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

June 2, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 2 June 2004 Mercredi 2 juin 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LACHLAN MONTAGUE

AIR QUALITY

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

AIR QUALITY

SENIORS' MONTH

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS

RED MAPLE READING PROGRAM

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

VISITORS

MOTIONS

SEXUAL ABUSE OF STUDENTS /

MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS

D'ORDRE SEXUEL INFLIGÉS AUX ÉLÈVES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

OPTOMETRY SERVICES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

AIR QUALITY

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

PETITIONS

RECREATIONAL TRAILERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

GASOLINE PRICES

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

TAXATION

TTC RIGHT-OF-WAY

LANDFILL

TENANT PROTECTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LACHLAN MONTAGUE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): The best part of my job is meeting the most remarkable people living in Cambridge, North Dumfries and South

Kitchener. Lachlan Montague is one of those remarkable people, even though he is a young man of 14. Recently, he served as one of our legislative pages. Lachlan lives with his parents, Margaret and

Stephen, and his younger brother, Coulter. Lachlan attends the Temple Baptist Christian Academy in Cambridge, which has sponsored no less than three pages to our Legislature in the past five

years.

While many of us at the age of 6, including me, concentrated on childhood playing, Lachlan had already developed a social conscience and was concerned with the

well-being of the less fortunate, including homeless families. But recognition of the need by itself is not sufficient without action, and Lachlan devised an inventive program called Kans For Kids.

At Halloween for the past eight years, Lachlan, his friends and many supporters have gone door to door to ask for canned goods for the homeless, rather than the usual candy. Last year, the program

collected 4,000 pounds of food for the Cambridge Self-Help Food Bank.

I pay tribute to Lachlan, his family and the Temple Baptist Christian Academy in Cambridge for a job well done.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I would like to ask for unanimous consent to use this bicycle helmet as a prop. It's Environment Week.

Can I have that?

The Speaker: The member for Toronto-Danforth has asked for unanimous consent to wear her helmet as a prop. I presume the member's only asking

for herself to wear it at this time? Do I have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Ms Churley: This is probably a first in the Legislature, but I'm wearing this hat as a symbol. What with all the attention being paid to the

unpopular Liberal budget and the federal election going on, what we have failed to notice here is that it's Environment Week in Canada. I wear this helmet as a symbol today. I rode my bike to work

in the rain. How many here -- put your hands up -- either walked, took public transportation or bicycled to work today? Hey, I won't do the negative, but look, that's not bad at all.

It is Environment Week in Canada and it's a good opportunity for us to review where we're at in terms of the environment and air pollution, because this is Clean

Air Day. I want to point out that later this afternoon we will be going through clause-by-clause on the government's greenbelt legislation, and I'm shocked to see -- I've been waiting anxiously for

the Liberal amendments to this greenbelt -- guess what? Their amendments actually put more loopholes into the bill.

But what's worse, and why this relates to this being Environment Week, is that there is no amendment in there to deal with one of the biggest problems within

this legislation, and that is what's called "leapfrog development." If that development goes ahead, that means we will have even more urban sprawl and people will be living further out. There will

be more highways, more cars on the road, which will lead to more smog and bad air.

Happy Environment Week, everybody.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): Oh, that's a hard one to follow, Mr Speaker.

On a much more serious note, today it gives me great pleasure to commemorate the anniversary of Italy's Independence Day, a milestone event which took place on

June 2, 1946.

Italians throughout the world have joined Italy today in celebrating their national day. We recognize the contribution made by 1.5 million Italo-Canadians

residing in our great land; 780,000 of those have chosen to make Ontario their home.

While Italy and Italians take pride in celebrating their national day, they are also proud to be known for their hospitality, flair, cutting-edge design and

fabulous cuisine. Let us not forget, however, the many waves of Italian immigrants of early days who sacrificed their lives to build into the foundation of their newly discovered land of

opportunity, which we call Canada.

From the first railway workers of the 1800s to the latter-day giant developers, professionals from every field, scientists, artists, restaurateurs, and many of

my colleagues who today occupy seats in the Ontario Legislature, Italians have left their distinct hallmark in every riding of our province.

Italians have always been, and are, grateful to Canada, a land that has allowed them to reach for and fulfill their desires and dreams, yet still being able to

preserve their passion and zest for life that so distinguishes the Italian culture and tradition.

I know every member of the House wishes the Italian embassy and consular offices in Canada and the people of Italy congratulations. [Remarks in

Italian.]

AIR QUALITY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): As we recognize Clean Air Day today, I bring your attention to the fact that actions speak louder

than words.

Last week, I had the opportunity to see the results of our Conservative government's $250-million investment into emission reduction technology at OPG Nanticoke.

Meanwhile, the current government continues to point fingers at its favourite pollution scapegoat -- coal -- threatening coal fire closure while ignoring vehicle emissions, the source of 60% of

Ontario's domestically produced smog problem. Apparently, with their stated intention to drop Drive Clean in favour of dirty clean, the Liberals' smoke-free Ontario does not apply to exhaust

pipes.

Our government's investment at Nanticoke and Lambton will see nitrogen oxide emissions drop by 12,000 tonnes a year. That's the equivalent of taking 600,000 cars

off the road. That's because selective catalytic reduction units, SCRs, are reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 80% to those units to which they're attached.

The implementation of SCR technology builds on investments of $1.8 billion in fossil fuel air emission reduction since 1984. Results are clear: In 2000, fossil

plants produced 14% more electricity than they did in 1984, but with 60% fewer acid gas emissions.

At Nanticoke specifically, sulphur dioxide levels have dropped by 60% and nitrogen oxide levels by 50%. It will continue to drop with the new SCR technology.

SENIORS' MONTH

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I'm very pleased to rise today in recognition of Seniors' Month and to share with this Legislature

some of the events and programs that will be held in Etobicoke-Lakeshore during this important month.

On June 4, my office will be having another safe medication seminar, this time with the added component of a medication use review. I would like to extend

personal thanks to the Ontario Pharmacists' Association for developing this seminar and working with my office to make sure this ever-popular event continues.

Later in the month, my office will be providing a workshop on the ABCs of fraud that will help protect seniors from dishonest business practices that

unfortunately target them.

On June 6, I will be honoured to participate in ceremonies to recognize the 60th anniversary of D-Day, both at Second Street Public School and here at Queen's

Park. One of my constituents, Bruce Melanson, was one of 15,000 Canadians who landed on Juno Beach in a bold move to liberate Europe. Bruce travelled overseas with the First Division of the West

Nova Scotia Regiment in May 1940, and went on to Juno Beach with the 3rd Division Light ack-ack. He will be attending the ceremonies in France with the Queen and our Prime Minister. I would like to

add a personal thank you to Bruce for tirelessly advocating on behalf of veterans since the war.

I hope all of our colleagues will take the time on D-Day anniversary to participate in local ceremonies commemorating those who paid for our present freedoms

with their brave efforts, and many with the ultimate sacrifice of their lives.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Heaven help us, he's at it again. This morning, when working class families put their radios on, they heard that

voice, once again, of Dalton McGuinty whispering sweet promises into their ears. I can only imagine how many radios were abruptly shut off; how many curses, not meant to be heard by children's

ears, were thrown at the radio; and I hope not, but how many cars dangerously swerved off highways as they scrambled to turn off that voice.

"That's him. That's him," the taxpayers say, "the guy who is raising our taxes by over $1,200 a family. That's him. That's the voice of the man who's making

grandma pay for her chiropractic care out of her own pocket. That's the man who's broken his word so many times he's making Richard Nixon look honest in comparison."

This morning, that voice, all over again; this is the man, Dalton McGuinty's voice, who is going to damage so many ears. The poor listeners, they're going to

long for the less abrasive sounds of Wolfman Jack. You know we've heard that voice on the radio before. We heard those promises. "I'm not going to raise your taxes." We hear every morning, on the

Bill Carroll show on CFRB, "Middle-class families will not see their taxes go up by one penny." I say, on behalf of the listeners on the radio this morning, Dalton McGuinty, we don't believe a word

you say any more.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Yesterday in this Legislature, in a question to the Premier, the member for Oak Ridges accused me of

a number of things. He noted that while on an open-line phone show in Belleville -- and as an aside, the radio has asked that it be corrected that their call letters are CJBQ, not CJBO -- he

accused me of indicating to the callers that I would bring their concerns regarding the budget to Queen's Park.

Indeed, as an individual with only one eye, I did express concern about the delisting of optometrists. I plead guilty to that. I will never apologize for being

the voice of my constituents in Queen's Park. I believe Premier McGuinty expects nothing less of our caucus.

The member for Oak Ridges, in his supplementary question, stated, "Certainly Mr Parsons said there will be public meetings and that he will personally undertake

in those public hearings to oppose those measures." At that point, I indicated it was not true.

I have subsequently had the opportunity to review the tape of the CJBQ phone-in show. I am pleased to report that I did not in fact make that or any similar

statement. I look forward to the member for Oak Ridges acknowledging this and, as a colleague, recommend that he be absolutely confident of the reliability of the information supplied by outside

sources.

I am very aware of the legislative process and would not have made that statement, recognizing that members do not in fact appear before a committee hearing. I

strongly support the openness of our government, however, and encourage members of the public to make presentations during the committee phase of the budget bill or any other bill.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): This week we commemorate the sacrifices of the generation who won World War II. They've passed the torch to

our generation of baby boomers, who will begin to turn 60 in the next few years.

Ontario's government has looked at the needs of an aging population and responded with a budget that addresses those needs. Our first priority for this

generation and the next generation of seniors is to ensure access to health care in Ontario. That's why every cent from Ontario's health care premium will be invested in health care.

Healthier seniors mean a growing need for home care and long-term-care programs and facilities. Ontario's budget will help our hospitals free resources from some

chronic care patients who might better live and receive treatments in their homes or in long-term-care facilities.

Ontario has responded to today's and tomorrow's seniors with funding for more doctors, more nurses and the ability to provide cardiac procedures, joint

replacements, cataract surgeries and MRI or CT scans.

Change in health care in Ontario means that Ontario will see family health teams, better primary care, home care for an additional 95,700 Ontarians by 2007-08,

and compassionate end-of-life care for another 6,000 Ontarians.

