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

June 8, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 8 June 2004 Mardi 8 juin 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RELAY FOR LIFE

COLLINGWOOD COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

NORTHEAST MENTAL

HEALTH CENTRE

HEALTH CARE

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

LIZ LOGOZZO

NURSES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

REDEEMER UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE ACT, 2004

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MUNICIPALITIES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MUNICIPALITIES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MUNICIPALITIES

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

HEALTH PREMIUMS

HEALTH SERVICES

CHILD CARE

HEALTH PREMIUMS

HOSPITALS

HOME CARE

HEALTH SERVICES

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

PETITIONS

CORMORANTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

CORMORANTS

AJAX-PICKERING HOSPITAL

WATER QUALITY

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

TENANT PROTECTION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

PROPERTY TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE

OPPOSITION DAY

HEALTH SERVICES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RELAY FOR LIFE

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): This past weekend, I had the honour of participating in the Canadian Cancer Society Renfrew

county unit's Relay for Life, which was held at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. When the final numbers are tallied, the total raised will exceed $300,000. These funds will be dedicated to cancer

research and to local support and transportation services.

At this year's event, 140 teams participated and 228 cancer survivors took

part in the victory lap. The most poignant part of the event was the luminary

ceremony, during which Legion members and army cadets lit candles in memory of those who have lost their battle with this dreaded indiscriminate disease or in honour of a cancer survivor.

The generosity of the people of Renfrew county has once again made this one of the most successful events of its kind in the entire province.

I would like to thank all those who have given so much to make this possible, including the organizers, participants, volunteers and sponsors, with a special

thank you to Lieutenant Colonel McBride and all the personnel at CFB Petawawa. With this dedication and determination, the fight will continue at home in Renfrew county and indeed everywhere, until

that glorious day when we can rise and say, "Cancer has been beaten."

At this time I would also like to draw your attention to the members' gallery and welcome my wife, Vicky, who is attending a legislative session for the first

time.

COLLINGWOOD COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to welcome three students to the Ontario Legislature. Kaley

Reid, John Taylor and Josh Sanderson are all grade 12 students at Collingwood Collegiate Institute in my riding of Simcoe-Grey, and I'm pleased to have them here today as my guests.

A couple of weeks ago I was invited to the school by Sasha Helmkay, CCI student council president, who asked me to speak to her peers about Ontario's

parliamentary tradition. It was an absolute pleasure to have this chance to meet with this group of talented and intelligent young people. The students ranged from 14 to 18 years of age, and I've

got to tell you, they were a gifted and engaged audience. I want to take this opportunity to thank Sasha for inviting me to CCI and to congratulate her teacher, Mr Marty Wilkinson, who I know must

be proud to lead such an exceptional group of fine young people.

It also gives me great pleasure to congratulate another former CCI student, Stacey Van Boxmeer of Collingwood, for her tremendous performance as the goalkeeper

for the Canadian Women's Under-19 Soccer Team. Stacey is now a freshman at Indiana State University and a recent graduate of Collingwood Collegiate Institute. She played an integral role in

Canada's 2-1 victory over the favoured US side on Sunday in the gold medal game.

This is quite an accomplishment for Canada. It points to the hard work and dedication of all members of the team, and especially Collingwood's Stacey Van

Boxmeer.

Stacey, on behalf of the people of Simcoe-Grey and the people here, represented in this Parliament of Ontario, I want to thank you for being such a terrific

representative of our community. Best wishes for future success.

NORTHEAST MENTAL

HEALTH CENTRE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The Liberal government has failed the Northeast Mental Health Centre, its patients and staff. Despite repeated

requests for financial help to cover the deficit and avoid program cuts and cancellations, the centre has not received any consideration from the government. As a result, children and adults in

northeastern Ontario who suffer from mental illness and rely on the centre for help are at great risk.

Cuts to children's services include cancellation of mental health services for children aged zero to six living in Sudbury district east, Espanola and on

Manitoulin Island; cancellation of mental health support for children living in CAS foster homes; and cancellation of the district day treatment program, which helps secondary students fighting

addictions to finish high school. Services for children who are duly diagnosed with mental illness and developmental disabilities will be reduced, and the waiting list for pre-school speech and

language services will grow from eight months to one year.

Adults will lose their community-based programs in Elliot Lake and Walden; counselling services will be reduced elsewhere in Manitoulin-Sudbury; the wait time

will grow for seriously ill patients needing help from the ACT teams; and nine acute care beds on the hospital side of the centre will be left empty by the end of the fiscal year 2004-05.

This is a crisis, and the Liberal government hasn't responded. The government promised more funds for mental health services before the election and in the

budget, but the centre hasn't received any money to stop the cuts. Patients suffering from mental illness are already vulnerable. The government must act now, so they are not put at even greater

risk.

HEALTH CARE

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to talk about health care. In today's opposition motion debate --

Interjection.

Mr Wilkinson: -- a number of relevant facts, Mr O'Toole, should not be forgotten. By 2003 the Tory health record included the following sorry

facts: We had fewer nurses per capita than any other province in the Dominion; ninth out of 10 provinces for the number of family doctors per capita; eighth out of 10 provinces for health care

expenditure per capita; and a gross fiscal mismanagement of the province's books that led to a deficit of $6.2 billion, which put all our social programs at risk.

Also not to be forgotten are the following comments. The former Premier, Mike Harris, said in the 1995 election, "I can guarantee you that it is not my plan to

close hospitals." Then he closed or merged 36 hospitals.

He also referred to nurses as Hula Hoop workers and claimed the profession was outdated. Well, this wasn't true during the SARS outbreak, when nurses who worked

for private agencies had to be brought in to cover shortages.

On two-tier health care, the former Premier, Mr Eves, said, "People should be able to buy their way to the front of the health care line." The Tories introduced

P3 hospitals and approved five private MRI clinics and four private CT clinics.

The McGuinty government should be compared not to the Almighty, but to the opposition. We are investing heavily in public health and are rebuilding a public

health care system all Ontarians can be proud of. We've made tough decisions in the best interests of all Ontarians, something the opposition can't say about themselves.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Today is the ninth anniversary of Mike Harris's first victory and of my first election to this House.

Our caucus learned very quickly that demonstrations and protests were not something that working families are usually inclined to attend. After all, working

families are too busy raising a family, working in their community and working long hours to pay their bills. Yet Dalton McGuinty broke his promises to ordinary working families. He raised their

taxes; then he broke his promise to uphold the taxpayer protection law.

Tomorrow, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is holding a rally on the Legislature steps to demand the referendum we were promised. That takes place at noon

tomorrow. Speaker, I trust you will be there as well. Millions of Conservatives, New Democrats and even Liberals are in support of those who can be there, even if they can't be there in person.

Over 100,000 people have already shown support by signing the CTF's petition at www.taxpayer.com. Many others have collected original signatures for my petition to be presented in this House, which

can be downloaded from www.frank-klees.on.ca.

I hope everyone in this House will join us tomorrow at that rally, especially those Liberal MPPs who have so casually shown contempt for ordinary families.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): Today I have a message for thousands of people across Ontario who are termed internationally trained

professionals but who cannot enter their chosen professions: Don't give up.

Almost half of the internationally trained professionals in Ontario are working in areas other than their chosen profession or are underemployed as

professionals. The Ontario economy forgoes billions of dollars each year because of the unrecognized qualifications of this group.

After years of neglect under a very different government, and by working with Ontario occupational regulatory bodies, this government is pledged to reduce

barriers by January 2005. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities is personally committed to monitoring progress and reporting regularly to the House. The budget contained new

investments for training of up to $12.5 million a year by 2005-06.

My message to the people of Ontario who are trained is, the barriers are coming down. My message is also for the government and for the regulators. It is urgent

to make full use of this human capital before skills become eroded and people run out of the energy to battle any longer.

We can't place people specifically in jobs, but we can and we must finally remove from professions the barriers that do not protect the public interest. There

are thousands of trained, willing and able people in our province who have been waiting too long for a fair chance.

This afternoon in room 228, from 5 to 7, internationally trained professionals will host a reception.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): Confusion appears to be reigning in the Conservative caucus surrounding the provincial deficit. As a

candidate in the provincial election, I constantly heard the then-Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition, tell us, "Don't worry. The books are balanced." These words were echoed by every single

Ernie Eves candidate on the campaign trail.

Following the election, respected former Provincial Auditor Erik Peters revealed that there was in fact a $5.6-billion deficit being kept under wraps. At that

time, the Tories dismissed Peters as a Liberal consultant. Now, all of a sudden, the tune has changed. The member for Simcoe-Grey, for example, recently told this House that we should have known

there was a deficit because of SARS and 9/11. "Ontario had a bad year," Tories are telling us, "You should have known."

Not only did they never say anything like that during the election, but their own public accounts, published in August 2003, after SARS, said, "The 2003-04

fiscal outlook is on track with the 2003 budget plan ... a balanced budget is projected, unchanged from the budget plan."

The people of Ontario see through this revisionist history. They want a government that will give them the straight goods. Our new Fiscal Transparency and

Accountability Act will require independently audited pre-election reports and make sure that kind of illusion is never again perpetrated on the people of Ontario.

LIZ LOGOZZO

Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I rise today to recognize an extraordinary act of compassion. Liz Logozzo of Brampton is the mother of

Sarah, Brianna and Julia. She is also a parent volunteer of Mother Mary Ward School in Brampton. She is in our audience.

