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

overburdened family physician offices and emergency departments;

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

million in other health care costs; and

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

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

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

I agree with these petitioners. I have affixed my signature to this.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Portuguese Canadians number 171,545 in the Toronto census metropolitan area, many of whom encounter serious barriers (language, culture, and location)

to accessing community and long-term services; and

"There are no long-term-care homes dedicated to the needs of Portuguese Canadian seniors; and

"Camões House for the Aged and Portuguese Community Centre of Toronto is proposing a partnership with a local long-term-care provider to purchase up to

160 existing beds in the Toronto area (for a nominal fee), to develop a Portuguese Canadian long-term-care home in Toronto. This partnership is tentative and is dependent on the approval of the

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care;

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

"We encourage the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, his staff, and members of the Legislature to support the Camões proposal, and to make the

appropriate administrative and policy changes required to develop a Portuguese Canadian long-term-care home in Toronto."

Since I agree with this petition 100%, I'm delighted to put my name to it.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas children with multiple special needs (and their families) throughout the province access ongoing rehabilitation services that are critical for their

development at children's treatment centres in their area; and

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

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

own area; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care provided funding to the Simcoe York District Health Council for implementation planning for an integrated

children's rehabilitation services system in December 2001; and

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

"Whereas the proposal was reviewed and approved by the appropriate ministries in 2003, and in August, the Ministry of Health advised the Simcoe county and York

Region District Health Council that the funding had been committed and would be available shortly;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to release the funding for the children's treatment centre in Simcoe county and York region so that

core rehabilitation services can be delivered to the children and youth in Simcoe county and York region."

I'm pleased to sign my name to this.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

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

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

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and affix my name thereon.

PIT BULLS

Mr Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): On behalf of my constituents of Thornhill and Concord, I present today a petition requesting that the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation. The petition reads:

"Whereas,

"Aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ... implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible

ownership of all breeds."

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): "Save the Frost Centre

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Leslie M. Frost Natural Resources Centre has a long history in the county of Haliburton and provides an important historical link dating back to

its use in 1921 as a chief ranger station; and

"Whereas the history in the use and management of natural resources in Ontario stretches back to the 1600s and forms an integral part of the overall history of

the province and MNR. The history of the ministry and the Frost Centre itself easily qualify as a significant historic resource; and

"Whereas the Minister of Culture, Madeleine Meilleur, has said, `The McGuinty government values and is committed to conserving Ontario's heritage for the

enjoyment and benefit of present and future generations'; and

"Whereas the Frost Centre is an important educational resource for the community, being described on the Ministry of Natural Resources Web site as `Ontario's

leading natural resources education, training and conference centre'; and

"Whereas closure of the Frost Centre would cause economic hardship in the local communities of the county of Haliburton and district of Muskoka due to direct

job losses and loss of tourism dollars spent in local communities; and

"Whereas the local community has not been consulted about the closure plans;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should not close the Leslie M. Frost Natural Resources Centre."

It's signed by thousands of people, and I attach my signature to it.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to present this petition on behalf of my riding.

"Whereas there is no established province-wide standard to deal with anaphylactic shock in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylactic shock in the Education Act; and

"Whereas anaphylactic shock is a serious concern that can result in life-or-death situations; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario have the right to be safe and feel safe in their school and community; and

"Whereas all parents of anaphylactic students need to know that safety standards exist in all schools in Ontario;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned," request "that the McGuinty government support the passing of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic

students, which requires that every school principal in Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas many volunteer fire departments in Ontario are strengthened by the service of double-hatter firefighters who work as professional, full-time

firefighters and also serve as volunteer firefighters on their free time and in their home communities; and

"Whereas the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association has declared their intent to `phase out' these double-hatter firefighters; and

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters are being threatened by the union leadership and forced to resign as volunteer firefighters or face losing their full-time

jobs, and this is weakening volunteer fire departments in Ontario; and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott has introduced Bill 52, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, that would uphold the right to

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

"That the provincial government express public support for MPP Ted Arnott's Bill 52 and willingness to pass it into law or introduce similar legislation that

protects the right of firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free time."

This was sent to me by a number of my constituents in Wellesley township, and of course I support it as well.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the funding formula used by the Ministry of Health provided only a 1% increase for Four Counties Health Services in Newbury; and

"Whereas Four Counties Health Services has a projected deficit of $1.7 million; and

"Whereas the plan to balance the budget of Four Counties Health Services by 2006 recommends the closing of all beds at the hospital; and....

"Whereas the continuing viability and operation is of critical importance to the quality of life of all citizens in the hospital's catchment area;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request a review of the budget/funding and consultation with the hospital board/administration/community to reflect the needs

of our rural hospital and community."