RED MAPLE READING PROGRAM

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I rise today to speak about a great program in one of the rural schools in the riding of

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. Maple Ridge Public School in Dundas county strives to prepare their students for the challenges they will face in high school. A dedicated staff and high

participation of parents allow this school to strive for success.

A distinguishing factor of Maple Ridge is their students' participation in the Red Maple reading program, which is sponsored by the Ontario Library Association.

The Red Maple program is offered to youth in grades 7, 8 and 9, where students choose to read a list of 10 outstanding Canadian adult fiction titles. The students must read at least five of the 10

in order to vote for their favourite book, and the voting takes place in late April.

This is an extracurricular program at Maple Ridge and is above and beyond classroom expectations. Thirty-four of Maple Ridge's grade 7 and 8 students read five

or more of the 10 novels selected. Four students read all 10 novels within two months: Erin Armstrong, Stephanie Coyne, Hayley Warren and Mike Scheuner deserve congratulations.

As a retired educator, I am proud to be a part of a government that respects and strives for excellence in education. Our 2004 budget, coupled with the recent

education funding announcements, will ensure that rural schools will be able to continue to operate at an accelerated level, and programs such as the Red Maple reading program will continue to

challenge our students to ensure excellence for all.

I want to commend Maple Ridge on this extraordinary effort in reading, and I hope these students will continue their love for reading throughout their lives.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated June 2, 2004,

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

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have with us in the Speaker's gallery today the reforms and modernization committee from the Parliament of

Zambia. Please join me in welcoming them here.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to welcome a very prominent farmer of my riding

and chairman of the board of Alfred College, campus of Guelph University, Mr Denis Perrault.

The Speaker: As you know, it's not a point of order, but welcome.

MOTIONS

SEXUAL ABUSE OF STUDENTS /

MAUVAIS TRAITEMENTS

D'ORDRE SEXUEL INFLIGÉS AUX ÉLÈVES

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I understand that there is unanimous consent for government

motion 115 to be moved immediately and to be put to a vote after each of the three parties are given five minutes to speak, and that the Legislature will then observe a moment of silence in memory

of the victims, following the vote.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr McGuinty has moved for unanimous consent that government motion 115 be moved immediately and be put to a

vote after each of the three parties are given five minutes to speak, and that following the vote there will be a moment of silence in memory of the victims. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I move that:

Whereas it is acknowledged that numerous incidents of physical and sexual abuse took place during the 1940s through 1970s at the St John's training school in

Uxbridge and the St Joseph's training school in Alfred, which were operated by the Christian Brothers of Toronto and Ottawa and funded by the government of Ontario; and

Whereas it is acknowledged that the abuse suffered by the students at these schools has caused lifelong physical and emotional pain, distress and trauma to the

men themselves and to their families and community and that such abuse of children is deplorable and intolerable; and

Whereas the victims bear no responsibility whatsoever for the abuse they suffered; and

Whereas child abuse is a serious social and community problem that must be addressed; and

Whereas the government, supported by the Christian Brothers of Ottawa and the Catholic archdioceses of Ottawa and Toronto, entered into agreements of

reconciliation in 1992 and 1994 with the victims to overcome the aftermath of abuse experienced at the schools;

Therefore this House, on behalf of the people of Ontario, apologizes and expresses sincere regret for the harm caused to those boys in the care of St Joseph's

and St John's training schools.

The Speaker: Mr McGuinty has moved government notice of motion number 115.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I rise today to bring a measure of closure to an episode in Ontario's history that has shocked and troubled all of us in this

House and indeed every caring Ontarian. Over the course of several decades, hundreds of young residents -- boys -- of St John's training school in Alfred and St Joseph's training school in Uxbridge

suffered horrible abuse at the very hands of those entrusted with their care and upbringing. Those schools were funded and overseen by the government of Ontario and were operated by the Christian

Brothers, an order of the Roman Catholic Church.

Il a été établi sans conteste que bon nombre de ces enfants qui ont fréquenté ces écoles ont été les victimes de

négligence et qu'ils ont été les victimes innocentes d'agressions physiques, sexuelles et verbales. Cette violence a laissé bon nombre d'entre eux avec des cicatrices

émotionnelles profondes et permanentes.

It has been established beyond dispute that many of the children attending these schools were neglected and were the innocent victims of physical, sexual and

verbal abuse that left many deep and abiding emotional scars. Many of these victims have been unable to form productive adult relationships or fully participate in the life of their community. Many

are saddled with feelings of guilt, inadequacy, fear and embarrassment, and many former victims have tried to ease their pain through self-destructive behaviour. In short, hundreds of lives were

seriously damaged at the very moment when the sheer wonder of life should have been just revealing itself to these children.

As the Premier of Ontario, it is my duty and responsibility to apologize unreservedly today for the neglect and abuse suffered by the children in these schools

many years ago. I say directly to the victims: You were failed when you needed us most, and for that your government is, and always will be, very sorry.

I want to congratulate the victims for the courage they have shown in surviving the abuse, rebuilding their lives, raising awareness of what they endured and

fighting for justice to be fully done.

It is my hope that these words and the unanimous agreement of this House with these words will represent the final

chapter in our determination to do what is

right and what is just for the children of Alfred and Uxbridge.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Very briefly, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I believe the Premier has eloquently

echoed the apology given on behalf of the government of Ontario by former Attorney General Charles Harnick in 1996. Residential school abuse is a tragedy, and we fully support this apology on

behalf of the government and the people of Ontario.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On behalf of New Democrats, I want to confirm that we will be supporting the motion. This has been a

very long time coming.

Let me say, as Attorney General at the time when Mr McCann and others courageously came forward in the early 1990s, I know personally of the anguish, the

torture that many of these victims expressed, and their desire to have an alternative dispute resolution system, one which would have the Premier of the province apologize directly for what has

happened. As I said, this has been a long time coming. The victims have been very patient in waiting this long.

People, especially children, in the care of the province or institutions funded or sanctioned by the province have a right to expect that their government will

treat them in a moral and ethical way. What happened at St John's and St Joseph's training schools was a horrible violation of that trust. It was a nightmare in which those charged with caring for

children became violent abusers. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure nothing remotely like this ever happens again.

What this motion does acknowledge is that we still have an obligation to those who suffered, to those who have suffered all their lives because of this abuse.

The victims still carry the physical and emotional pain, the distress and trauma of the abuse they suffered. An apology cannot undo the wrong that was done, but it was very clearly part of the

agreement with the victims because the victims felt it would be meaningful and important.

I therefore join with members of this House in expressing our sincere and deep apologies for the events that took place at St John's and St Joe's. I want to

recognize again the courage, the incredible courage of those who came forward.

The Speaker: Mr McGuinty has moved government notice of motion 115. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Would all members and guests please rise to observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): To the Premier: On April 24 of this year, you told Graham Richardson on Focus Ontario, "Well, what

we said all along -- I'm very clear about this -- is that we are not going to be raising taxes." What happened between April 24 and May 18, when your Treasurer introduced the budget and in fact

raised taxes quite a bit?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know that the Leader of the Opposition must be as frustrated as the

people of Ontario are about the fact that there was this $5.6-billion deficit hidden from us for such an extended period of time. What we decided to do, of course, was to make some very difficult

decisions, but one of the most important things we have decided to do is to introduce a new law in Ontario that will prevent those kinds of shenanigans from ever being foisted on the people of

Ontario again. The Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act will require that the state of public accounts be made available and public to the people of Ontario before an election. That will

never, ever happen again because of our law.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary from the member for Erie-Lincoln.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Premier, this is a very serious matter. Your 32 broken promises, promises that you committed to during the

campaign and have already broken in seven months, are bad enough.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm just going to ask for special co-operation today before the member starts speaking. There is a lot of shouting going

on.

Mr Hudak: The 32 broken promises alone in seven months are bad enough. Do we have the now-Premier of the province, in office, saying one thing

-- that taxes were not going up -- when he knew full well that the Ministry of Finance was working on plans to bring in the biggest tax increase on middle-class families in the province of Ontario?

Premier, when did you know that taxes were going up? Why did you tell people they were not, when you knew full well that they were going to? Did you say something that you knew was not the case or

are you simply incompetent?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I appreciate the enthusiasm with which the question is put. The member opposite raises the notion of increased costs for

families. I want to tell you about some of the other aspects of this budget. By providing free immunizations to children against deadly diseases, we are saving the average family $600 per child.

Our two-year tuition freeze will save an arts student at the University of Toronto $318; the tuition freeze for a new medical student will save $1,960. With our proposed changes to the Tenant

Protection Act, a family in a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto could save up to $250. By exempting intergenerational transfers of family farms from the land transfer tax, we are saving working

farming families an average of $2,500. Our budget goes a long way to make up for eight and a half lost years of downloading responsibilities, not only on to municipalities but on the families.

We're here for families.

Mr Hudak: The Premier is obviously avoiding a very serious matter. We are not talking about the word of the Leader of the Opposition when

you're in opposition. That is bad enough -- the broken promises. We're talking about what you have done to the trust the taxpayers have in the Office of the Premier of Ontario. We're talking about

the word of the Premier of Ontario, who said on April 24 that taxes were not going up, when I say he knew full well that taxes were going up through the roof. Either you scrambled at the last

minute on the back of a napkin to put that tax hike together, in which case you're incompetent, or you said with full knowledge on Focus Ontario that taxes were not going up, when you knew damned

well they were going up big time. Which are you: incompetent, or are you telling stories?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to begin by assuring the member that the sound system is in fact working and there is no need for him to go over the

top.

Since the member is so moved by his commitment to the people of Ontario, then on behalf of 12 million Ontarians, I will ask the member opposite to submit to

the treasury a cheque for $9,000 for saddling the people of Ontario with a $5.6-billion deficit.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. May I beseech the members again to co-operate so we can have a good question period. The shouting across is not helpful. I

would very much appreciate that. We started off very wrong today.