Since January, Liz Logozzo has been battling breast cancer. Out of concern for her mother, Brianna and her grade 5 schoolmates raised $150 toward the Humber

River Regional Hospital Foundation's chemotherapy clinic. The foundation has set a goal to raise $1 million for the expansion. As well, Liz's 11-year-old daughter, Sarah, and her classmates made

1,026 paper cranes as a symbol of hope after learning about an old Japanese legend. These paper cranes now hang from Liz Logozzo's ceiling and will remain there until she is completely

recovered.

These initiatives not only demonstrate how important Liz Logozzo is to her community in Brampton, but the students at Mother Mary Ward are an example to us all

of good citizenship. They are here today in the House to show their support. I believe I speak for this Legislature when I thank the staff at Mother Mary Ward School, Mrs Logozzo and her daughters

Sarah, Brianna and Julia, who are sitting in the members' gallery, for their courage, compassion and strong example of citizenship.

NURSES

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): On behalf of my constituents in Scarborough Centre, I rise today tell you how proud I am of our government

for taking yet another step in bringing substantial improvements for health care in Ontario.

On June 3, Minister Smitherman announced a $50-million strategy to help retain recent nursing graduates and experienced nurses in Ontario. Our province invests

heavily in our youth, from junior kindergarten to graduate studies, and it is important to keep our young nursing professionals in this province.

This is a critical step for rebuilding health care in Ontario. This plan involves creating new positions in hospitals and long-term-care facilities for young

nurses while allowing them to mentor with more experienced nurses. It will also allow nursing schools to buy clinical training equipment so their students are better prepared for the workforce.

Finally, it will enable us to find new roles for late-career nurses who have been injured on the job. This will allow them to move to less physically demanding tasks while taking advantage of their

skills and knowledge. Not only do we need the bright, energetic initiative of new nursing grads, but we also need the knowledge of experienced nursing staff to help to maintain a strong health care

system for all Ontarians.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Gerretsen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 92,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 / Projet de loi 92, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités.

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

Mr Gerretsen?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I'll wait until ministerial statements.

REDEEMER UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE ACT, 2004

Mr McMeekin moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting Redeemer University College.

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

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45

pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, June 8, 2004, and Wednesday, June 9, 2004, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour of the motion, please 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 1351 to 1356.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Greg

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Wilson, Jim

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 10.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Hon Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about an

important initiative our government is undertaking to improve Ontario's competitive edge and to renew our post-secondary system.

Our Premier is committed to our province's increased prosperity, and he has great expectations for what Ontario's colleges and universities will contribute to

that prosperity agenda. Not only does he want to increase the number of students in colleges and universities; he wants Ontarians to strive for higher levels of education. Our Premier is convinced

that this must happen if we are to build a stronger economy and a better quality of life for the people of Ontario.

We have already taken an important step by freezing tuition fees for two years and providing fair compensation to colleges and universities to fund the tuition

freeze while a review of post-secondary education is conducted. This funding will enable Ontario's students to continue to have access to the quality of post-secondary education that our province

requires if we are to remain competitive. We did this despite the fiscal challenges we face.

Last month's budget announced that former Premier Bob Rae will conduct a comprehensive review to examine the design --

Applause.

Hon Mrs Chambers: I'll just say that again, Mr Speaker.

Last month's budget announced that former Premier Bob Rae will conduct a comprehensive review to examine the design and funding of Ontario's post-secondary

education system to ensure that we have a high-quality, accessible and affordable system for today's students and for future generations. We are pleased that he has agreed to head this very

important work as adviser to the Premier and to me, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. I would like you to acknowledge again the Honourable Bob Rae in our gallery today.

Applause.

Hon Mrs Chambers: I would also like to announce the seven members of the advisory panel who will support Mr. Rae:

Leslie Church is a law student at the University of Toronto and former executive director of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance.

Ian Davidson is chief of police for Greater Sudbury and is active in community service, participating in a wide range of First Nations, multicultural, youth

and seniors' initiatives.

The Honourable William Davis is a former Premier and education minister who presided over the reshaping of Ontario's education system, creating new

universities and our college system.

Don Drummond is senior vice-president and chief economist for TD Bank Financial Group and recently co-authored a special report on post-secondary education in

Canada.

Dr Inez Elliston is an educator and community worker who has been involved in teaching, professional development and training in schools and at the university

level for more than 30 years.

Richard Johnston is president of Centennial College and retires this month. As past chair of the Ontario Council of Regents, he implemented a range of reforms

and helped establish two French colleges.

Huguette Labelle is chancellor of the University of Ottawa and has served on the advisory council of the Canadian Bureau for International Education and the

boards of post-secondary institutions.

We are grateful that Mr Rae and the distinguished members of the advisory panel have agreed to serve the province of Ontario by contributing their extensive

experience and expertise to this review.

I have asked Mr Rae to make recommendations to deliver a more coordinated, collaborative and differentiated system, and to develop a sustainable funding

framework, including operating grants, tuition and student assistance in support of the newly designed system. These suggestions would allow students to move easily between institutions, promote

greater enhancement of institutions' unique strengths, provide opportunities to invest in particular areas of specialization and make Ontario's post-secondary system more internationally

competitive.

Mr Rae will develop recommendations through consultation with colleges and universities, students and their parents, faculty, staff and members of the private

and public sectors. He will also ask leaders, innovators and experts drawn from Ontario and beyond for advice on issues such as system design; opportunities for specialization, differentiation and

collaboration; funding; student assistance; and accountability. Mr Rae will look not only at what we have done in Ontario but also at jurisdictions from around the world where leading-edge colleges

and universities exist, so that we can put Ontario at the forefront of innovation.

We will move quickly. Consultations will take place over the summer and fall. Mr Rae will provide his report to the Premier and myself in January 2005. Our

government thanks Mr Rae and the members of the advisory panel for committing their time, energy and expertise to the review of Ontario's colleges and universities.

MUNICIPALITIES

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Today, I have the privilege of introducing a

bill that would, if passed, entrench for the future a new relationship between the provincial government and Ontario's municipalities. The bill I'm introducing is an amendment to Ontario's

Municipal Act, 2001, that would recognize in legislation the memorandum of understanding between the provincial government and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Before I go any further, I would like to recognize Mayor Ann Mulvale, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, who has joined us in the

Rosborough, a senior policy adviser with AMO.

This bill represents a new way of dealing with Ontario's municipalities, a new approach to the relationship between the province and municipalities. It

demonstrates our government's conviction that municipalities are, and should be treated as, accountable governments. Far too often in years past, municipalities have been caught off guard and taken

by surprise by the provincial government of the day. After they've worked hard to draft their annual budgets, the province has often come along and imposed new standards, programs and other

municipal requirements that leave them scrambling to meet these new financial and regulatory requirements.

This government does not believe this is a proper, respectful way to treat another order of government. Right now, there is a memorandum of understanding

between the provincial government and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that expires on December 31, 2004. It sets out the framework by which the province consults Ontario's municipal

leaders on matters that affect their municipalities and their residents. However, this memorandum of understanding is not recognized in Ontario's Municipal Act, 2001.

Municipalities have been saying for some time that the people of Ontario are best served when the different orders of government work together, and we

wholeheartedly agree. They have asked the government to recognize the memorandum of understanding in legislation as a way to reinforce that co-operative spirit. This is something we are pleased and

proud to do.

The bill we have introduced today would, if passed, recognize the memorandum of understanding which sets out the province's commitment to prior consultation

with municipalities on matters of mutual interest that affect all of our residents. If passed, it will be a cornerstone of a new and stronger relationship between the province and

municipalities.

The memorandum of understanding provides for regular meetings, which give provincial cabinet ministers and municipal representatives an important opportunity

to discuss matters of mutual interest to both orders of government. It allows the province to get feedback from municipal leaders before putting in place new laws and regulations that affect the

ability of municipalities to meet their communities's needs.

That is the right way to treat another order of government. Clearly, the people of Ontario are better served when all governments work together for good policy

development and, most of all, good service delivery to the people.

The government knows we have to rebuild a trusting, progressive relationship where municipalities are heard and listened to. This government is committed to

working with municipalities, not against them, to build stronger, more self-reliant communities that offer Ontarians a higher quality of life.

In fact, we have made building stronger communities a key goal of our first year in office. Strong communities, large and small, urban and rural, are the

essential ingredient for the high quality of life we all want for ourselves and our children. Ontarians depend on municipalities to play a key role in building those strong, safe and livable

communities.

If passed, the bill would enshrine the memorandum of understanding in the Municipal Act, 2001. It will give municipalities a voice in provincial plans so that,

collectively, we can provide the best services possible to all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to respond on behalf of the official opposition to the comments made by

the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

To begin with, I think it is important that we take this opportunity to review the post-secondary education system. Former Premier Rae will lead a team of

seven very credible individuals. All have a keen interest in Ontario and in education. In particular, I would like to thank former Premier William Davis for participating on this committee. As we

all know, under the Davis years as Minister of Education and later as Premier, the community college system that we rely on today was established.

The timing of the announcement today, though, is quite fascinating. Obviously the McGuinty Liberals needed something warm and cozy to announce, following an

Ontario budget that has all but eliminated Paul Martin's chance of being re-elected and following a poll that now puts the McGuinty Liberals seven points behind the Progressive Conservative Party

only eight months after the 2003 election. Clearly Mr McGuinty needs something very positive to announce. As well, it is interesting to note that this announcement is made on the same day as

Elizabeth Witmer's opposition motion on health care campaign promises.

Let's see what Canada's NewsWire printed in response to the budget of May 18 as it relates to community colleges:

"Funding announced in today's provincial budget will not meet the critical operational shortfall facing Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology.