I will sign this one.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas children with multiple special needs (and their families) throughout the province access ongoing rehabilitation services that are critical for their

development at children's treatment centres in their area; and

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

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

own area; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care provided funding to the Simcoe York District Health Council for implementation planning for an integrated

children's rehabilitation services system in December 2001; and

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

"Whereas the proposal was reviewed and approved by the appropriate ministries in 2003, and in August the Ministry of Health advised the Simcoe county and York

region district health council that the funding had been committed and would be available shortly;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to release the funding for the children's treatment centre in Simcoe county and York region so that

core rehabilitation services can be delivered to the children and youth in Simcoe county and York region."

I affix my signature to this petition.

TAXATION

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Hands Off Our Wallets

"Whereas the Liberal Premier McGuinty promised as part of his election platform that he would not raise taxes; and

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal budget on May 18 imposes an increase of income tax ranging from $300 to $900 per person, in addition to a $3.9-billion electricity

rate hike; and

"Whereas false promises of Liberal Premier McGuinty adversely affect the trust between Ontarians and their elected representatives;

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

"We petition that the Liberal Premier keep his promise and immediately agree not to impose higher taxes."

I am pleased to join my fellow Cambrians in signing this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 26, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 25,

An Act respecting government advertising / Projet de loi 25,

Loi concernant la publicité gouvernementale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The member for Hamilton East.

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My understanding is that I have not even a full two minutes left in my debate on this issue.

As I was mentioning back on October 26, I think that people would generally think the bill is headed in the right direction. The issue becomes, once again, the

government's lack of a fulsome bill covering off the issues of government advertising. Quite frankly, we in this party have affectionately referred to it as the Mack truck legislation: a bill that

has so many loopholes in it that you could drive a Mack truck through the loopholes.

Quite frankly, it's not enough. It's certainly a beginning, but Bill 25 needs to have a lot more work done on it. It needs to have, I think, a lot more

attention to the details, and it doesn't go far enough in addressing the fact that people are quite fed up with the use of taxpayers' dollars for advertising -- quite frankly, partisan advertising

-- by governments. It's simply inappropriate. It shouldn't be done.

Interjections.

Ms Horwath: This bill, unfortunately, as my friend from Niagara Centre, Mr Kormos, is indicating, is just another Liberal broken promise. It

doesn't make the grade. It doesn't deliver on the promise that was made to deal with this quite horrible practice of advertising partisan politics through taxpayer money.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to address Bill 25. I certainly can remember, when I was campaigning for six months, how the

public would tell me they'd watch television and see the ads, or the pamphlets being put out by the Tory government, that weren't for the purpose of educating the public on services being provided

by the government but really were designed for partisan advertising. One of the commitments I made was that that would be something I would certainly be bringing forward once I was elected. Of

course, the government has committed to that.

I can still remember, one evening when I was campaigning, someone asking me to come into the house. There was a television ad running. I sat with this couple

and watched the ad. It was one of these partisan ads that the previous government ran. The person I was sitting with was a former editor of one of the largest newspapers in our community -- he had

retired -- and he was very clear and concise that this had to stop.

I'm really pleased that Bill 25 is designed and committed to eliminating partisan advertising. It's a good step. There was nothing that existed before; no

government has ever taken this initiative. It's easy to criticize it, saying it's not enough and not the right thing, but someone has to take the lead. We have, and we're going in the right

direction with it.

It will save money, which will be spent for hospitals, schools and the things that people in all the communities across Ontario want it to be spent for. That's

what the bill will lead us toward. It's in line with the throne speech, where we made that commitment, and we're sticking to it.

I'm pleased to have had the opportunity, for the past two minutes, to speak on this bill and share with the people of Ontario where we're going with it.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): This bill was introduced by this party some two months ago, I think, and between the time of

introduction and now, the government produced a very, very political piece with taxpayers' money. We stood in this Legislature and asked them to live by the legislation they had laid on the table.

Everybody on the opposition side thought it was only fair that the Liberal Party pay for that piece of Liberal propaganda.

We've heard about a government that goes about the province and talks about democratic renewal and reform. Yet what we have, in fact, is a government that is

practising something it does not preach.

We welcome getting this government into this stage of our legislative process, because we want it passed. We would have liked the Liberal government to give

their latest rag of advertising, which they presented to the people as a government piece -- we would have liked to have the auditor review that and hear his comments on it. We asked in this

Legislature, "Premier McGuinty, take that piece as though the legislation had already been passed, give it to the auditor and ask him what his advice is with regard to whether or not this was a

partisan piece of advertising." What did we hear back? Nothing. They thought they could get away with it. They have been getting away with it, and they continue to get away with it. So they talk

one way and they act another. Disgraceful.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Once again, Andrea Horwath, New Democrat, member for Hamilton East, with a strong and compelling argument

and a careful and thorough analysis of Bill 25, addresses the issue in as capable a way as anybody could in this chamber, as anybody ever has in my experience here. What she's telling you is that

this is the Mack truck bill. There are loopholes in here so big you can drive a Mack truck through them, the Electrohaul, the Caterpillar tractor, if you will, if you were so inclined.