Second question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr Eves: The Prime Minister, Mr Martin, was quoted very recently in a Vancouver radio station interview as saying, "I would never stay in

office if I did not keep my promises." In all fairness, I don't expect you to live up to commitments that you didn't make during the campaign, but I do expect you to live up to the commitment you

made with the taxpayers' protection pledge when you said that if you raised taxes for any reason whatsoever -- there was no contingency, no equivocating -- you would hold a referendum before you

did so. Will you live up to your word and hold the referendum that you said you would hold if you raised taxes for any reason whatsoever?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I know the leader of the official opposition is very concerned about honouring the Taxpayer Protection Act. I want to remind

him of the vote that was taken in this House on June 27, 2002. At that particular time, as the government actively conspired to break the law -- the Taxpayer Protection Act -- it turns out that

that particular vote was supported by Mr Baird, Mr Chudleigh, Mr Dunlop, Mr Eves, Mr Hardeman, Mr Hudak, Mr Jackson, Mr Klees, Mr Miller, Mr Runciman, Mr Sterling, Mr Wilson and Ms Witmer. All

voted to break the Taxpayer Protection Act. So the leader has no standing, moral or otherwise, when it comes to lecturing us about doing the right thing on behalf of the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Nepean-Carleton.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My supplementary is to the Premier. Premier, this is about your word. This is about the confidence --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services, order. In some respects, it's very unfair when the government keeps on shouting,

because there are questions that members would like to ask. The third party also would like to ask their questions. I'm going to ask you all again to co-operate. I presume you could pass a motion

not to have question period today.

The member from Nepean-Carleton.

Mr Baird: Premier, when you sit down across the table with business people wanting to invest in Ontario, when you sit down with the federal

government to negotiate a deal, it will all be about your word and the ability of others to trust you.

On April 24, five weeks ago, you said to Graham Richardson on Focus Ontario that you wouldn't raise taxes. You broke your promise to working families, and with

the help, the support and the encouragement of David Herle, Paul Martin's campaign manager, you broke your word to raise taxes. Will you not stand in your place, inform the people of Ontario and

tell them how much you paid Paul Martin's campaign manager to help you break your promise? How much did you pay Paul Martin's campaign manager to raise taxes on working families? Will you tell us

before we vote on June 28, or are you going to pull the same trick and the same stunt you did in Hamilton East?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Notwithstanding his wishes to the contrary, this is not Parliament Hill. The member is not representing a federal

constituency. This is Queen's Park.

Let me tell you what it is Ontarians are concerned about. They're concerned about the state of their health care. I think one of the things they're going to be

asking themselves, as more and more are made aware of the contents of our budget, is why the member opposite and the members of the opposition are opposed to 36,000 additional cardiac procedures,

2,300 more joint replacements, nine new MRI and CT sites, 9,000 more cataract surgeries, and home care for close to 100,000 more Ontarians? The question Ontarians are having today, the one that

weighs heavily on their minds, is how could anybody on that side of the House be opposed to investing in better health care for Ontario families?

Mr Baird: Premier, you've become the poster child for political cynicism in Canada. There has never been a politician anywhere in the Dominion

who has broken such a clear promise made to the people of Ontario. You've broken your word. You've lost the moral high ground. Premier, you can't be trusted.

If you're proud of your budget, as you've been crowing around the province, if you're so proud of your budget that you've begun to use taxpayers' and

tax-creditable political donations to spin the people of Ontario, will you stand in your place and say that you will keep your word, that you will keep the faith, and that you will allow the people

of Ontario to vote on this budget you're so proud of? Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: There are a few questions to which I believe the answers are very clear. Number one: Did we make some difficult decisions is

this budget? You bet we did. Number two: Did the former government hide a $5.6-billion deficit from the people of Ontario? Yes, they did.

Let me tell you that I will put my name, my word and my integrity on the line any day when it comes to standing up for the defence of Ontario families and

doing what I think is the right thing to do when it comes to investing in their health care and their education. This budget is not designed to support our political imperatives; it's designed to

help Ontario families, and we will not back off, ever, from doing the right thing for Ontario.

The Speaker: New question? The leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. With each passing day, the outcry against your budget and your unfair

and regressive middle-income tax grab grows louder and louder. Ontarians are furious that a single mom with an income of $30,000 a year will see her provincial income tax increase by 24%, while

someone with an income of $200,000 a year will see their provincial income tax increase by only 3%.

Ontarians have always been willing to pay for investments in health care and education, but what they want to know, Premier, is simply this: You could have

closed the employer health tax loophole.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I will start naming members now if this continues, because it seems to me I have no control over question period these

days.

The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: The question is, Premier, you could have closed the employer health tax loophole. You could have restored corporate taxes to the

level they were at in 1998, when all corporations were making healthy profits. You could have said to the people who got a 35% tax reduction from the Conservatives, those with incomes over $100,000

a year, "It's time for you to contribute again." Instead, you went after modest- and middle-income working families and you whacked them to the tune of $2 billion. Why did you go after working

families, Premier? Why did you side with the rich and powerful?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, it's passing strange that the leader of the third party, who is now telling us that we should be taxing corporations,

did not side with us when we rolled back corporate tax cuts. I'm just wondering where he stands today. Earlier on, he was a champion of free enterprise on behalf of corporations, when today

apparently he is not.

Here are some of the facts connected with our new premium: A single parent making $30,000 per year with $3,000 in child care expenses will pay a premium of

$300. A person making $250,000 has an overall average tax rate of 39.9% in Ontario, including $11,410 just in Ontario surtaxes. We think that what we put in place is progressive and fair.

Mr Hampton: This has to be the all-time newsmaker. The Premier says that for a single-parent mom, it's OK to increase her provincial income

tax by 24%. Meanwhile, for somebody who has an income of $200,000, you just increase his income tax by 3%, and it's fair. Boy, this really has to make news. Maybe you can explain this one: A family

with a $50,000 income will be paying $16,000 more in income tax, while that individual who has a $200,000 income will pay 3% more.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): It's 16%.

Mr Hampton: So 16% versus 3%. Maybe you can explain that one, Premier. Maybe you can explain to the people of Ontario how that's fair.

Hon Mr McGuinty: It doesn't hurt to inject a little bit of truth into this debate. Just so we understand, an individual with a taxable income

up to $20,000 doesn't pay anything by way of a premium. If you're earning by way of taxable income $21,000, then your premium for 2005 will be $60. If you're earning $48,500, then your premium for

2005 -- again, that's taxable income -- will be $575. Just so we understand -- we don't take this lightly. We are imposing an additional burden on families, no doubt about that. We're not denying

that. But we've done so in a way that is reasonable, responsible and progressive, notwithstanding the member opposite's contentions to the contrary.

Mr Hampton: I'll inject a little truth into your statements. Here's your tables: He has an income -- he's a teacher -- of $50,000 a year. He

pays $600. His wife, who is a nurse, has an income of $52,000 a year. She pays $600. That works out to $1,200 a year from your tables, if you want to know the truth. Meanwhile, while you're

whacking working families to the tune of $2 billion a year, the banks -- oh, God, they need a tax break -- are going to get a $1-billion tax break from you. Explain that to the people of Ontario.

Why are the banks getting a $1-billion tax reduction thanks to Dalton McGuinty, while working families get whacked an extra $2 billion? Explain that fairness.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I understand that it serves the leader of the third party's purposes to be creative when it comes to his presentation of the

consequences of our budget, but we feel a responsibility to tell people what's happening specifically as a result of the budget. Again, in addition to the member -- he doesn't seem to be prepared

to accept that the maximum that an individual can pay would be $900. I don't know how he could come up with $16,000.

Again, there are other aspects to the budget, too. I indicated earlier that a family, as a result of these free immunizations, will save $600 per child. We're

helping low- and middle-income seniors by giving them a break on their property taxes to the tune of up to $125. For example, our contribution to the TTC helped avert a fare hike of 25 cents per

ride, saving regular TTC users $100 annually. So there's lots of good news in this budget for Ontario families.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Hampton: To the Premier again, these are your tables. I didn't make these up. I didn't create them. Do you recognize this? It's your budget

document. These are your tables. An individual with an income of $50,000 a year pays $600. Husband pays $600; wife pays $600; together they pay $1,200. And your Minister of Finance, what does he

pay? One per cent more. He pays $900. That's the unfairness of this. That's what's so grossly unfair.

But you didn't answer my question. My question was, while working families are going to get whacked $2 billion as a result of your budget, can you tell me why

those needy, desperate, impoverished banks are going to get a $1-billion reduction in their taxes?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Here is the information I've just been provided, and I assume it comes from finance. A $50,000 gross income teacher and a

$52,000 nurse with $5,000 in child care deductions would pay an Ontario health premium of $1,050 combined. You're talking $1,050 combined. That is considerably less than the $16,000 that the member

opposite would have us believe.

Mr Hampton: All right, Premier. Let's have it your way. He has a taxable income of $50,000 as a teacher. She's a nurse and has a taxable

income of $50,000. According to your tables, she will pay $600, he will pay $600 and together they will pay $1,200. And all those working families together will pay $2 billion as a result of your

budget. Meanwhile, the desperate, impoverished banks will get a $1-billion tax reduction. I ask you again, why did you decide to stick it to working families while banks get a $1-billion tax

reduction from your budget, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm wondering again, why did the leader of the third party vote with the banks when we put forward a bill in this House to

roll back corporate tax cuts? Where was he at that time?

Again, this is a budget that goes a long way to help out struggling families. Immunizations alone will save families $600 per child. Our two-year tuition

freeze will save an arts student at the University of Toronto $318. A new medical student will save $1,960.

This budget and this premium are not easy things. We accept that. We understand that. But this investment will enable us to improve the quality of health care

that we deliver to all Ontario families.

Mr Hampton: I'm not sure what it is, but maybe the Premier is having difficulty hearing. The question is this: Why should a working family,

his taxable income $50,000 and her taxable income $50,000 -- their auto insurance premiums have already gone up 20%, despite your promise, their hydro bill has gone up 20%, despite your promise,

the natural gas bill, the driver's licence bill, their property taxes have all gone up. Why are they being hit an extra $1,200 a year by your budget while those terribly impoverished banks are

getting a $1-billion tax reduction from the Dalton McGuinty government? That's the question. Will you finally answer it, please?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, I say to the leader of the third party, why this discovery of religion on the road to Damascus here? Why did he

originally vote with the banks? Why did he originally say he would not support our bill to roll back corporate tax cuts? That's what Ontario families are wondering today. Where will he be tomorrow?

Yesterday he was with the banks, today he's against them and who knows where he'll be tomorrow.