"The colleges are facing an $80-million shortfall in operating funds for 2004-05.

"`The lower-than-needed funding provided in today's budget will mean cuts to programs, student services and layoffs,' says Richard Johnston, chair of the

funding advisory committee of the committee of presidents of the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario.

"`We are disappointed that the government has deferred significant operating increases to the colleges,' says Johnston....

"`At best, we see today's commitment only as an initial recognition of our immediate needs, with a hope that the remainder will be provided in the coming

months. Realistically, though, this will hurt ... it will hurt our students, it will hurt employers who need our graduates and, ultimately, this will hurt the communities we serve,' says

Johnston."

We await the report from former Premier Rae, and we await the implementation of its recommendations.

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): In response to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I too want to welcome Ann Mulvale to this place.

She has certainly done a great deal to advance the cause of municipalities. In fact, the minister may not be aware that Ann Mulvale signed the original agreement, December 19, when our government

implemented this memorandum.

The fact of the matter is, Ms Mulvale, I want to caution you that putting things into law by this government really doesn't mean they're going to hold to their

end of the bargain. This is the same government that voted for the Taxpayer Protection Act and now breaks it without even flinching. The fact of the matter is, that law would have called for a

referendum before you pass tax increases into law.

Ms Mulvale, I trust this government will at least uphold this part of the law when they pass this into legislation. Don't hold your breath on that either,

because the credibility of this government to do anything, prescribed by law or not, is at an all-time low. According to the latest polls, 9% of people in this province believe what this Premier

says. That is at an all-time low. The credibility of this government is zero in this province.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I would like to add a few comments on the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing in the minute I have left. I would say that the actions of this government demonstrate their new approach to dealing with municipal government. We need to look at the actions of the May 18

budget, when this government unilaterally removed the six municipalities of Muskoka from northern Ontario.

I would like to ask, how much consultation did you do with the six municipalities in Muskoka? Who did you talk to? Who did you ask? To whom did you justify

your reasons for removing Muskoka from the north? If ever there were six municipalities caught off guard, it was those six municipalities. I would say that demonstrates the true spirit of this

government.

Regardless of what we're seeing in this new legislation today, the actions speak for themselves. It's about time this government started consulting instead of

just unilaterally passing very significant changes that will very dramatically affect municipalities.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to say there is no doubt that Mr Rae is eminently suitable for the job. I can vouch for the fact

that, as a former leader of our party, he is a man of integrity, experience, knowledge and with a strong commitment to the post-secondary education system.

There is also no doubt about the fact that the new economy demands that knowledge -- not "demands," but we know knowledge is key to the wealth of nations. We

know that in the past our post-secondary education system has served us well, except in the last eight or so years when we've had chronic underfunding, and it has shaken -- they have shaken -- the

foundation of our post-secondary education system.

What do we know about funding? Ontario universities have the second-lowest funding in Canada: $5,948, compared to the national average of $8,044. What do we

know about the college system? The college system serves 49% more students than it did 15 years ago, but gets 44% less in operating funding in constant dollars. Ontario colleges receive $4,700 per

student for operating support, in contrast to a national average of $6,800.

We have a funding problem. We don't need a study to necessarily tell us that we have a funding crisis. What I say to this government is this: What we need you

to do today is deliver the money so our universities are able to do an effective job in order to meet the demands of a knowledge economy. But we've waited so long under the Conservative government

that we can wait yet another two months until Mr Rae delivers a report that will address this particular issue. I can wait. I've waited very long.

The fact that our universities and colleges have not received the funding they deserve has increased tuition fees more than 60% in the last eight years.

Deregulated tuition fees have seen more dramatic increases, up to 700% in some colleges and universities. It's more costly to go to university in Ontario than in any other province except Nova

Scotia.

When universities and colleges do not get the support they need, the burden shifts to students. If you are a child or a student of a wealthy family, you're OK;

you've got no problem. But if you are a daughter or son of someone who earns $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, even $60,000, you've got a problem.

We've got to stop shifting the burden to students. Tuition fee levels are unacceptable. We demand from the Liberal government that tuition fees go down and not

up. Mercifully, they've frozen them for two years. We demand they go down.

As to the matter of the review, which speaks to having a more coordinated, collaborative educational system, we've got no problem with that, but we do have

concerns about the differentiated system. I don't know what Mr Rae is going to do about what you think about this specialized system, but I've got concerns. I don't want to have to travel thousand

of miles to get to the program I need. So we look forward to the report. I don't know what he has to say about that, but I'm expressing my concerns right now.

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): On the whole issue of dealing with municipalities, we welcome here Ann Mulvale and the entire team. But

I'll tell you that the real person that you should have on that team is Jerry Maguire, because he wants to know, "Where is the money? Show me the money." If you can find him, put him on the team as

well.

I tell you that this government has not been kind to municipalities. This government is not giving as much money to the city of Toronto for transit as the

former government gave to the city of Toronto for transit. You are giving less money. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is one of those 15 targeted ministries that is going to get a cut. It's going

to get a cut that over the next couple of years is going to amount to some 12% of their budget.

Last but not least, you have not been kind to municipalities or voters. I point out the city of Kawartha Lakes, which held a referendum where the people voted.

You denied the referendum; you denied their democratic rights. You have denied the rights to them and, I would put it, to every other municipality that is seeking the same redress against the

former government.

I will point only to the province of Quebec on June 20, which is going to do the right thing. Please watch that referendum. Please have the guts to do the same

thing they're willing to do, because the people have spoken and the people need to be heard.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): To the Deputy Premier -- or the real Deputy Premier, I guess I should say. Mr Deputy Premier --

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Acting Premier.

Mr Eves: I can't help but chuckle at the fact that the Minister of Finance wants it on the record that the government House leader is not the

Deputy Premier. I can only infer from that that he wishes he was. He gets very upset when I refer to the government House leader. However, be that as it may, I'll leave the internal politics for

that side of the House.

My question is very simple: Ninety-one per cent of the people in the province of Ontario believe that you have a credibility problem over there. I think that

you can seriously address it. If you're still talking to the Prime Minister's office over there, you can probably help him in the process by simply living up to your commitment to have a referendum

so the people of Ontario can give you their opinion as to whether they think your new health tax is the best way of addressing the future of health care in the province of Ontario.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, has more integrity than any premier

I've ever known. I will stand behind that integrity as long as I can. My friend opposite forgets that on June 27, Mr Baird, Mr Arnott, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Dunlop, Mr Hardeman, Mr Eves, Mr Hudak, Mr

Jackson, Mr Klees and Mr Miller -- what did they do on June 27, 2002? They voted to break the Taxpayer Protection Act. That's what they did. They voted on a budget bill that had no public hearings

and no third reading debate.

I need no lecture from the member opposite about integrity in government. I look at their financial statement that was put out in August, and what did it say?

That statement said there would be a balanced budget. Two months later we found out that wasn't the case. Premier McGuinty is a man of integrity, is delivering better --

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

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is also for the Acting Premier. The Premier stated on a segment of Focus Ontario

in April that he would not be raising taxes, this after he promised in the election campaign that he would go to a referendum before raising taxes. Now he's raised taxes to the tune of, and in the

effective amount of, $9 billion for the people of Ontario. Only 9% of Ontarians believe the Premier can be trusted at this point. Will you not attempt to restore some faith in the people of Ontario

by holding a referendum on these taxes?

Hon Mr Duncan: The Premier, the Minister of Finance and this government are delivering a budget that will improve our health care and our

education. That is the priority of this government. Our priority is about kids, about the schools and the education that that member's government cut. It is about improved health care service, more

cataract surgery, more heart surgery.

This budget is not about tax cuts; it is about improved health and education. Premier McGuinty and this government are delivering the improvements we need, and

we're confident that the people of Ontario, when they see the results of this transformation, will see a better health care system that serves the people, a better education system that serves our

people. And they will understand that these choices were made in the context of a government that ignored health care and education far, far too long.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): A final supplementary to the Acting Premier: I encourage him to think about the response of Ontarians

that is reflected in the current polls, where you have dropped like a rock. Part of the reason for that is not just your broken promises but the responses, or lack of responses, the opposition

parties are getting from you in the Legislature. We're getting an indication of that here today: non-answers, political rhetoric.

Let's set aside the deficit question, whether there was a deficit that you suggest there was --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: Two of the 231 promises the Liberals made in their platform were (1) they would not run a deficit, and (2) if they did increase

taxes, they would have a referendum. There are two separate issues here. The Liberals continue to try to ride on the deficit issue. But regardless of the deficit issue, they made a solemn promise

to the people of Ontario that they would not increase their taxes without having a referendum. How do you jibe with that, Mr Acting Premier? What's your response to that? Give Ontarians a straight

answer for a change.

Hon Mr Duncan: It's clear that my colleague opposite wants the people of Ontario to forget that government's eight years in power. But do you

know what? We can't forget. We can't forget the people who haven't been able to access proper health care. We can't forget the fact that too many of our children are not achieving the provincial

standard in education. We cannot forget the need to deal with affordable housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm going to ask the leader of the official opposition if he could allow the Acting Premier to respond.

Hon Mr Duncan: We won't forget those people on ODSP who didn't have an increase in 11 years. We won't forget the people on welfare who didn't

have an increase in nine years. No, we won't forget. And the people of Ontario won't forget the $5.6-billion deficit you left this province. They won't forget the mess you left in the electricity

sector. They won't forget the mess you left in the health care sector.