This government has no commitment to abandoning partisan advertising. They've demonstrated that over and over again. They've demonstrated that with the

publication of glossy magazine pieces so clearly constituting partisan self-promotion on the part of the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party.

Of course, they're desperate. They've been reading the polls lately, along with Conservatives and New Democrats, and while Conservatives have some reason to be

pleased and New Democrats are elated, the Liberals have found themselves pretty cranky about the evaporation of support for them out there in every single part of this province.

New Democrats have been very clear, saying, "Look, send this bill to committee," because there are more than a few folks out there across Ontario who want to

tell you that your bill is nothing but a scam, a sham, a fraud. It is flim-flammery of the highest sort; another duping or effort to dupe the people of Ontario. Well, they're hip to your tricks

now, friends. Burn them once, shame on you; burn them twice, shame on them. They're not going to get burned twice. People are up to your tricks now. They know what kind of scam artists you are. You

guys constitute a consumer rip-off all unto your own selves. This bill is the highlight of that sort of scam.

I'm looking forward to Ms Shelley Martel and her comments on this bill in 30 minutes.

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): Even the NDP's own caucus is laughing at that last statement.

Let me just say that this legislation is exactly what we said we were going to do in the last election: It's a banning of partisan advertising. The NDP would

have us throw a blanket over communications throughout the entire province. That would be doing nobody any justice. We have to communicate with people. We are doing a lot of good things, we're

bringing a lot of good change to this province, and it's important that people know what their government is doing. That's not partisan advertising, that's just informing people, and I think it's

extremely important that we do that.

We're transforming this health care system. We're bringing in more nurses. We're improving primary care. We're reducing waiting lists. We're doing all kinds of

things in the health care system. We're providing more community-based services, like home care. We're investing in all the right things in health care, and we are making progress. The people of

this province, as they see this service going through this transition, deserve to know what we're doing, where it's at and how it's going.

It's the same with education. We're seeing improvements in education and class sizes. We're already seeing improvements in results. We're seeing some of the

schools across this province being fixed up.

The people of Ontario have a right to know what's being done with their taxpayer dollars. We're improving the mess that we inherited from the Tories. We're

working very hard to get that deficit down, and as we saw in the recent financial statement, that deficit is coming down. It's through the hard work of this caucus and this government that that's

happening, and the people of Ontario deserve to know that.

We don't want to be saying that in a partisan way. We don't want to be putting that out, where the Premier's or the ministers' pictures are on every single

publication that goes out, but the information has to flow out in some way. You can't put a blanket over information coming out of Queen's Park. People have a right to know.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton East has two minutes to reply.

Ms Horwath: I'm pleased to respond to the questions and comments provided by the member from Niagara Falls, the member from Lanark county, the

member for Niagara Centre and the member from Scarborough Centre. I think it's really apparent that there are always improvements that can be made. Certainly, some that have been suggested were in

fact part of legislation that was tabled by my good friend and colleague Peter Kormos from Niagara Centre in previous times, I believe a couple of years ago. They included things like really

specific guidelines around what is acceptable and what isn't, so that it's not just a matter of someone's opinion but that really strict guidelines exist.

It's a matter of value for money. It's not just a matter of whether or not the advertising is partisan but of where the value is in that advertising. Where is

the dollar value? Is it appropriate to spend the money, based on what the piece of advertisement actually is and what effect it will have and whether or not it will actually be valuable to the

people of Ontario to spend that money on that particular piece of advertising?

In fact, there are a number of parts of this bill that need to be fleshed out a little bit more, that need to be more inclusive of specifics as well as of

different yardsticks to measure whether or not the particular piece, whether it's a print, radio or television piece, is in fact an effective use of taxpayers' money -- not just whether or not it's

partisan, but whether or not it is a valuable piece of information that needs to have advertising dollars attached to it.

Quite frankly, I do appreciate the comments of the members here. However, I believe that this bill will get an excellent airing in committee. It needs to have

some further details ironed out. I look forward to that further discussion happening both today and in the future.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: You two can sort it out however you want, but the member for Simcoe North has the floor.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Now I'm informed that you have already spoken on this bill, so I will call for further debate. The member for

Lanark-Carleton.

Mr Sterling: Things are happening so slowly in this Legislature that some members can't remember whether they're on second or third reading

debate because the government fails to call bills dealing with democratic reform. They introduced a rash of these bills at the beginning, and then they haven't called them.

I suspect it's because they don't want to live within any new rules in this place. They want to go out and tell the world, "We're all for change." So what do

they do? They bring in this bill -- I think it was the first bill -- about cabinet ministers' attendance in this place. They were to get fined $500 if