Our budget and its premium are designed to make absolutely essential investments in health care. I'm talking about everything from 8,000 more full-time nursing

positions, 12,000 additional bed lifts, 150 family health teams and home care for 100,000 more Ontarians. This is a heck of a budget when it comes to supporting families.

OPTOMETRY SERVICES

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. I'd like a page to deliver a document to the Premier. I'd like you to listen these

statements:

"I don't think we should have delisted optometrists.

"Eye care is health care.

"My hope is that during the debate there'll be an opportunity to reinstate it. This isn't the final deal. It goes to debate and goes to committee.

"I think it's very false savings to delist optometry."

I send that over to you because, you see, Premier, that was not said by an optometrist; that was said by your backbencher the member from Prince

Edward-Hastings. He stood in his place earlier today and in fact denied that he said that. That, sir, is a transcript. I would like to know from you, will you in fact agree with your backbencher

that you will have public hearings on this budget to give people like your member from Prince Edward-Hastings an opportunity --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The question has been asked. Premier?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to ask the member from Erie-Lincoln -- I'm going to warn you this time; the next time I'll be naming you.

Hon Mr McGuinty: The Minister of Health.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think we all recognize that there are decisions in the budget that were

challenging around some services. In aligning our optometry services in this province with other provinces across the country, we've reached out and done what we can to protect those in our society

who are most vulnerable. We've made sure that kids under 20 have access to these services and we've certainly made sure that seniors do.

But we've gone further. We're working with the optometrists to ensure that those people who require these services on a medically necessary basis are going to

continue to have the services covered in full by OHIP, as has always been the case.

Like other governments before us, we faced prioritization. We've made significant investments in community-based services, including a very significant

investment in family health teams. Family health teams are a place where Ontarians will get their care, including the eye care that they determine.

Mr Klees: This sidestepping of the issue qualifies the member from Prince Edward-Hastings for a position on the front benches of this

government. I wonder when he will be promoted as minister.

The issue here is the fact that this government has made a statement and the Premier refuses to answer this question. I'm simply asking for the same thing that

his backbencher has asked for, and that is committee hearings on this budget so that members like the member from Prince Edward-Hastings can in fact argue in committee against what he considers to

be an irresponsible act on the part of his government. Will the Premier commit to having committee hearings on the budget over the course of the summer? That's the question I'm asking. Please,

Premier, will you commit to giving your backbenchers an opportunity to represent their constituents on these issues?

Hon Mr Smitherman: In response to the honourable member's question, I think it would be appropriate to remind him that the initiative we're

taking is to ensure that those people who require optometry services on a medically necessary basis will continue to do so. We've made options and there are choices in this budget. I think the

choices we've made --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm going to warn the member from Simcoe-Grey, the next outburst across and I'll have to name you.

Hon Mr Smitherman: On the very issue of contrast and choices, it seems interesting to have an intervention finally from the member from

Simcoe-Grey who, when he was the Minister of Health in the early days of that government, brought in and stood proudly behind a budget that cut hospital funding by 3.5% and led to the most

audacious of statements from a government in the history of this province, and that was that nurses were hula hoops. That's their record on health care.

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Premier did not answer the question.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. New question? The member for Nickel Belt.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, your decision to delist eye exams from OHIP makes no sense, but

what makes even less sense is the suggestion by the Minister of Health that a patient might need a referral from a family doctor in order to get an OHIP-covered eye exam. A diabetic whose eye care

is already being monitored by an optometrist shouldn't have to go to a doctor in order to get a referral to that optometrist. Thousands and thousands of Ontarians don't have a family doctor, so

you're going to force them to go to an after-hours clinic or an emergency ward to get a referral to see an optometrist.

Look, optometrists are highly qualified primary care providers. They ensure good, direct access for patients to eye care, and there is no need to impede that

access by forcing them to see a doctor to get a referral first. Premier, why don't you just do the right thing and announce that all eye exams will be covered under OHIP?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Smitherman: The member, in her question, makes a point of the fact that too many Ontarians are struggling with access to a family

doctor. I wonder why that is, I ask the member of the New Democratic Party and their government, that when they were in government, they cut the number of spots in medical schools that caused the

problem of shortages of doctors in this province.

Secondly, she obviously misses the point, which is that these medically necessary services for people with diabetes, as an example, will continue to be

covered. But she misses one other important point as well: We have a different plan around family health teams and around the provision of primary care. It is that instead of one silo here and one

silo there, which she continues to be a proponent of, we'll bring together interdisciplinary teams of health care providers working in a complementary fashion. It isn't all about a doctor over here

and an optometrist over here and a nurse or a nurse practitioner over here and over there. It is about a vision for primary health care.

Ms Martel: May I remind the minister that his plan for family health teams doesn't even include optometrists, so who is he trying to kid? This

move is going to do nothing to improve primary health care. In fact, it's going to increase the burden on doctors who are already overworked. It's going to decrease the legitimate role of

optometrists in the health care system. It's going to reduce Ontarians' direct access, which they have now, to optometrists because thousands and thousands of people don't have a family doctor and

won't be able to get a referral.

Add to that the enormous cost to the health care system when you force people to go to an emergency ward or an after-hours clinic to see a family doctor to get

a referral. That's a complete waste of health care dollars. I say to the minister, optometrists are primary health care providers. They have an important role in the system. Patients should have

direct access to them, and that access should be paid by OHIP. Reverse your decision.

Hon Mr Smitherman: The longer the honourable member talks, the more she makes my point. Optometrists and other providers ought to be part of a

primary health care delivery team, and we're moving forward on a team approach. The honourable member makes a point. She argues with extraordinary vigour for the status quo, but the status quo has

been failing. At least a million Ontarians don't have access. What has our government done in our budget? We've made choices in five distinct areas. We've given considerable new funding to drive

resources to the community, provide care closer to home, where people need it, and divert traffic flow from our hospitals. That is our plan. It's funded, and it will soon be operational. You will

see that there is an opportunity in family health teams to provide --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The government House leader and the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal are on the verge of being named. I'm warning

them.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Health. It has been estimated by the Canadian Mental Health

Association that every year it costs the Canadian economy $14.4 billion in lost productivity due to mental illness and that one in five people will experience a mental health illness during their

lifetime. Due to such staggering figures, what is the government doing and what is it going to do to ensure that those who suffer from mental illness are properly treated?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm enormously proud of the steps we've taken in our budget to address 12 lost

years -- two governments of two political stripes that failed over a period of time to make the necessary investments in community-based mental health.

I'm excited that our government's budget includes $65 million in new spending on community-based mental health services. This will increase to over $185

million by the fourth year of our mandate. This increase is the first in 12 years, since before Bob Rae's hair turned grey. It will provide us with the opportunity to better fund case management,

crisis response and early intervention to prevent -- here again, one more time, the opportunity is there: Invest at the community level, drive resources to the community, closer to home where

people need it, and divert traffic flow from our institutions like hospitals. That is our plan. Mental health is one important component -- 65 million new dollars in 2004-05.

Mr Peterson: Some mental health associations such as the one in Windsor-Essex have a nurse practitioner on-site. According to the

Windsor-Essex mental health association, their preliminary findings show that primary care services reduced hospitalizations by 74% and the number of days in hospital by 78%. I would like to know

if your ministry supports such programs.

Hon Mr Smitherman: If there's one thing I've got a sense of in the last 45 seconds, it's that we all agree on the incredible importance and

amazing versatility of deployment of nurse practitioners in our province. The fact of the matter remains that if we had more of them, we could use them. What has this government done in its budget?

It has dramatically enhanced our production line so we'll have more nurse practitioners available in a variety of settings.

To the member's very specific point about the deployment of nurse practitioners in a proactive, community-based way, including in community mental health,

we're excited to see the role that nurse practitioners are playing in Windsor-Essex, and I can confirm to the honourable member that nurse practitioners factor in our plans to enhance community

health care for people suffering from mental illness.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Premier. I listened to your health minister, and he says you have a plan for

this and a plan for that. But the reality is, you had a health plan during the campaign that guaranteed all Ontarians access to health care services based on need, not ability to pay, and you were

elected on that plan. That's the reason we weren't elected, because this is what you said. I want you to stand in your place today and tell the 1.2 million patients who visit the chiropractor that

you are prepared to reinstate chiropractic services and pay for them under OHIP.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Health will want to speak to this.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would acknowledge to the honourable member that there are a lot of people in

the province of Ontario who use and feel benefit from chiropractic. There's no argument on our part. I'm someone who has used those services in the past. The decision to delist these services was a

difficult one, but it's about priorities.

The member will obviously know from her three years as the Minister of Health in this province that there is a difference between those services which are

therapeutically beneficial and those which are protected by the Canada Health Act and are medically necessary. We had to make a difficult decision because the fact of the matter is clear in our

province: There are many medically necessary services that we have not been able to fund adequately, and our government's commitments remain clear there. We chose some priorities; they were

difficult. Some difficult decisions were made. But I stand enormously proud of the budget that invests $2.2 billion -- 7.3% growth -- in the kind of community-based care that we believe is the

recipe for the transformation of our health care system to make it sustainable, to the benefit of future generations of Ontarians. That is our fundamental responsibility.

Mrs Witmer: I would remind the Minister of Health that there are about 1.2 million people in this province who have been denied access to

chiropractic services. You made a pledge. You said that you were going to provide the service based on need and not on ability to pay.

We have received thousands and thousands of petitions from people who tell us that this is a cost-effective and efficient care that allows them to lead a

healthy life and to function. They are telling us that presently you're going to save about $100 million, but what you are going to do is increase the cost of care because it's going to cost more

than $200 million for these same patients to go to physicians or to hospital emergency rooms or to use drugs. Will you now acknowledge that your plan to delist chiropractic services is not

appropriate, and will you reinstate?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I think it's important to acknowledge that in our health care system in this province there are a wide range of

therapeutically beneficial services that do not enjoy any benefit from OHIP, and chiropractic now is amongst those. But the fact of the matter is that we had to make choices.