This government is taking tough decisions in a responsible fashion --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Deputy Premier. As you know, there will be a rally on the front steps of the Legislature

tomorrow at noon. It's to be held by very good friends of yours. The Taxpayer Protection Act is going to be challenged by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Those are people with whom you, during

the course of your election campaign, made a great show of signing a pledge, and that pledge was to support and uphold the Taxpayer Protection Act of this province.

Given your alignment with this organization during the election campaign, will you align with them tomorrow on the steps of this place in support of the

Taxpayer Protection Act? Will you do that? Will you be there tomorrow?

Hon Mr Duncan: On June 27, 2002, that member, Mr Klees, voted to break the Taxpayer Protection Act. That's in the record. That was his

government's act. We're making common cause with all the people of Ontario to improve our health care and improve our education system. No doubt there are people who will not support all of our

decisions, but I am confident that, unlike the previous government, the people of Ontario will see the wisdom in the choices we've made -- the wisdom in improving our health care system, the wisdom

in improving our education system. They'll see through this argument by a member who, on June 27, 2002, voted in favour of breaking the Taxpayer Protection Act himself. We need no lecture from you

on keeping commitments. That's one that you broke in this House that day.

Mr Klees: I'm very pleased to respond to that. The fact of the matter is that this member continues equivocation. People are watching this

member and people are watching how this government plays with the truth. He knows full well that what we did when we were in government was to defer a tax break. That's what we did; we deferred a

tax break. We also brought that back in. So it is not at all the same thing, and the people in this province know that.

He knows what he is doing by deflecting the reality, that he and his government are in fact breaking the law. I challenge him to face the very people with whom

he aligned arm in arm during the election campaign. Will he have the guts to show up tomorrow on the steps of the Legislature?

Hon Mr Duncan: I'll remind the member opposite that he had signed the taxpayer pledge before he voted on June 27, 2002, to break that

particular act. I'll tell you what takes guts. Taking guts means taking tough decisions. It means fixing the health care system that your party left in a mess. It means facing up to the

$5.6-billion deficit that you left. It means acknowledging that this financial statement was hooey, was garbage. It said in September 2003 that there would be a balanced budget, and what did the

auditor say? He said no such thing -- a $5.6-billion deficit. This government's taking the tough choices to ensure that our priorities and the priorities of the people of Ontario -- better health

care, better education -- are properly looked after and properly funded, something you failed to do in eight long, painful years.

Mr Klees: The real tough job for this government is going to be to tell the truth one day. That is the real challenge for this government.

Along those lines, yesterday in question period I put to the Premier that he said one thing and the Prime Minister said another, that he, as Premier, had said

he had disclosed to the Prime Minister that there would be a health care premium. It was reported by the Canadian Press yesterday. The Prime Minister denied it. The Premier undertook to correct

that record yesterday. We have checked CP today, we've checked BN: no correction. I'd like to know from the Deputy Premier, will he make the tough decision today and have his Premier admit that

either he or the Prime Minister was not telling the truth? Will he do that?

Hon Mr Duncan: One thing we won't do is cook the books the way that government did in its last budget. Another thing we won't do is have a

budget at Magna. Another thing we won't do is close 39 hospitals. Another thing we won't do is take money out of classrooms and give it to corporations in the form of tax cuts. Another thing we

won't do is try to pretend that our record didn't exist.

This government has now, and will take into the next election, a record that it can be proud of. It will be a record of improved health care; it will be a

record of improved education, something you'll never be able to say. I believe strongly -- and you'll see -- that the people of Ontario will see the wisdom of this budget and will understand that

the actions we've taken will ensure better health care and better education for everybody.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Finance. I heard on the radio this morning that the Premier is

promising that every penny of your regressive and unfair health tax on working families will go to health care. Then I looked at Bill 83, your budget bill, to find the legal provision that would

make that so, and what a surprise. There's nothing in your budget bill that requires that the money raised be spent on health care. What a shock: the Premier out there promising something again,

promising that all the money will go to health care, but when we look for the provisions that will make that the law, they're not there. Minister of Finance, how do you explain the Premier making

more promises, but when you look for the law, when you look for the provisions that will make it so, once again they don't exist? How do you explain that?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I simply invite my dear friend from Kenora-Rainy River to look at pages 43 and 44 of the budget

papers. On these pages he will see that in this year alone we are going to be spending an additional $2.3 billion in health care, $406 million in long-term care. That's going to affect your mom and

my mom and his mom and his mom and her mom, who are in long-term-care facilities. We are going to be spending an additional $470 million to improve the quality of care in our hospitals. This year

the Ontario health premium will raise an additional $1.6 billion. This year we'll be spending an additional $2.3 billion to make the kind of health care system in Ontario that we can be truly proud

of. I think the fact that we have made that commitment in this budget and right the way through a four-year plan should give the member for Kenora-Rainy River some comfort.

Mr Hampton: My question is about what will be in the law, not about more of your rhetoric. This is rhetoric. This is what will become law, and

there is not one word that says the money you're taking out of the pockets of hard-working modest- and middle-income families is going to go to health care. There is nothing that requires it go to

health care. And do you know what that means? Speaker, you know what it means. Absent that provision, your government can spend it on advertising if you want. You can spend it on anything. You

don't have to spend it on health care.

So tell me: The Premier is out there promising it's all going to health care, but there's nothing in your budget bill, which is going to become the budget law,

that requires that. Is this just Dalton McGuinty making more empty promises, since it isn't in the law?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Honest to God, I would have expected more from the leader of the third party. You know, he's read the budget. He's an

intelligent man. He understands budgeting. He understands long-term plans. Certainly someone in his office has looked at the four-year spending plan of the Ministry of Health and the government of

Ontario in health care and has seen in the budget we presented that every single year over the next four years, every single cent from the Ontario health premium will go into improving health care

services. Every single cent, I repeat, will go into improvements in health care in this province.

Mr Hampton: Do you know what I think the Minister of Finance and the Liberal government are saying? They're admitting it's not in the law.

What they're saying to people is, "Trust us." Liberals, who've broken just about every election promise they've made, are saying to the people again, "Trust us."

Minister of Finance, when governments really care about something, they create a dedicated fund. That's why we have a forest renewal trust fund in the

province. The money that comes from stumpage fees can only be spent to renew the forest. I don't see a dedicated fund. I don't see the provisions for establishing a dedicated fund. I don't see that

at all. My question to you is, given that Dalton McGuinty has become the consummate promise breaker, why should the people believe this promise when you've broken all the others?

Hon Mr Sorbara: His story line, to people watching who don't know how this place works, maybe has some sort of resonance. He knows full well

that estimates are presented in this Legislature, that those estimates and votes govern where money is spent, and that this Legislature -- all 103 members -- have the responsibility to hold the

government to account on its budget.

We've done more than that. We have set out a four-year plan to ensure that every single cent of the Ontario health care premium will go into improved primary

care, into reducing the waiting times for cataract surgery, into better community level care, better home care, better long-term care. He knows that. For him to propose anything else in question

period is simply a distortion and is unacceptable.

Mr Hampton: I am --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): This is a new question.

Mr Hampton: My question is to the Minister of Finance. I am here to hold a government of promise breakers to account. I went to your budget

document, looking for any provision that would require that money, the $2 billion you are taking out of the pockets of hard-working families, to go into health care. Do you know what I found? All I

found is

section 17, dealing with the Taxpayer Protection Act, which says that the Taxpayer Protection Act "is amended by adding the following subsection:

"

(7) Despite subsection (1), the following provisions may be" -- may be -- "included in a bill that receives first reading in 2004:

"1. A provision that amends the Income Tax Act to establish a new tax...."

It doesn't say all the money has to be spent on health care.

Only 9% of the people in the province believe the Premier any more. Given that he has broken all the other promises, given that there is no provision in your

budget bill, why should anybody in Ontario believe that this money --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Finance.

Hon Mr Sorbara: My goodness, he has been around here too long to ask questions like this. I will simply refer my friend again to the estimates

this year. I will refer my friend to page 43 and page 44 of paper A of the budget papers presented on April 18. There we have expenditures of some $2.36 billion set out in detail. If he goes to the

revenue side of the budget papers for this year, he will see that the Ontario health premium will raise $1.6 billion. I will tell him in addition that in the estimates that will be presented in

this House shortly, all of those expenditures will be detailed in votes that will ensure the expenditures are made exactly in the areas provided for in the estimates and in the budget and in the

votes this House takes.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Finance is trying to confuse people. This is just a budget speech along with your rhetoric. This is what will

become the law. There is nothing in Bill 83, the budget bill, that requires that the $2 billion you're are taking out of the pockets of hard-working families is going to be spent on health care.

Dalton McGuinty is out there running radio ads: "I'm Dalton McGuinty, and I want you to know that every penny of the health premium will go to health care." But it's not in the law. Given that the

Premier has broken every promise already, why should people believe him? Why isn't it in the law if all of this money is supposed to go to health care?

Hon Mr Sorbara: This guy would not get a job in a C movie in Hollywood. Honest to God, Howard, this is unacceptable. Howard Hampton, the

member for Kenora-Rainy River, knows full well that the bill dealing with the Ontario health premium has not even been introduced in this Legislature yet. In fact, it will not be introduced till

after the bill he is referring to is passed by this Legislature. So for him to suggest there's nothing in the legislation currently before the House dealing with the Ontario health premium is

obvious and apparent. He knows that bill has not even been introduced yet, and for him to suggest otherwise is just foolish and unacceptable.

Mr Hampton: I want you to know I feel terribly wounded. The government that only 9% of the people in the province believe wants to insult me

because they don't want to answer the question.