The member talks about primary care. I'm pleased to be able to say that as a result of the priorities and choices that we made, $100 million saved on

chiropractic allows for a $111-million new investment in primary care in 2004-05; that $100 million saved from chiropractic allows for an $80-million new investment in immunizations for our kids;

$100 million saved in chiropractic allows for a direct $100-million investment in the expansion of community care access centres; $100 million saved in chiropractic contributes to $406 million of

new money for our long-term-care facilities. It is, at the end of the day, a difficult choice but a priority that we stand behind.

TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, the Toronto Police Services Board is in turmoil, as we all

know. Recently two members threw a tantrum and walked out to break quorum to stop a vote they thought they might lose. As you know, one member, Norm Gardner, is under suspension, yet he refuses to

resign, leaving the board short one critical member at this time.

Your Minister of Community Safety says Gardner should resign, but he says he doesn't have the authority to do anything about it. Premier, you can do something

about it: You can change the law. I ask you today, will you pass special legislation to fire Norm Gardner and replace him with a new provincial appointee?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Speaker, I refer this to the minister.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): The member should know that, first of all, what I said was that it

would be helpful if Norm Gardner would resign. But you also should know that, notwithstanding that OCCOPS has suspended him for the rest of the his term without pay, he has sought judicial review

of that decision. As long as that process is in place, I cannot and will not interfere with it.

Ms Churley: Back to the Premier: I don't know what your minister is afraid of here. He's got to go. You can't keep standing behind these

excuses. I have been asking you and your minister for some weeks now to help out the Toronto Police Services Board. Now Mayor David Miller says Norm Gardner should resign. He continues to say that

he won't. You can't just continue to stand back and watch from the sidelines while this board descends into chaos. You need to live up to your responsibility.

I'm going to tell you again, if you bring in a special bill to replace Norm Gardner, we will give it special quick passage --

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Monday.

Ms Churley: Monday. Yes, bring it back on Monday.

Premier, the choice is yours. I'm going to ask you again to take your responsibility seriously and fire Norm Gardner, or are you going to continue to wash your

hands of this?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I find it rather strange that a member of this Legislature is advocating that I should introduce a law to break the law. I can

tell you this: Right at the present time there is no intention on behalf of this ministry to break the law.

AIR QUALITY

Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Today marks the sixth anniversary of Clean Air Day. Clean

As summer approaches, we are bracing for another summer of smog-filled days. Smog days not only hurt our most vulnerable populations, they also hurt our

economy. The facts are well documented. An Ontario Medical Association report showed that air pollution in Ontario leads to almost 10,000 hospital admissions, 13,000 hospital room visits and 47

million sick days for employees each year. In real dollars this costs Ontario taxpayers and businesses more than $1 billion annually.

It is imperative that we all be encouraged and we all understand that we are all part of the solution, that we all have a role to play in making Ontario's air

cleaner. Minister, what can we do to reduce air pollution? How can we make the air we breathe cleaner?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very happy to have this opportunity to focus on what is a very important day. It is an

opportunity for this government to share with the people of Ontario what they can do in their everyday lives, in their homes, in their places of work across the province to improve air quality.

Of course, the very first thing is that they can be more responsible in terms of how they use energy in their homes, be more efficient, because the more

efficient they are, the more they reduce the demand for energy, the less energy that is needed to be produced, and that has an impact on air quality.

One example is, as we come into the summer season, those people who enjoy air conditioning should perhaps just turn the temperature up a little bit. That is

going to have an impact on the amount of energy that is used.

Also, another thing I would like to share with the member, particularly in those communities where public transit is available, is that people across the

province should avail themselves of public transit and take cars off the roads. They contribute significantly to air pollution.

Mr Zimmer: These are, of course, important steps. They are necessary steps in ensuring we can breathe the air. But it doesn't stop with

Ontario; air quality is an issue across North America.

Just today, the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation released its annual report, Taking Stock: North American Pollutant Releases and

Transfers in 2001. It reported that although North American emissions declined by 18%, Canadian emissions rose by 3%.

Minister, what is your ministry doing to ensure that Ontario plays its vital role in reducing emissions, and what is it doing to ensure that we all have clean

air?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: The report that was released today, I think, even though it reflected events in the year 2001, is a very good reminder to

the people of this province why our commitment to cleaner air, the commitment of the McGuinty government, is so very important.

I'm very proud to say that in just eight months, the McGuinty government has done more to improve the environment than the previous eight years. One of the

things we've done is, we have committed to close coal-fired plants by the year 2007. I'm also happy that the Ministry of the Environment will be introducing programs to educate Ontarians on how we

might conserve energy and develop renewable energy sources.

I recently announced the toughest emissions standards in North America for diesel vehicles. Our government is committed to cleaner air by 2007. I am proud that

our government signed an agreement with the federal government to work on climate change. I'm also proud that recently our Premier went to Washington to plead the --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): My question today is for the Premier. Today, I was shocked to read in the newspaper that one of

your own MPPs made a harassing statement when he declared that "there's just too many white people" on our agencies, boards and commissions. I'm not even sure what group he is referring to in that

broad term.

The Human Rights Code provides a definition of "harassment." It "means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably

to be known to be unwelcome." This is a very serious matter. Under the Human Rights Code, "Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of

race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, same-sex partnership status, family status or

disability."

Premier, will you be disciplining Mr Qaadri for his comments? Will you ask him for his resignation?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to a very important matter, and I

know that all members in this Legislature understand how important it is to tread lightly in this area so that we will not be seen to fan something that we don't want to fan.

I'll tell you what our intention is. Our intention is to draw on all the talent that is available to us in the province of Ontario. We are looking for

competent, qualified people who represent all of Ontario. That is the beginning of the end of our particular focus when it comes to making sure we have the best people doing jobs on behalf of the

government.

Ms Scott: Mr Premier, the agencies, boards and commissions of this government ought to try to represent the people from all backgrounds and

from all parts of the province. Based on the comments by Mr Qaadri, is it reasonable that white people might believe that their applications to serve on agencies, boards and commissions would not

be considered by your government? You need to take decisive action. Will you ask Mr Qaadri to resign?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We are determined to ensure that every Ontarian gets a fair shake. That's all we want to do. The member opposite may not want

to hear this. I'm not sure why they could have something against every Ontarian getting a fair shake. We are looking for competent, qualified people. We want to draw on all the talent available to

us. What could be wrong with that?

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is to the Premier. The Royal Botanical Gardens says it will have to close on July 31 of this

year if you don't come up with $1.7 million in funding. If that happens, it will be a shocking blow to Hamilton, to the region in that area, to Halton and to our tourism industry for both

areas.

On May 6 in this House you said, "We are going to work as hard as we can to ensure that the Royal Botanical Gardens is around for a long, long time." That was

during the Hamilton East by-election, Mr Premier. Yet your Minister of Culture says there's no money left in the kitty. Premier, which is it? Are you going to save the RBG or is this yet another

broken promise?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I am delighted to welcome the member opposite's assistance when it comes

to this matter. There are three parties, as I understand it, who have traditionally provided funding to the RBG. There's the province of Ontario, the city of Hamilton and the region of Halton. Just

so we understand, we've been providing less than 23% of the funding. I am convinced -- and I maintain this -- that if the province, the city of Hamilton, the region of Halton and any private sector

supporters come together, we can find some kind of an arrangement whereby we can guarantee the survival of the Royal Botanical Gardens. If the member has any particular positive proposal that she'd

like to put on the table so that we can work together, I would be delighted to hear that.

Ms Horwath: Premier, as a matter of fact, I do have a proposal. The RBG is a provincial agency, as you know. That makes it your

responsibility, not the responsibility of the city of Hamilton, which is already burdened by the weight of other things like the downloading we are dealing with, as you know. As you also know, you

only provide 20% of the operating funding of this facility while the Royal Ontario Museum gets 50% and the Ontario Science Centre gets 54%. Why does Hamilton get the short end of the stick? Why

does this attraction not get its fair share of funding? And why are you not keeping your promise to save this beautiful attraction in Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I know the minister would like to add something.

Hon Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Two weeks ago we met with a member of the board of

the RBG and also a politician from the mayor of Hamilton. We are discussing how we can support the RBG but we're still waiting for their financial plan. When we receive their financial plan, our

staff will sit together and we'll try to find a solution for the RBG.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As you know, people with

disabilities face numerous barriers. All too often we don't notice how difficult life's daily activities can be for someone else. This is National Access Awareness Week, which helps to remind us

that there are over 1.5 million people in this province living with disabilities, people who show incredible courage and strength each and every day.

The last eight years have not been easy for Ontarians with disabilities. I would like to ask the minister what is being done to help National Access Awareness

Week reach its goal of bringing Canadians together to ensure the full participation of people with disabilities in community life.

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I would like to thank my colleague

for the question and for his work as critic in this area as well, which informed us in developing our platform.

Since becoming Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, with the ODA as part of my responsibility, we have consulted widely across the province, and, again,

I'd like to thank my parliamentary assistant, Dr Kular, for his assistance in these consultations. We are committed to strengthening the act by the fall of 2004.

businesses to assist organizations to improve customer services for people with disabilities, because we intend to engage the private sector much more in fulfilling their obligations to people with

disabilities.

Mr Parsons: I'm very pleased to know that a minister in the McGuinty government is marking National Access Awareness Week with such an

the most vulnerable members of our community.

I had the privilege on Tuesday morning of speaking to a number of representatives of Ontarians with disabilities in Brockville who were dismayed at the lack of

consultation that took place with them by the previous government and thrilled with the consultation that has happened by this minister over the past couple of months. For them, the challenge they

face every day can be helped and improved by actions of this government. I am so thrilled to have seen the actions that have happened. Their question to me, which I would like to pass on to you,

is, when can we expect to see measures introduced to improve the present Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: Our commitment and our platform was to come up with a stronger Ontarians with Disabilities Act within a year of taking

office. We will meet that commitment. We're working very hard. We've consulted earnestly across the province and we will extend the rights and responsibilities to other sectors, other than just the

public sector. This does take a lot of time, but we're working very quickly and hope to have this done by the fall of 2004.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for Premier McGuinty. I want to congratulate you on running radio ads eight months

after you were elected. Of course, this is the anniversary, eight months today.