Look, here is what it says in your budget provision. It says that a provision that amends the Income Tax Act to establish a new tax may be introduced.

Do you want the people of Ontario to believe you after all your broken promises? Introduce that bill today. Introduce that bill that says that all this money

that's being taken out of the pockets of hard-working families is going to health care. Do it today; otherwise, nobody will believe you. Do it now, Minister.

Hon Mr Sorbara: When he is asked the question outside this Legislature, he or his House leader will have to admit that it is impossible to

introduce a bill in this Legislature to deal with the Ontario health premium until the bill that we are currently debating is passed. He knows that. Every member of this Legislature knows that. The

only person in the House who doesn't know that is Howard Hampton.

I simply refer my dear friend to pages 43 and 44 of the budget papers. He will see there that some $406 million, increased, in long-term-care facilities is

going to be spent in this year. Every single expenditure is itemized on these two pages. If he would have the courtesy to look at those pages, perhaps his questions could be taken somewhat more

seriously.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for the government to introduce their legislation which says it will

all be spent on health care.

The Speaker: I ask, and I heard a no.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Deputy Premier. There are 91% of all Ontarians who disagree with your health

care decisions, and as you know, every day you and all of us in this House are being inundated with thousands of e-mails, phone calls and letters regarding your decision to delist physiotherapy,

chiropractic and eye exams.

I have a letter from Cindy Beatty. She has suffered from migraines most of her life. She suffered from whiplash as a result of a car accident, and she now

visits the chiropractor and is finally getting some relief. However, she is struggling to pay the portion of the cost not covered by OHIP. She says that if delisting occurs, she will not be able to

afford chiropractic care and will experience increased pain, time off work and greater disability.

Deputy Premier, could you please tell Ms Beatty how she now will be able to receive the care that she needs to lead a relatively normal life?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I refer that to the Minister of Health.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As I've had the opportunity to several times in the days since the House

resumed, I'm pleased to respond to the honourable member. The honourable member makes the assertion that there's some number out there who have reported on their state of acceptance of our health

care priorities, but what the honourable member didn't speak to, as an example, was the Meningitis Society of Canada, which said that in one fell swoop, as a result of the initiative our government

has taken, we have done more to help children than the introduction of the car seat.

I didn't hear in the honourable member's question a recognition that this budget brings $191 million to upgrade substantially the quality of care that our

seniors are receiving in long-term-care facilities, a sorry legacy of your time in government.

I didn't hear from the honourable member the percentage of Ontarians who very much support the idea that, as a result of our family health team initiatives, we

will begin to reduce the number of communities in our province that are underserviced from the standpoint of physicians, a number of communities that, under their watch, almost tripled. Where are

the comments about those people in the member's questioning?

Mrs Witmer: This Minister of Health was unable to answer the question I put to him. He's the individual. His government promised to increase

We have a letter here from Cindy Beatty. It is among thousands of letters, e-mails and phone calls that we are getting. In fact, 91% of Ontarians disagree with

your decisions on health care. I want you to tell her how she can continue to receive the chiropractic care she needs in order that she will have less pain, less time off work and less disability

and be able to lead a relatively normal life. I don't want rhetoric, nor does she. Show your compassion and answer the question.

Hon Mr Smitherman: First, in the honourable member's earlier question she referenced a car accident, and we all know that if that is what

caused the injury to the individual, then auto insurance coverage will be of assistance.

I also didn't get any recognition from the honourable member that in her role as Minister of Health on February 12 -- my birthday -- 1999, she substantially

reduced the amount of provincial assistance to people receiving chiropractic. She doesn't reference that, nor anywhere in her questioning does she stand in her place and acknowledge that in a wide

variety of other areas our government has moved forward with changes in the Ontario health care system that will lead to a transformation that makes it sustainable for future generations and

frankly addresses so many of the problems related to quality that are the tired and sorry legacy of that party when they were in government in this province.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Your cuts to essential health care services promote two-tier

health care here in Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I would ask the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound to come to order.

Ms Martel: Minister, your cuts to essential health care services promote two-tier health care in Ontario. That means if you can afford to pay

for health care you can buy quality care and if you can't, you do without.

Cheryl Letheren is an optometrist who trained and practised in the United States and now practises in London. She knows what private two-tier health care does

to patients. She said, "I saw people coming in with really atrocious things because they didn't have the money and they waited until it was really bad."

Minister, why are you promoting two-tier health care here in Ontario?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I think the Minister of Health wants to comment on this question.

Hon Mr Smitherman: I'm pleased to say to the honourable member in response to her question that our government's plan with respect to health

care is an investment of $2.2 billion, which significantly alters the way care is delivered in this province through a transformation agenda which drives resources to the community level. You see

this in our reforms to primary health care, where over the period of the next four years an additional $600 million will help develop family health teams.

The reality of the situation is that our plans with respect to optometry that the honourable member mentions are to reprofile that program in a fashion which

frankly makes it more consistent with the way programs are delivered across the country, which reaches out to protect low-income individuals and those with established medical conditions in every

other province and makes certain that the youngest and those who are oldest in our province, who have the highest and most obvious need for these services, will continue to gain advantage of

them.

One more point on this: The honourable member is now a great supporter of optometry, but why is it the sorry record of those two parties that over a period of

12 or 14 years, while they were the government, there was no increase in the amount of services --

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Ms Martel: Last time I checked, it was you and your Liberal government that are cutting access to optometry services -- cutting. You see,

during the election you and your friends said you wouldn't cut health care services, and here we are, after the election, and this Liberal government is delisting essential services like eye exams,

physiotherapy and chiropractic care.

Minister, these are not luxury health care services. The five leading causes of blindness in Canada, for example, have no pain signals at all to warn of

serious eye problems. That's why we need annual eye exams in Ontario to detect those problems, and we need those exams to be paid by OHIP. There's no need for Ontario to race to the bottom and

follow other provinces that might be there.

You said you wouldn't cut health care services. After the election, here you are doing just that. Two-tier health care is bad health care. Will you reverse

your decision and continue to pay for these essential health care services?

Hon Mr Smitherman: Only the honourable member could take $2.2 billion in additional funding and call that a cut. Where does the honourable

member speak? Where is the recognition -- the same as the honourable member for Kitchener-Waterloo likes to pretend that our government's budget is not one which makes significant new investment in

quality health care services that are essential to the quality of life for people in Ontario. One hundred million dollars in additional funding for home care stands out as one example where we hear

no comment back from the honourable member.

This was a difficult decision, but it is a decision that was made to make possible the provision of health care services in this province that are more

essential to the day-to-day quality of life for the people of Ontario. At the end of the day, it's about priority.

I close with this point to both of those parties: They make a lot of noise about optometry now, but it is the sorry but true record of both of those parties

that while they were in government they did not bring forward any increases to the amount provided. Our government was left with a choice, an enormous unfunded liability in the form of enormous

cost pressure --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister for Children and Youth Services. As you well know, there is a

premium on the number of daycare spaces in this province. At this time of year, the need for additional daycare spaces becomes even more urgent in rural communities such as mine, as farm families

try to get their crops into the ground. But we continue to hear from children's advocates and child care advocates that they are increasingly worried about the closing of daycare spaces. They have

appealed to the provincial government to spend federal child care dollars on child care. Minister, can you reassure those advocates and the parents in my riding that this will indeed happen?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ): Indeed, in the last few months,

going across the province, I did hear those concerns and fears. Child care has been neglected for almost a decade. We will spend, as we announced in our budget, every penny of the $58 million from

the multilateral framework on child care and early learning. We understand the importance of the peace of mind parents need, when they drop their kids off somewhere to be taken care of, that good,

regulated child care spaces are necessary.

With respect to rural areas, there are special challenges out there, and we are developing our best start plan to address some of those needs as

well , I can assure my colleague.

Mrs Van Bommel: I have been hearing that the federal Conservatives under Stephen Harper do not believe in boosting spending on institutional

daycare. In fact, he has stated he will provide funding to families with no concern for how those dollars will be spent. We know what happens when governments do not spend money on quality,

accessible daycare.

The evidence is in the eight years that Ontarians have watched as the foundation of our own provincial child care system has crumbled.

There are now huge waiting lists for subsidized daycare spaces, daycare spots have closed and families are worried that their children will not have access to

the quality care they deserve because they, as parents, cannot afford to send their children to these spaces.

Minister, the debate on daycare has gone on for far too long. We know that quality, accessible child care and early learning programs are the best way to

ensure that our children and grandchildren have the very best start in life. Why would Mr Harper ignore the evidence and refuse to acknowledge that funding child care and early learning is critical

to our children's future?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I couldn't have said it better myself. That was excellent. Indeed, the debate is over. The research is clear. Good,

quality early childhood education, child care and early learning are important. The Eves-Harris Tories ignored that, even though Dr Fraser Mustard told them and criticized them about how they were

spending their money.

Mr Harper's Conservatives seem as ideologically bent as the Harris-Eves Conservatives. They want to reduce the opportunities for children to receive the child

care they need and deserve. In contrast to the federal Conservatives, Mr Martin's Liberals get it. They know that child care is important and I applaud their new child care initiative, and I look

forward to working with the municipalities in spending the monies.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to my good friend the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, Premier McGuinty, in his response to a question

raised by Elizabeth Witmer on whether it's a health tax or a health premium, left everyone wondering. I ask you today: Is it a health tax or a health premium?