Last year at this time, you asked for Chris Stockwell's resignation because he used riding association money as part payment for a working vacation as Minister

of Energy. Your claim was that people who donated to the riding association received a tax receipt -- a cost to taxpayers. Now, just today, radio ads costing $100,000 of tax-receiptable funds are

being aired across Ontario. In these ads you try to justify the albatross budget health care premium that you have personally hung around the necks of both our Prime Minister and every working

family in the province of Ontario. How can you, of all people, the one who criticized Stockwell on the one hand and then on the other hand has run taxpayer-funded, partisan radio ads trying to

justify the worst budget in the province of Ontario?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I recall that after the Magna budget this government spent millions of

dollars -- and I'm talking about glossy householders and radio ads. Not everybody is going to be able to hear that ad, because they are busy, but I thought maybe I would give it to them here now.

It says:

"I'm Dalton McGuinty, and I want you to know that every penny of Ontario's new health care premium will go to health care. It'll mean shorter waits for

radiation and chemotherapy, nine new MRI sites, home care for 95,000 more Ontarians, meningitis vaccinations for children, 8,000 new full-time nursing positions, and together we're going to build a

health care system we can all be proud of."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. A point of order from the member from Simcoe-Grey.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If you rise -- I'm going to warn you, and the next time you do that again, I'm going to name you.

The member from Simcoe-Grey.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): On a point of privilege, I guess, Mr Speaker: I just want you to look into the comments that were made by the

member for Etobicoke North, Mr Qaadri, in terms of, is it not illegal to ask anyone for the colour of their skin when they're applying for an --

The Speaker: Order. That's not a point of privilege and not a point of order.

PETITIONS

RECREATIONAL TRAILERS

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas many owners of seasonal trailers kept at campgrounds have raised their concerns over the impact on property taxes on seasonal trailers and the

unfairness of imposing a new tax on persons who use minimum municipal services;

"Whereas this new tax will discourage businesses and tourism opportunities in Ontario and will cause many families to give up their vacation trailers all

together;

"Whereas the administration of this tax will require a substantial investment in staff time and resources across the province of Ontario;

"Whereas some representatives of the recreational vehicle industry, campground providers and trailer owners have suggested an alternative sticker or tag system

to establish fees for seasonal trailers;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario immediately abandon the assessment of taxation of recreational trailers used on a seasonal basis in 2004, and that the

government of Ontario consult with all stakeholders regarding the development of a fair and reasonable sticker or tag fee that would apply to recreational trailers used on a seasonal basis."

I affix my name in support.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

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

"Whereas auto insurance rates continue to skyrocket, contrary to the official position of the Liberal government and the insurance industry; and

"Whereas more and more drivers are being cut off by their insurance companies for no valid reason and are being dumped into the Facility Association; and

"Whereas all attempts to regulate the auto insurance industry have failed;

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

"That the Ontario government immediately introduce legislation that would bring to Ontario a public, not-for-profit automobile insurance program similar to the

ones currently in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia."

I have affixed my signature as well, and Meghan the page is delivering it to the table.

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

Sudbury; and

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

incentives enjoyed by residents of other northern communities; and

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

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

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

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

I have some 300 signatures here, and I affix mine to support it.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Because social assistance rates were slashed by 21.6% in 1995, and with the increase in the cost of living, that cut is worth about 34.4% today; and

"Because current social assistance rates do not allow recipients to meet their cost of living; and

"Because the people of Ontario deserve an adequate standard of living and are guaranteed such by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights; and

"Because the jury at the inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers recommended that social assistance rates be reviewed so that they reflect the actual costs

of living;

"We demand that the Ontario government immediately increase the shelter portion of Ontario Works and Ontario disability support program benefits to the average

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp rent levels and index social assistance to the cost of living."

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

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who" have chosen 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-effective access to certification and other measures that facilitate the entry or re-entry of skilled workers and professionals trained outside Canada into the Canadian

workforce."

I affix my signature to this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of constituents of the riding of Durham. Louise Lalande and Gay

Ayotte are just two.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas gasoline prices have continued to increase at alarming rates in recent months; and

"Whereas the high and unstable gas prices across Ontario have caused confusion and unfair hardship to Ontario's drivers while also impacting the Ontario

economy in key sectors, such as tourism and transportation;

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

"That the provincial government consider an immediate gas price freeze for a temporary period until world oil prices moderate; and

"That the Dalton McGuinty provincial government petition the federal Liberal government to step up to the plate and lower gas prices by removing the GST on

gasoline products and fix the federal Competition Act to ensure consumers are protected and that the market operates in a fair and transparent manner."

I'm pleased to sign this in support of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition I'm going to present today and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas former Premier Mike Harris received $18,000 in consulting fees from Ontario Hydro;

"Whereas he did this consulting work less than a year after he resigned his position as Premier of Ontario;

"Whereas this contract is just another example of the Conservative country club created by the previous government at Ontario Hydro and Ontario Power

Generation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to order former Premier Mike Harris to pay back the taxpayers of Ontario by returning the consultant

fees he received from Ontario Hydro."

As I agree with this petition, I affix my signature to it.

NANTICOKE GENERATING STATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): "Whereas OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Nanticoke has been threatened with closure; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has recently invested $250 million into the development and application of selective catalytic reduction at Nanticoke and

Lambton that will reduce 80% of nitrous oxide emissions, and the use of low sulphur coal has reduced sulphur dioxide by 60% since the early 1980s; and

"Whereas on a megawatt-to-megawatt basis, the Nanticoke station is far cleaner than the vast majority of the over 200 coal-fired stations in the United States,

and emissions from the US account for more than 50% of the smog in Ontario; and

"Whereas Nanticoke supplies up to 20% of the energy produced in Ontario every year and is therefore a scapegoat for emissions concerns; and

"Whereas the McGuinty-Liberal closure of coal-fired plants would stick taxpayers with a $6-billion bill and have a significant impact on local economies;

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

"That the government of Ontario support the 600 workers of the OPG Nanticoke generating facility by continuing efforts aimed at reducing emissions while

maintaining power production at Nanticoke."

TAXATION

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition signed by a number of good citizens of Cambridge.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Hands Off Our Wallets

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

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

rate hike; and

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

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

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

I set my name thereto.

TTC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I keep getting petitions regarding the St Clair Avenue West TTC right-of-way, and the petition reads as

follows:

"Whereas an environmental assessment (EA) is underway on St Clair Avenue West to study potential transit improvements, including the possibility of installing

a dedicated TTC right-of-way;

"Whereas the consultation process so far has been in bad faith, top-down and rushed, which has disappointed and angered the local community almost entirely,

and not been up to any acceptable public standards;...

"Whereas a dedicated right-of-way would restrict left-turn access to neighbourhood streets north and south of St Clair, and a barrier down the centre of St

Clair would force the vast majority of residents to make U-turns and go further out of their way just to get home or go to work;

"Whereas a dedicated ROW would force significantly more traffic on to our local streets;

"Whereas safety must be a high priority for any alternative selected and, according to ambulance and fire department staff, they don't like to work with

right-of-ways;

"Whereas a ROW would lead to the reduction or elimination of on-street parking on St Clair Avenue West;

"Whereas traffic bottlenecks at certain intersections and underpasses are already terrible, and certain chronically problematic intersections and underpasses

could not stand to lose one of their existing two lanes;...

"Whereas there is no guarantee that a dedicated ROW will improve transit service substantially, as the number of streetcars serving the street will actually be

reduced;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, strongly urge the Minister of the Environment to order a full environmental assessment on St Clair Avenue West, one that

genuinely consults and takes into consideration the views and opinions of the local community."

Since I agree, I affix my signature to this petition.

LANDFILL

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

"Whereas the county of Simcoe proposes to construct a landfill at site 41 in the township of Tiny; and

"Whereas the county of Simcoe has received, over a period of time, the necessary approvals from the Ministry of the Environment to design and construct a

landfill at site 41; and

"Whereas, as part of the landfill planning process, peer reviews of site 41 identified over 200 recommendations for improvements to the design, most of which

are related to potential groundwater contamination; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has on numerous occasions stated her passion for clean and safe water and the need for water source protection;

and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has indicated her intention to introduce legislation on water source protection, which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented under Justice Dennis O'Connor's report on the Walkerton inquiry; and

"Whereas the Minister of the Environment has announced expert panels that will make recommendations to the minister on water source protection legislation;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment will now be responsible for policing nutrient management; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario will be expecting a standing committee of the Legislature to hold province-wide public hearings on water source protection

legislation;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the government of Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment to immediately place a moratorium on the development of site 41

until the water source protection legislation is implemented in Ontario. We believe the legislation will affect the design of site 41 and the nearby water sources."

I'm pleased to sign my name to that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Petitions. The member from Davenport.

Interjections.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Thank you very much. I like the Conservative backbenchers. They're just great today.

I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario which reads a 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 election Premier McGuinty promised `real protection for tenants at all times';

"Whereas our own MPP, Liberal Tony Ruprecht, called for a rent rollback ... at a public event in June 2003;

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

"To immediately scrap the guidelines and above-guideline increases for 2004, as an elementary gesture of goodwill towards tenants, who voted massively against

the Tories in last October's election.

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

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

I present this to you, Mr Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 1, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 83,

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

Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures budgétaires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The member for -- boy it's been a week that I've been away. You've changed your --

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Beaches-East York.

The Deputy Speaker: Beaches-East York. Thank you.

Interjection: You've changed your seating arrangement.

Mr Prue: Changed the seat, and all things look a little different these days.

It is again a delight to be here to finish my speech. I understand I have some 20 minutes left of my one-hour speech. I want to tell you, though, that it is

indeed a difficult speech to make for one hour and to stay on point. I'm going to attempt to do that again, to talk exactly about the budget. The budget is a very long and complex document and the

arguments contained within it can be long and complex too.

In fact, when I went last night to a reception held in this august building, one of the members who works for the Liberal Party came up to me -- not a member

of this House, but a person who is employed by the Liberal Party -- and told me quite incredulously, "I listened to your speech for the first 40 minutes of it and you said many good things that are

contained in the budget, and yet you don't support us." I think I have to answer him -- and I hope he's watching again -- as to the reason why.

Yes, there are good provisions in this budget. Nobody in the New Democratic Party will deny even for a moment that the hospitals need more money. We will not

deny for a moment that the schools need more money. We will not deny for a moment that it is a good thing that children are given inoculations, because children need to be protected from

pneumococcal disease and any number of other things. We will not deny that this government is attempting to redress some of the wrongs that have happened in this province over the last number of

years.