I believe John Weatherup had it right when he said, "I don't think the government knew what it was doing." Would you stand in your place and simply do the

right thing and cancel your broken-promise, mean-spirited health tax or health premium today in the House?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): The Ontario health premium, along with the other measures that we put in the budget, will bring us

back to financial health in this province over the course of four years. It is a very important mechanism. You have to understand that the situation we were confronted with in preparing the budget

was what's called a structural or embedded deficit.

Had we not taken steps to raise additional revenues, we were really confronted with two choices: Allow an historic deterioration of public services, like

closing major hospitals and removing funding from major sectors of government, or doing the right thing and ensuring that this province could have both a sound balance sheet, so that we're not

borrowing more money to finance our services, and a very high quality of public services. I want to tell my friend that the Ontario health premium is a major component of that plan to put us back

into sound financial health

Mr O'Toole: The minister clarifies one thing: that it is a tax on health care. Whether it's called a premium or a tax, you know it's going to

cost tens of millions of dollars to every teacher, every educational worker, every CUPE worker, every OPSEU worker. Every public sector employee is going to demand that you pay the premium. It's

going to mean that small business and all the other taxpayers of Ontario are going to be paying for your mistakes.

Minister, I'm asking you if you have actually thought this through, or do I have to look at other quotes where people say they actually think the government

has lost its marbles? I honestly don't think that you get it. In your budget you mistakenly called it a premium to avoid the word that it was a tax increase. Are you going to raise this tax, or are

you going to take the money out of the classrooms and the hospitals of this province? Tell the people today where you are going to get the money to pay for this increased tax or premium.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am not going to seek unanimous consent to allow the member to rephrase that question even though, frankly, I'm still

worrying about what the content of it is.

Let me be very clear about it: The Ontario health premium is a levy that will be collected through the income tax system. It is the first of its sort that is

geared to income so that those on more modest incomes, those earning $20,000 or less, will pay absolutely nothing at all, and those at the highest income levels will pay the highest level of the

premium.

But I want to tell my friend that it should be clear to everyone that failure to pay the premium is a violation of the Income Tax Act; it does not disqualify

anyone from services in health care in this province. Much more important than that, it gives us the resources, as my friend the Minister of Health said just a few moments ago, to build a health

care system that is sustainable for generations to come. That's the magic of this budget and the premium.

HOSPITALS

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Acting Premier. On May 28, 2003, your Premier told the Ottawa Citizen that he

"believes that public-private sector partnerships in health care would ultimately cost the province more money than traditional arrangements," and he is exactly right. On May 17, 2004, an internal

document from the board meeting at the William Osler hospital revealed that the private sector consortium now wants an additional $22 million before it will sign a final deal. This is a project

that has gone from $165 million to $325 million to $550 million, and now the private sector wants $22 million more before it will sign on.

Your Premier promised to cancel P3 hospitals because they cost too much. Will you do the right thing, cancel this deal and build this important project with

public financing?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I refer that to the Minister of Health.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I find it slightly passing strange that the honourable member, who is from

Sudbury, would try to make it seem that hospital projects undertaken with private sector involvement are the only ones that undergo extraordinary increases in their projected costs. I think she

would well know that in Sudbury, Thunder Bay and pretty much every other place that government undertook a new project, that's been the legacy.

To the question the member asked, I had a chance to read the same story. The issue of the negotiations between the consortium and William Osler Health Centre

is their issue. The government has indicated a ceiling to the amount of support we're prepared to provide for this badly needed new hospital in Brampton, and that's an amount we're sticking with.

My message to the honourable member, but more particularly to the consortium and the hospital board, is that it's time to get on with it to get this project built, because frankly speaking, the

people of Brampton have waited too long for a good, quality health facility and we think it needs to get built sooner.

Ms Martel: I say to the minister, this is your issue and your problem. The board minute also says that the private sector consortium has

channelled this appeal for an additional $22 million directly to the government. So now it's sitting on your desk to deal with. It is your issue and your problem because it is very clear that with

private sector financing the taxpayers of the province and the people in Brampton will pay more. They will pay more because it costs the private sector consortium more to borrow the money for the

project and because the private sector consortium wants a profit for their undertaking.

You should be building this hospital in the traditional fashion, with public financing through capital grants. You should not be forcing this hospital to try

to pay for a mortgage through its operating grant when it already has a $27-million operating deficit and a cash deficit problem of $30 million. Minister, do the right thing. Your Premier was

right: It does cost more for private hospitals. Cancel this deal and build this hospital in the public sector.

Hon Mr Smitherman: I would say to the honourable member that the right thing to do at this point is not, for the purposes of her own political

wish and expediency, to be sending a message that because somebody asks -- in this case, a private sector consortium -- they should get. The point is, if you go back and read what I said in my

first answer, we have clearly established as a government the amount of money we are prepared to provide to William Osler Health Centre to build a new hospital facility that is publicly controlled,

publicly operated and accountable for the people of Brampton. That is the number we are prepared to provide.

For the purposes of the honourable member's argument, it seems she wants to accede to the wishes of the private sector, to offer more money to the consortium.

Our point is different. It is that there is an amount that we have established and will provide in annual capital instalments to the William Osler Health Centre. These are the conditions that we

have supported; they are the conditions that we continue to support. While the honourable member may wish to see a bigger payment to the private sector, we do not, and therefore I will not be

proceeding on the basis that the honourable member recommends.

HOME CARE

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): My question is for the Minister of Health. In my opinion, among some of the best news in the budget is

our government's commitment to invest in Ontario's home care sector. We all know that home care is critical for our seniors, that it contributes to their ability to stay in their homes and age with

independence and dignity.

In Don Valley West, most home care services are coordinated by the North York Community Care Access Centre and the East York Access Centre. I understand that

CCACs will play a significant role in the government's plan to deliver the additional home care to 95,000 clients in the years to come. Minister, what will the home care funding announced in the

budget mean to the community care access centres that serve my constituents in Don Valley West?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As a result of our government's commitment to home care, all members of the

Legislature will be able to see the benefits that accrue to the folks in their ridings. I'd say, quite frankly, this is disproportionately seniors, as is appropriate, because we all share the view

that the best place for people to live is in their homes, homes that they've come to know. So we support their independence.

As a result, there's $100 million in additional resources in this year's budget to support home care, $70 million of that targeted at post-acute care, but also

significant investments, for the first time in a long time, of additional resources for mental health and the development of palliative end-of-life care.

The honourable member can expect that the residents of Don Valley West will continue to receive benefit, and will see enhanced benefit, as a result of our

contribution of $100 million of new money.

Ms Wynne: Thank you, Mr Minister. It's good news that our CCACs are going to have increased capacity to deliver home care.

Last Friday, I held my first post-budget seniors' advisory council meeting. This council is made up of seniors' reps, advocates for seniors and agencies that

serve seniors in the community. In particular, members of my advisory council were concerned to ensure that part of the new home care funding will be directed to enhancing the budget for home care

for the frail elderly, for those who are trying to age in place, in their homes. Such funding ensures that they can stay in their homes. It's not so much the acute care issue as people who are

frail elderly.

Minister, will you assure my constituents that some of the new home care funding will be earmarked for care for the frail elderly who have not yet experienced

acute issues, to help them stay in their homes?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I want to make it clear to the honourable member that in addition to the $100 million that I've been speaking about quite a

lot, there are two additional allocations that are designed to offer enhanced assistance to those people who are suffering perhaps from chronic situations where it is more along the lines of

homemaking services that are required. Set against a trend, which has been reduction of these services over the past number of years, we are working hard this year to make sure that we consolidate

what we have and look for opportunities for expansion. Therefore, there will be $4.9 million in additional funding for long-term chronic care needs and about an additional $15 million for community

support services. These are things associated with Meals on Wheels, Alzheimer day programs and the like.

I think it is the combination of these additional allocations of funding that will make a significant contribution, with much more work to do, to be sure, to

the benefit of the members of the riding of Don Valley West and all ridings across Ontario.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is for the Minister of Finance. After promising Ontarians for years and years not to delist medical

services, and the Liberal Party indicating that it would never bring in two-tier medicine, that's exactly what you did when you delisted chiropractic services, eye examinations and physiotherapy

services. After promising very clearly not to privatize health care services, it's exactly what you are doing by delisting these services. You say that in the chiropractic services alone you're

going to save $93 million, and that the reason you have to privatize these services and take them out of OHIP is that you need that money to improve health care services somewhere else. It affects

1.2 million chiropractic patients. The chiropractors say it will cost $200 million in other health care services, because people will now have to go to their local doctor for lower back pain

problems and things they used to go to their chiropractor for.

What studies have you got, as Minister of Finance, or does your government have, to actually show that you're going to save money overall in the health care

system and that you're going to reinvest that money for improved services? What studies do you have? Should we believe you, at 9%, or Ontario's chiropractors, who actually say this is going to cost

$200 million?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): The studies we have indicate that if we can reorient primary care in the province of Ontario toward a

community-based system, we can deliver a far better level of care than we do currently. The studies we have say that if we can invest more in home care, we can give more compassionate care,

particularly to those who suffer chronic ailments, than we can through the current hospital model. The studies we have say that if we spend the money to provide free vaccinations to our children in

the area of meningitis, in the area of chicken pox and in the area of pneumonia, we can make a truly tremendous difference in the lives of families and children.

In fact, I recall the words of the Minister of Health. A doctor practising in this area said to him, and he referred to it today, "You've done more with the

stroke of a pen with these free vaccinations" than he has done in a lifetime of practise. Those are the studies we used to make the determinations we made on health care in the budget, and we're

very proud of it.

Mr Wilson: First of all, if you have studies to indicate that you're going to save money overall by delisting and privatizing chiropractic

services, eye examinations and physiotherapy services, then please table those studies, because that comes as great news to the millions of practitioners out there who are believed by their

patients and have a lot more credibility than you do.

I was hoping you'd get up in your answer, Mr Sorbara, and indicate that you had saved some money and were going to improve services, because in the gallery

today is a constituent of mine, Josh Sanderson, from Collingwood Collegiate Institute. He has a sports injury, a soft tissue injury. In May he got to his local doctor, he got to a specialist, and

lo and behold, he has been told he has to wait until some time late in 2005 for an MRI. The man's in pain. He's with us today. His quality of life is diminished. He can't play sports, and you can't

prove to him that you're going to have any money to improve MRI services in my part of Ontario. Shame on you.

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend from up there in Simcoe knows -- the point he makes about MRIs, there's real truth to that. That's why, I tell my

friend, we put resources in the budget for nine new MRI and CT scans. That's why we're spending that money.

But on the subject of chiropractic care, I simply remind him and his constituent that the most severe impact this delisting could have is $150 per individual

per family. I understand that for some -- for many -- that's going to be a significant burden. But in terms of what we are going to achieve in other areas of health care, from vaccines to better

home care to new MRI facilities and CT scan facilities, I think it's a trade-off worth making, and that's why we made it in the budget.

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Your government says it wants a new deal with municipalities. In

fact, your minister earlier today talked about the new relationship you want to put together with municipalities. But in Hamilton, you are trying to download financial responsibility for the Royal

Botanical Gardens to a couple of municipalities. The Royal Botanical Gardens is in serious danger of closing any day now, yet your response is to try to dump the costs on to local taxpayers, who

already face a 6% property tax increase because of downloading.

Deputy Premier, will you pay the cost of keeping the RBG open, or is your new deal for municipalities no better than the paper it's written on and just another

broken promise?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I understand the member is new, and so I want to stress that we're not

downloading anything. First of all, RBG is important, and we're not closing the door to future discussions. We're at the table, we've been at the table and we want to work with our partners. Today

the minister introduced legislation that puts partnerships into legislation, so we don't need to be told that we're not working on this.

I would ask again that you understand that our annual contribution to the RBG has remained constant, just under $1.6 million a year over the past five years.

The minister has just received RBG's multi-year financial plan, and plans to have a public auditor review its books are underway. We're at the table and we're going to continue to be there. The

minister is doing a great job, and I look forward to working with the member opposite to ensure that we keep RBG open.

Ms Horwath: I spoke to the mayor's office in Hamilton today and my understanding is that talks are not going very well. In fact the RBG, as

the Acting Premier will know, gets far less support from the provincial government than other provincial tourist attractions. It's a beautiful, serene place. It's a place where many, many people go

in our community and have done so for decades. Your response, and that of the Premier, seems to be that if the municipalities won't pay, the place will close.

Minister, it's time to live up to your responsibilities. Commit today that you will provide the money to keep the Royal Botanical Gardens open so that tourists

and workers will all be there at the gardens and the people of Hamilton can be sure they'll stay open. Will you do that? Will you hear this request, as you've said you would? Will you listen to

Hamiltonians and to the governments of Hamilton and Halton so that your Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will also live up to the pledge that was made earlier today?

Hon Mr Duncan: I refer that to the Minister of Culture.

Hon Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): As I explained in my previous answer, I met with

the board of directors of the RBG, their representative, the mayor of Hamilton and the regional municipality of Halton, and we have just received the financial plan for the next four years. Our

staff is reviewing it, and we are going to have a working committee with the three partners -- stakeholders -- and we will come to an agreement, I'm sure, with the participation of the two other

partners. We will be able to find an agreeable solution and keep the Royal Botanical Gardens open, because we know it's very important for Hamilton.

PETITIONS

CORMORANTS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition that has been signed all over Ontario, especially a number of signatures from Jerry

Ouellette's riding of Oshawa.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas cormorant populations in the Great Lakes basin have increased to ... 450,000 ... over the past several years, are continuing to grow, and are

significantly depleting fish populations; and

"Whereas numerous scientific studies have clearly shown the serious negative impact on fish stocks and freshwater habitats; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources continues to study the impact of cormorants and possible management strategies; and

"Whereas the Minister of Natural Resources has committed to experimental control of cormorants at specific sites;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources to immediately begin

to significantly reduce cormorant populations in areas where they are having a demonstrably negative impact on local fisheries through managed culls."

I have signed it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

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

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

property taxes; and

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

services; and

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

campgrounds;

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

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

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

I'll affix my signature to these 11 petitions from people across the province.

CORMORANTS

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition as well from good friends of ours, Terry and Karen up in Deep River, that reads as

follows:

"Whereas cormorant populations in the Great Lakes basin have increased to ... 450,000 birds over the past several years, are continuing to grow and are

significantly depleting fish" stocks; and

"Whereas numerous scientific studies have clearly shown the serious negative impact on fish stocks and freshwater habitats; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources continues to study the impact of cormorants and possible management strategies; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources has committed to experimental control of cormorants at specific sites;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources to immediately begin

to significantly reduce cormorant populations in areas where they are having a demonstrably negative impact on local fisheries through managed culls."

I sign my name in full agreement.

AJAX-PICKERING HOSPITAL

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member from Whitby-Ajax.

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, Mr Speaker. Whitby-Ajax would be a different side of the House.

I'm probably going to need the assistance of a couple of pages today, because I'm going to present the balance of some 10,000 petitions this afternoon. This

will complete this part of the process.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

maintain all existing services; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WATER QUALITY

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have a petition concerning the new Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, Ontario regulation

170/03.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government is implementing regulation 170/03, and in doing so will affect town halls, churches and private property owners including small

businesses, local community centres and campgrounds; and

"Whereas meeting the requirements of regulation 170/03 has meant and will mean excessive costs and financial burdens for all drinking water system owners;

and

"Whereas there is no demonstrated proof that this new regulation will improve drinking water that has been and continues to be safe in rural municipalities;

and

"Whereas Ontario regulation 170/03 was passed without adequate consultation with stakeholders throughout Ontario; and

"Whereas stakeholders should have been consulted concerning the necessity, efficacy, economic, environmental and health impacts on rural Ontario;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario abandon the implementation of and immediately repeal regulation 170/03, as well as amending

the pertinent enabling legislation."

I support this petition and affix my name to it.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

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

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

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

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

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

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

have and want to use;

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

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

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

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

workforce."

I sign my name to this petition.

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have 750 petitions to add to the thousands I've already received, to keep Muskoka part of northern

Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

Sudbury; and

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

incentives enjoyed by residents of other northern communities; and

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

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

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

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

I support this petition, and I affix my signature to it.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): This petition is addressed to the Parliament of Ontario, and it comes from the tenants of Doversquare Apartments

in Toronto. It reads as follows:

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

new and old tenants alike;

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

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

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

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

"Whereas our own MPP ... called for a rent rollback (reduction) at a public event in June 2003;

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

"

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

against the Tories in last October's election;

"

(2) To shut down the notoriously pro-landlord Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal; and

"

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

I'm presenting this petition to you, Mr Speaker.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This is from the chiropractic services, and it refers to the Ontario health insurance plan.

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

they need; and

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

family physician offices and emergency departments; and

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

On behalf of many people in my riding of Simcoe North, I'm pleased to put my name on that.

PROPERTY TAXATION

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

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

property taxes; and

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

services; and

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

campgrounds;

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

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

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

There are four petitions from various people in the province. I'll affix my name to it.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here concerning chiropractic services in the Ontario health insurance plan. It is to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it's signed by hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents.

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I will affix my signature to this petition, as I totally agree with this.

HEALTH CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is my pleasure to present petitions on behalf of the chiropractors in my area, specifically Dr James Hadden and

others whom I met with. I'm going to present these literally thousands of petitions, and I will read them into the record now.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

physiotherapy services,

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

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

This is signed by thousands of patients who otherwise are in pain. I'm pleased to endorse it on their behalf.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Speaker: I thought we went in rotation, but it seems that you've got a blind eye for this

spot over here somewhat, and you don't recognize us. Now, it seems to me that the Conservatives had their petition read. When our man got up here, you didn't recognize us. I'm just wondering

whether this is a blind spot or whether there's some other action we should be taking to get recognition on this side.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thanks for bringing the matter to my attention, but as you realize, while it's rotation, it's those I can

spot getting up first whom I recognize. I think I try to do it as fairly as possible.

OPPOSITION DAY

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I move that the Legislative Assembly call upon the government,

To recognize that the McGuinty Liberal government made a specific campaign promise that: "We believe all Ontarians should have access to medically necessary

health care services based on need, not on ability to pay" -- that's page 3 of the Ontario Liberal platform, The Health Care We Need;

To recognize that the McGuinty Liberal government in its first budget is putting the health of patients at risk by delisting health care services and no longer

providing OHIP coverage for eye exams, chiropractic and physiotherapy services for the people of Ontario;

That Premier McGuinty live up to his campaign promise and immediately reinstate OHIP funding for eye exams, physiotherapy and chiropractic services.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mrs Witmer has moved opposition day number 3.

Mrs Witmer: I am very pleased to speak to the opposition day motion. I have to tell you that as a member of this House since 1990, I have

never seen such anger as I have seen from people throughout the province of Ontario over the government's budget and broken promises, but in particular over their health tax and the delisting of

health care services. In fact, the anger over the delisting of health care services has spread like a brush fire throughout Ontario.