All of that will require money; no one will deny that. I will salute for the little bit -- I know that'll wind up in a Liberal brochure somewhere. I will

salute them for trying to solve the problems that this province has encountered over the last number of years. The problem for New Democrats is not that you are trying to redress the problems; the

problem we have with your budget is, quite frankly, how you are going to get the money to pay for that. We believe you are getting the money on the backs of the working poor, we believe you are

getting the money on the backs of senior citizens, and we believe that you are getting money from people whose taxes you promised not to raise. That is the problem we have and that's what I want to

deal with, primarily, over the balance of the 18 minutes that are left to me.

As I was speaking the other day, I went through a whole list of problems that we see, everything from the tax on the working poor, the centrepiece of the

budget, being the new health tax. We talked about the choices the Liberals would have.

We talked about the rising cost of licences and fees that the poor, and primarily poorer income earners, are going to have to bear in disproportionate

amounts.

We talked about the delisting of tertiary health costs, everything from chiropractic services to optometrists to physiotherapy.

We talked about the child benefit clawback and how the money that was promised to those very poor people is not going to be forthcoming.

We talked about the inadequacy of the 3% welfare increase. Although we welcome any increase at all, as I'm sure those very poor people do, that is simply not

adequate given the amount of money they have lost over the years, with a 21% reduction some nine or 10 years ago, compounded by an inflation rate of some 13% since that time. That 3% hardly cuts

it.

We talked about the child care provisions. There was really no new money for child care, as was included in the Liberals' election promises.

We talked about the sleight of hand of the $3.9 billion that has been moved from the province to the OPG and Hydro debt. That's probably where it belongs, but

that took $3.9 billion out of the deficit so that the deficit, which would have been $6 billion, miraculously appears now to be $2.2 billion.

We talked about the four-year fiscal framework and how the money is simply not going to be there.

We talked about education and the capping of class sizes, which is going to eat more than half of the new budgeted monies, monies which Rozanski himself did

not recommend.

We finished off the other day by talking about the little kernel that was thrown out at the last minute by the finance minister on continuing to look at the

potential privatization of the LCBO. Although he says he's not going that way, he has left the door open, which we think is very sad.

Last but not least, we talked about municipalities, the 2% of the gas tax and the one cent that is coming this year, which is a good thing. We will say right

out that that is a good thing. We were also talking about how the infrastructure monies are not adequate.

That takes me, with the 15 minutes left, to several other items which I think need to be dealt with in this speech. The first is housing. If there is one

element in this budget that has been neglected, that has been left out, that has been short-shrifted, it is the entire area of the housing portfolio. The Liberals promised that they would build

20,000 units of affordable housing. The Liberals promised, prior to election day, that they would build 6,000 units of supportive housing, primarily for people who had substance abuse and/or

psychiatric problems, those people who make up the overwhelming majority of those we call homeless in this province, to help get them off the street.

If you look at the budget, quite sadly, there is very little money here: depending on how you read it, $18 million in money, or $13 million, because $5 million

of it has already been spent. I want to tell you, it is impossible to build the number of units that the Liberals promised, and the number of units that we know we need in this province, with the

$13 million.

In the city of Toronto alone, there are 65,000 to 70,000 families on the list for affordable housing, who can wait up to 14 years to get the housing for them

and their children, often only to find that the children have grown, have left home, and that they're no longer eligible. We know that people wait literally for years and years, living in squalor.

They could really help themselves, their families, their children, their education, their lifestyle, if only they could get into clean, affordable housing.

We have a government here today that promised, while they were in opposition, that they would abide by, and work with, their federal Liberal cousins in Ottawa.

Those same federal Liberal cousins have given $67 million to Ontario. But that has to be matched, it has to be matching funds, and we see in this budget that those matching funds are not

forthcoming. If they were, if there was another $50 million in this budget for something I think almost everyone would agree we need -- affordable housing for our poor, for our destitute, for those

who are homeless on the streets -- then quite frankly that would be matched by federal dollars to the tune that there would be $134 million. That would be enough to build a lot of housing.

As it exists now, with $13 million this government can build 520 units of affordable housing. That is it -- 520 units. That is on a matched dollar-by-dollar

basis. If it were only up to them, and if there were no federal contribution, you would be looking at 260 units across the length and breadth of this great province. That is woefully

inadequate.

Another thing that is in the budget, or not in the budget, to be more correct, is the whole provision for shelter allowances. This government campaigned on one

of their 231 recommendations to institute immediately a provision for shelter allowances so that the working poor could afford the rents that were charged, particularly in the large cities of

Ottawa, London, Hamilton, Toronto, Windsor and Thunder Bay. Those are nowhere to be seen. It is totally not mentioned and it is, I suggest, a huge failing in the housing portfolio. There are some

12 to 14 ministries that we know are not going to get any increase at all, including this one -- ministries that need the money, ministries that cannot operate without the money and ministries that

are going to see in the next year their actual source of revenues dry up, their workers disbanded and the provisions that people rely on in this province completely obliterated.

We have the whole problem, too, of child care. We've seen that they have finally been willing to pass on federal dollars for child care which have been sitting

there for a long time and have not been spent. We know that those monies in part have been freed up, but certainly not enough of them, and that there is still some $130 million sitting in a kitty,

which the federal government has promised and delivered, and which this provincial government has refused to spend in the area for which it has been earmarked.

The Liberals' own plans that they put forward in the last election have come to naught.

We know from this bill that there are other problems. It was only yesterday that, in still reading this budget bill -- because it is voluminous and there is so

much in it -- we discovered that there is a provision that within municipalities, new businesses will be forced to pay higher taxes than existing businesses when they move into a business district

within a city.

What that means in my own municipality of Toronto, in my own riding of Beaches-East York, is that when a person decides to set up a new business and moves into

that new business, they will not have the opportunity the older businesses have to have their tax increases phased in over a number of years, but they will immediately have to pay the higher and

new tax as it exists at the time the business is opened.

Therefore, a restaurant opening up diametrically across the street from an existing restaurant will expect, and must expect, that the taxes they will pay on

that commercial development will be higher than their competitor's. What that means, quite frankly, is that businesspeople, people trying new enterprises, small enterprises, family enterprises,

will be forced to pay the higher rate. It will doom them in a competitive way against the people with whom they're doing business, and I would think it is patently unfair and it does not make good

economic or budget sense of this government. We should be encouraging people to open new businesses, not discouraging them by forcing them to pay higher taxes than their competitors. And should

this budget go out to committee and should we hear deputations, clearly this is a provision the government should look at.

We want -- we need -- new business in this province, particularly small business. We want our cities, our towns, our countryside, our tourist areas, to be

vibrant and competitive. We want new restaurants. We want new stores. We want new services. And in order to get those, we have to encourage the people willing to take the risks to put up their

financial monies, and give them the same provisions as existing services. If we do not do that, we cannot expect them to come, we cannot expect them to invest and, quite frankly, we cannot expect

that our tourism industry will increase and get back to its pre-SARS days.

We see the problem as well about the delisting. Yesterday there was quite a kerfuffle in this House when my colleague the member from Toronto-Danforth asked a

question about the delisting of drugs. I would just like to go over for the record exactly what

section 20 of the bill says.

Section 20 of the bill allows for the minister, and the minister alone

-- not the cabinet, not the Lieutenant Governor in Council, no person other than the minister -- to delist drugs. He or she is now the only person who is allowed to do so and, in doing that, we

look to -- well, we're hoping that the minister is very sensitive on this. But we are very afraid on this side of the House of this particular provision because the drugs that can be delisted can

be delisted notwithstanding the provisions of, I believe it's

section 23 of the act. But they can be delisted for any reason whatsoever that the minister deems appropriate.

We also looked yesterday at another provision, which had heretofore escaped our attention, and that is under the Tenant Protection Act. I have to say that this

government has some of the best bald-faced luck in the history of any government of this province. You are blessed -- totally, completely blessed -- with a situation in which vacancy rates in the

province of Ontario are going up and, in part, in some places, where rents have actually declined modestly, and I would say very modestly, $5 to $10. We're not talking very much, but at least

modestly in the last year or so in places such as Toronto. It has not declined in any way near that in other cities like Ottawa or Hamilton or Kitchener, but we do see $5 to $10 rate reductions in

the city of Toronto.

Having said that, the reason in part for this decline is that the number of people who are doubling up in rental units has reached an all-time high. There was

a reception here last night put on by the rental housing providers in the legislative dining room. I think many of the members may have attended it, and some of those people came to me and

attributed the increase in rental units that are now for rent to the fact that people are doubling up.

People who used to be able to afford a rent of $500 or $600, and there are no units available to do that any more, are finding they are required to have

roommates. They're renting a two-bedroom unit at $1,000 or $1,100, and that is why some of the rental units, the one-bedroom units that were once fully booked, are now finding their way on to the

rental market. That, in and of itself, is probably the major criterion for the number of units that remain vacant in many of our cities here today.

Notwithstanding that, this government has not spent the amount of money, as I alluded earlier, on new housing. Quite frankly, housing is needed at the lower

end of the scale, for people who can only afford $400 to $500 or $600 a month for rent. That is really where the new housing is needed. This government has sufficient monies only for 260 units, 520

if they are co-funded, and they have promised 20,000 units, plus $100 million for shelter allowances, which unfortunately did not find its way into the budget as well.

To conclude, and it's been a rather long hour, we think some of the provisions of this budget are laudatory. We particularly think the money being spent on our

schools and our hospitals is necessary. We believe immunization of children is something that is long overdue, particularly for meningococcal diseases, and would salute the government's action.

But we cannot and will not be supporting this bill, because we consider it to be regressive. It is not what is being done; it is how the money is being spent

to make the possible happen. We believe it is unfair to working families. We believe that working families, senior citizens, those on limited income, are being forced to pay disproportionate

amounts of their limited income toward a budget, while other people who are much better off -- corporations that make billions of dollars, like the banks in this province -- get off relatively

scot-free.

A corporation like the Bank of Montreal, which made $602 million in the last three months in this province and in this country, pays absolutely nothing toward

the health care premium. In fact, it's even worse than that, because the provisions of this budget allow that there be a tax reduction, if not immediately, at least phased in between now and the

year 2012, that will let the banks pay less and less, while ordinary citizens on limited incomes, on fixed incomes will be forced to pay more and more.