People know that this is not what the Liberals promised, nor did they discuss this in their pre-budget consultations. The public truly believes that they were

deceived. In fact, the polling today shows us that 91% of Ontarians do not support these health care initiatives of the tax and the delisting of optometry, chiropractic and physiotherapy services.

They heard this government repeatedly, before and since, commit to improving the health care system, and they have done exactly the opposite.

In the election platform, the Liberals stated, and I quote, "We believe in a universal, publicly funded health care system that gives all the care we need when

we need it." Their actions speak to the contrary. This delisting of services does not improve access to care. It does not equate to a universal publicly funded health care system; rather, it

provides access only to those who can afford to pay.

This government went further in their efforts to fool the people of Ontario when they introduced the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, Bill 8. In their

press release of November 27, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care stated, "We are slamming the door shut on two-tier, pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care in Ontario." Well, this

initiative to delist services is exactly that: It is two-tier health care. It is there for people who can pay for it and not there for others. Furthermore, you can pay your way to the front of the

line of the optometry, chiropractic and physiotherapy services -- again, if you have the money to pay for it. So this commitment in the press release is wrong. It was misleading.

Ontarians are angry; 91% of them disagree with the initiatives to delist health care services. Today, we finding ourselves in a situation where we urge the

Premier, we urge the members of the government to listen to their constituents. We know full well that your offices have also been inundated with e-mails, faxes, phone calls and letters. In fact, a

few of you have had the courage to publicly acknowledge the fact, and we applaud you, that you are listening.

However, what the government has done is delist services, which is going to hurt people. They say they're doing this because they're going to improve the

system. I would say that their improvements pale in comparison to the improvements we made to our health care system since 1995. We increased annual funding for health care by almost $11 billion.

That was despite the fact that the finance minister, Minister Martin, reduced federal funding to the provinces. In fact, our funding grew from 1995, at $17.4 billion, to $28 billion, an increase of

60%. I can also tell you that only 12 MRIs existed in the province prior to 1995. Since that time we brought on board 52 new MRIs and 55 CAT scans, and an additional 20 MRIs and five CAT scans were

scheduled for completion.

I'm also pleased to say that we struck a nursing task force. We responded to every one of the initiatives. We invested in excess of $375 million annually. We

created 12,000 new nursing positions. We invested in continuing education for nurses. In fact, we were the government that created the nurse practitioner position, the first in Canada to do so. We

provided funding for an aggressive --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ted Arnott): Would the member take her seat.

I would ask the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal to allow the member for Kitchener-Waterloo to make her points

uninterrupted.

Mrs Witmer: I'm very pleased to say that our government, since 1999, invested $1.1 billion into nursing and nursing strategies. We created the

nursing secretariat and the position of provincial chief nursing officer.

I would say to this government: We made the improvements to health care. We made it without the delisting of any services. In fact, we were proud to be one of

the provinces that provided coverage for chiropractic services, optometry and physiotherapy.

I can tell you today that Ontarians are angry and frustrated with the decision you have made, the broken promise. Nowhere in your document did you talk about

the delisting of eye services. In fact, you went so far as to say they shouldn't vote for us because we were going to delist physiotherapy.

I'll tell you, it's you who have broken your promise. It's you who are hurting seniors. It's you who are hurting those people on low incomes who cannot afford

to pay for these services.

These services are important for people. This is what Janet from Ottawa says: "I am ... offended by the health care cuts....

"We trusted you to take care of us and you have let us down. If you have any integrity, you will admit the error and reinstate our health care."

We've heard from Dave, who says: "I cannot afford to pay for eye exams ... and will likely wait until something seems to be wrong and I will then allow the

government to pay for my medical care." This is just a little bit of the thousands and thousands of communications that we've all received.

privatization, where people are being asked to pay out of their pocket for these services. This is two-tier medicine.

What are the consequences of your actions? Let's take a look at chiropractic services. You know and I know -- we all know -- that if people cannot afford to go

to the chiropractor, they're obviously going to have to seek treatment from their family physician or go to the emergency department, which is simply going to cause more expense and further delay

on an overloaded system.

In fact, many people will simply not go for treatment. That is going to mean that they're going to suffer from increased pain, increased time off work and

long-term chronic problems. It's going to affect 1.2 million citizens who use this service. That's the impact on these individuals. The decision that you have made is very, very short-sighted,

because you are eroding our publicly funded health care system by removing access, particularly for those with lower economic means, to an appropriate and cost-effective health care service such as

chiropractic.

Let's take a look at

schedule 5, the physiotherapy services we have in place that serve about six million people. Do you know that 80% of those people are

seniors who are going to be hurt by the decision you have made? You are providing a gap in service for individuals who may well go through surgery, but then there's no one there to help them with

the therapy to regain full independence.

We also know that much of the work that goes on in physiotherapy is prevention. It allows people to remain mobile and live independently in their own homes and

not in a hospital or long-term-care facility. We also know it prevents chronic disability, and that's really important. Again, this particular decision is going to have long-term negative

consequences for the health and safety of people in this province, particularly since 80% of the people who access these services are seniors.

Third, let's take a look at the impact of delisting eye exams. As Judith Parks, president of the Ontario Associate of Optometrists, notes, "People will go

blind that need not." She goes on to say, "The health and safety of our patients will suffer. People will experience more preventable eye disease." In fact, according to optometrist Cheryl

Letheren, "There are no pain signals to warn of the five leading causes of blindness in Canada."

We all know, and I'm surprised this government didn't know and doesn't care, that early detection of eye disease is absolutely critical to the successful

treatment of many conditions. Take a look at glaucoma and macular degeneration and other diseases that can lead to blindness. We know they need to be detected early to prevent any damage to our

eyesight.

The Canadian Diabetes Association has added its voice to the chorus of concerns about the delisting of eye exams for those between the ages of 20 and 65,

because the reality is, folks, that your eyesight is vulnerable to disease within those years of 20 to 65. We know that the ages of 40 and 50 are just as vulnerable. The Canadian Diabetes

Association says that optometrists are part of Ontario's early warning system for diabetes screening. Diabetes is sometimes assessed for the first time during a routine eye exam.

I think you can see, and I hope the members of the government understand, the risk to health and safety to which they have put Ontarians in this province, who

are not going to be able to afford to pay for these services that this government promised. They promised universal access to services. I can tell you that the delisting of physiotherapy, eye exams

and chiropractic is a step backwards for Ontario, a province that always considered itself the leader in the delivery of health care services. That's why we were the first to introduce the family

health networks and the eye practitioners, and to expand the long-term-care facilities and home care services.

The actions of this government are not acceptable. They are hurting hard-working Ontarians who expected more, and who certainly did not expect you to break

your promise. What you are doing now is breaking your commitment to medicare, supporting two-tier health care for those who can pay and moving down the road of privatization.

I call upon the Premier to live up to his campaign promise and immediately reinstate OHIP funding for eye exams, physiotherapy and chiropractic services.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I really love the 1986 rules. Aren't they great? I've got to

say that this is a much more civil way of being able to debate.

I want to take part of the time on this particular debate, on this opposition motion that's put forward by our good friend Mrs Witmer. She's getting at an

issue that I think, quite frankly, is bang on as far as part of the problem that we have with this provincial budget. The provincial government, as we well know, has decided by way of this budget

to delist services that are currently covered under OHIP. I would never have thought, in the last election, listening to Dalton McGuinty and all the Liberal candidates, that the Liberals would

actually, when elected, come into this Legislature and delist essential medical health services in Ontario. I would never have believed it.

In fact, I remember being at debates in the last provincial election with both the Liberal and Conservative candidates, where the Liberal was charging the

Conservatives with doing exactly that. Participating in that as well, I was thinking to myself, "If there's one issue the Liberals and New Democrats can allow on, it is supposedly that we believe

there should be a public health care system and that we should not allow the encroachment of private health care in the public system."

When you looked at the platform that the Liberals put out, if you read it, you thought you were reading NDP policy. I've always said that at times of elections

and leading up to elections, the Liberals campaign like New Democrats. If you close your eyes and you don't see that they're a Liberal and you listen to what they've got to say, they sound just

like New Democrats. But the minute they get elected, this great metamorphosis happens. They become transformed into Conservatives.

On this particular budget bill that we've just had introduced this spring, Bill 83, and the motion that we debated earlier in regard to the actual budget, I've

got to say those Liberals are looking more and more like a bunch of Tories in a hurry. If you look at what they've done inside that budget, they're doing a whole whack of things, as my friend

Rosario Marchese would say, that say, "Wow, they're in a hurry." These Liberals are trying to race to the centre and past the centre to the right side of the political landscape in Ontario quicker

than the Tories dared to do it.

I've got lots of problems with my friends in the Conservative Party as far as some of the policies they had while they were in government. But on this issue,

Mike Harris, in his worst nightmare or his best dream, would not have done what this government is doing. Tinker around with it, yes. Mike Harris went to every second year that you could get an eye

exam from your eye doctor. But they didn't dare say, "We're going to get rid of it." Even the Conservatives understand, within the Tory party -- and this is a pretty right-wing group -- that you

don't start delisting entire professions within health care services for all kinds of reasons. One is because politically it is not palatable by part of the electorate. Most people in Canada get

it. I'm surprised that the Liberal Party doesn't get it; that is, a majority of people want a public system of health care and want to make sure that it works for them when they unfortunately get

sick and have need of health care services.

The other reason we need to talk about what's really the crazy part about what the Liberals are doing on delisting essential health services like

chiropractors, eye doctors, physiotherapists and others is it's going to cost us more money. We're not saving any money with this. As I see the figures in the budget, they're going to save up

front, in the first full year of implementation, on the line part