Not only will they have to pay for their share of the health levy, they'll have to pay more money for licence fees, fees for birth certificates, fishing

licences and 50 or so other government services. They will have to do that at a time when hospital provisions and doctors' provisions are delisted: physiotherapy, optometrists and the like.

They will have to do that while the child clawback does not give any kind of money that was promised to them. The money that is put forward by the federal

government would give $2,800 a year to a family with two children and they're being asked to accept, by this government, $89, about 3% of what the federal government makes available to this

province.

They're going to have to pay all of that extra money, if they have children in school, to see the provisions of the Rozanski report not followed, because

Rozanski recommended some $2 billion in improvements that were necessary to bring the schools up to par, to the way they were in the early 1990s. Although this government did put forward $850

million, only $430 million of it is going toward those recommendations Mr Rozanski made in his quite brilliant report earlier this year.

The rest of the money goes also for a laudable goal, of reducing class sizes, but it is something that is being undertaken too soon, before the major problems

have been solved. We ask that this budget bill go out to committee. We think the people of Ontario will have a lot to say. I would welcome it if this government would have the intestinal fortitude

to hear what the people actually have to say, and take this from city to city to listen on how to make it better.

Thank you very much.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for -- these seat changes aren't helpful to me -- Etobicoke North.

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I would like to, first of all, commend and actually quote some of the remarks from the MPP for

Beaches-East York. He said, quite rightly, "some of the provisions of this budget are" quite "laudatory,... we ... salute the government's action." I would also like to forewarn him that they may

likely appear on a brochure or two, time going forward.

Having said that, a lot of details have been floated around: billions here, hundreds of millions, thousands of individuals covered and so on.

I want, for a moment, to take it down to the level of one particular individual who had one particular problem. A constituent of mine in Etobicoke North came

to see me, an individual, unfortunately, who was suffering from kidney failure because of long-standing diabetes. Of course, this is a life-threatening condition for which dialysis, or kind of the

plugging into a hospital machine for three hours at a time, two to three times a week, is required to sustain life. This individual was unable to access this particular service within my own riding

and had to go elsewhere at considerable time, suffering, expense and, really, challenge.

With this particular budget, among all the flurry of numbers, one of the things that we are going to do is allow individuals such as this fellow, and something

on the order of maybe 15,000 to 20,000 more kidney failure patients, to actually access 500,000 sessions of dialysis on an annual basis. This is just one small but very meaningful example or

application of where the health care premium dollar is going to be spent judicially, with results and with overall benefit to the province of Ontario.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure to offer comments on the comments made by the member for Beaches-East York on the

budget motion. He talked about taxes, and in this budget there are some 50 tax increases. I think that's worth noting, in light of the fact that the Premier did sign a very public document saying

he wouldn't increase taxes. In fact, we have this one huge tax increase, the new health premium, which is going to be a very significant burden on working families.

For the people of the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, there was a bit of a surprise on page 96 of the budget paper. In the very back of the budget paper there's

one line and it says, "We propose to return the definition of northern Ontario, for the purposes of government policy and program delivery, to what it was before September 2000."

This, in my mind, is a mean-spirited and partisan move on the part of the government. It's mean-spirited because it's going to adversely affect the people of

Muskoka, and it's partisan because, I think, if I was a Liberal member of Parliament, the government would not have made this move. When you look at the bare facts, when you look at Statistics

Canada from 2001 and you look at the median family income for the area that the Minister of Northern and Development and Mines represents, what does it say? It says median family income, all census

families: $56,165. If you look at the median family income, the same stats from Statistics Canada 2001 for Muskoka: $50,713 -- some $6,000 less for the Muskoka area.

It's quite obvious from these statistics that there are no socio-economic justifications. People in Muskoka have a right to know why the government is making

this move. They have a right to have some consultation happen with the government, a government that says it's open and honest and is trying to be transparent about things. I think they deserve to

have some consultation and an explanation for why the government is making this mean-spirited, partisan move.

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm very pleased to rise and comment on the very specific and articulate comments made by my colleague for

Beaches-East York. I can tell you, as I listened to the things he's had to say, that a lot of it resonated with me. It resonated with me particularly because many of the issues that he raised in

terms of his criticism of this budget came up before the budget had even been tabled by the government, and they came up in the by-election in Hamilton East. He was there with me, I'm pleased to

say, knocking on doors in Hamilton East and talking to members of the Hamilton East riding. They talked about a lot of concerns he has raised in his opportunity to debate this budget, this bill.

What they talked about was a fear and a concern that the working people of this province were going to be unjustly burdened with fixing some of the problems we have. In fact, my colleague has

outlined just how much this budget is about injustice for people who are unable to afford the kind of tax hikes that were foisted on them and the fact that the budget is short on fairness and high

on unfairness.

It's really quite interesting to listen, from my perspective, being the most recently elected person to this Legislature, to people who are analyzing this bill

and bringing to light all of the concerns that I most recently heard on the doorstep. I want to laud him and his very methodical review of the issues that are of concern to working families,

low-income families and, quite frankly, communities at large from one end of this province to the other. He's done an excellent job. I believe the government needs to sit up and take notice and in

fact take this bill out to the people of Ontario and have full debate from one end of this province to the other.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions and comments? The member for Lambton --

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): How about Huron-Bruce?

The Deputy Speaker: Just hang on and I will find you. It's a tough day. Huron-Bruce.

Mrs Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it's because we changed seats.

It is certainly my pleasure to rise this afternoon and support the budget as presented. It is so important to our rural communities: health care, education and

building strong communities. Coming from a rural area, we have been through some very difficult times. Revenue neutrality through all the downloading was especially difficult for our rural

municipalities. It has caused great hardships in all of our schools and our health care facilities.

One thing I would like to focus on for just one moment is talking about primary care for the citizens of Ontario. This is especially important in rural

communities. We have within our communities generations of families who do not have family doctors. The formula that has been applied throughout Ontario for numerous years does not work. We need to

look at how we provide health care in a different way.

I celebrate the primary care reform. It is long overdue. This plan will meet the needs of our rural communities. I can tell you that this is one of the issues

I have heard repeatedly within my riding: doctor shortages. "What are we going to do?" This will move the agenda forward to meet the health care needs of my communities, so I am very much in

support.

We need new directions, and we will achieve that through this budget. Health care, education, building strong communities -- it's long overdue. I celebrate the

budget that moves this forward. I know that within my communities, it is strongly supported.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Beaches-East York has two minutes to reply.

Mr Prue: I thank very much the members for Etobicoke North, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Hamilton East and Huron-Bruce for their comments.

I'd like to deal a little bit with each one of them, at least one sentence or so that they had to say.

Interjection.

Mr Prue: I did. I said Hamilton East.

To the member for Etobicoke North, I thank him for his comments. I try as always to be very balanced. I try to say good things and bad things, because

everything is not black and white in this House, despite what often happens here. There are provisions of this budget that are good, but I want to tell you that I have no doubt whatsoever in my

mind that my comment will some day end up on a Liberal brochure. It has already happened before in Hamilton East, and it will again, I am sure, in Etobicoke North, when the need arises.

The second thing is, I have to tell you that I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka about that wonderful riding. It is

in fact a part of northern Ontario. It should remain a part of northern Ontario. I'm not sure exactly how this budget bill fits into that, but I did see quite recently that it has been moved to

southern Ontario and, therefore, will lose some of the stature, some of the money it gets. Quite frankly, it is not a rich riding. It is a riding that is well deserved of its northern

orientation.

To my new colleague from Hamilton East, her comments were spot-on. I had not spent a lot of time in Hamilton East, I have to tell you quite bluntly, before the

by-election, but having gone to that riding, it is quite clear it is a riding that must be among the poorest ridings in this province. It is a riding of many poor and working-class people who

struggle to get by. Quite frankly, I can understand how many of them feel about this budget and about the potential of paying more in taxes for health care.

Last but not least, to the member from Huron-Bruce --

Interjection: Time's up.

Mr Prue: My time is up. Your comments on the family doctors were well taken, and I hope the money is directed in that direction.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I just want to say at the outset that I'll be sharing my time with the member from

Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Pat Riley, basketball coach extraordinaire, was asked a couple of years ago by a media person to speculate on how he thought his team was going to do this

year. He said to the media person who was interviewing him, "Let me answer your question by asking you a question." Dave Levac will be interested in this because he's a basketball fan. "If you take

a fresh orange and you put it in a vice and under enough pressure, what do you get? The media person said, "Well, that's easy, coach. You get fresh-squeezed orange juice," and he said, "That's your

answer." With that, he turned and walked away. The media guy scratched his head and said, "Coach, before you go," he said, "Come on back. I've got to tell you, I'm pretty clever, but I didn't quite

understand what you meant." He said, "Well, it's simple. The first rule in life is, if you take any individual or team and put them under enough pressure, you very soon find out what they're made

of. You find out what's inside."

I want to add to that: If you put enough pressure on a new government, you soon find out what's inside as well. I want to talk a little bit about what's

inside, about the values that I think were an important part of our budget and behind our budget.

We believe, as Liberals, that public service is an obligation, not an option. We believe that strong public services are an obligation we all bear together in

this House, not an option.

It's not the member from Hamilton East's health care system, the member from Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot's health care system or Mr Prue's health

care system. The health care system we have belongs to all of us, and we have to stand together with respect to ensuring a strong, vibrant public service in this province. That's our obligation and

that's our trust, and that's a value that we on this side of the House hold very dear. I think it was Martin Luther King who said that politics is basically about two things: It's about the values

that you would hold self-evident on a good day being translated into social policy, and it's about the kinds of decisions we make about the distribution of goods and services and opportunities.

That said, you know, it wasn't a perfect budget, but we came to power as a new government under less-than-perfect circumstances, and I think everyone would

acknowledge that. That's important because that talks to another one of our values: the value of wanting to be consultative, the value of wanting to be inclusive, the value of wanting to be

collaborative with Ontarians, to take everything that's right with Ontario, and that's our people, and use that giftedness to fix everything that's wrong with Ontario. So that was another value and

it ties in with respect, it ties in with listening, and