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

April 13, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Apr-13 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 13 April 2004 Mardi 13 avril 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

HOCKEY

HATE CRIMES

FERRERO GROUP

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

RIDING OF NIPISSING

NATIVE HOUSING

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

HATE CRIMES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR RAISON MÉDICALE)

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE /

CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR RAISON MÉDICALE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE

BORDER SECURITY

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

PUBLIC HEALTH

TAXATION

TREE INFESTATION

LABOUR DISPUTE

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

BORDER SECURITY

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ONTARIO BUDGET

TAXATION

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

TILLSONBURG DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

TUITION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

LANDFILL

PROPERTY TAXATION

SEWAGE SLUDGE

SENIOR CITIZENS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

LCBO OUTLET

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE

OF MEDICARE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'ENGAGEMENT

D'ASSURER L'AVENIR

DE L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

GREENBELT PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I rise today to make a statement on behalf of our caucus with regard to a press release which was

just sent out. The release proudly announces just under $18 million for Ontario's apprenticeship programs. It appears that the money is to go to the colleges for upgrading their classrooms and

equipment. I would like to point out to the members present that although this may seem like a positive announcement, the previous government had done and was prepared to do much more with these

programs.

Since 2000, the Progressive Conservative government had invested $120 million to revitalize the apprenticeship system. This program included expansion of the

Ontario youth apprenticeship program, a pre-apprenticeship program for high schools, a journeyperson training program, enhancement to the apprenticeship innovation fund and much more. As well, the

2003 budget included important initiatives like a new training model, which combined a college diploma and apprenticeship; $5 million to launch the second round of TVOntario's lifelong learning

challenge fund, to focus on apprenticeship trades; and a refundable apprenticeship tax credit to encourage Ontario businesses to hire trained apprentices.

It's one thing for the Premier and the minister to announce a small, one-time amount of funding for training and then fill a press release with empty platitudes

about the importance of a skills-based economy. It is quite another to have a comprehensive plan for Ontario's apprentices, the system that trains them and lowers taxes for the businesses which

need to hire them.

HOCKEY

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I rise today to speak to a matter of great importance to the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore. Etobicoke

has now, and always had, a great love for hockey. Etobicoke-Lakeshore is a community with one of the strongest hockey traditions in this province. The Faustina Sports Club, one of the oldest in

Toronto, has been around since 1935. Hundreds of Etobicoke families spend the weekend at the hockey rink.

In Etobicoke, we also have a long history of hockey greats. Johnny Bower, who provided outstanding goaltending to the Leafs when they won four Stanley Cups,

including the one in 1967, is a long-time Etobicoke resident and a member of the Etobicoke Sports Hall of Fame. Other members of the Etobicoke Sports Hall of Fame are Ken Dryden and Paul Henderson,

two names with which hockey fans will surely be familiar. Current Leafs who have roots or have chosen to make their home in Etobicoke include Drake Berehowsky, Matt Stajan, Aki Berg, Tom Fitzgerald

and assistant coach Rick Ley. And to top it off, the Lakeshore Lions Memorial Arena in Etobicoke-Lakeshore is the practice facility for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Etobicoke-Lakeshore residents truly love our Leafs, so when the Leafs beat the Senators in the not-too-distant future, I will have Leafs flags at the ready for

all the Senators fans to fly on their cars. I know all my Toronto colleagues will join me in a heartfelt, "Go, Leafs, go!"

HATE CRIMES

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm asking all members to join me in condemning in the strongest possible terms

an act of vandalism that

occurred over Easter weekend. This act was terrible because it can only be interpreted as being anti-Semitic and racist.

As reported in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, the National Post and the Globe and Mail, vandals attacked and knocked over 12 large headstones in the historic

Beth Jacob cemetery located in the city of Kitchener. This act strikes a sickening chord for the Jewish community in our riding of Waterloo-Wellington and for the Jewish people everywhere who are

listening to story after story of hateful vandalism, desecration, and recently even a fire-bombing -- in Canada, a country known worldwide for the strength of our democracy, diversity and tolerance

for people of all nations and creeds. Our freedoms and liberties depend on these principles. To keep them alive, we must never weaken our resolve to speak out against, eradicate and punish fully

all hate crimes, those we know to be committed against people based on who they are or how they pray.

What made these acts particularly despicable is that they occurred during both Passover and Easter weekend, a time to celebrate hope and redemption for both

Christians and Jews. Before coming to the House today, I spoke with Gordon Strauss, president of the Beth Jacob synagogue. I told him how badly I felt about this and wished him and his community

the best through this horror that we are enduring together. Let this statement and all actions we take contribute not to undue publicity for these cowardly acts but to condemning such acts by

refusing to sit back while people are denigrated by crimes of hate and inhumanity.

FERRERO GROUP

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I'm pleased to rise today to share with the House the very sweet fortune that has come to the city of Brantford in my

riding of Brant.

On Thursday, the Ferrero Group announced that they are finalizing plans for their new manufacturing plant, to be located in Brantford. As one of the world

leaders in confectionary products, Ferrero is known for making such sweets as Kinder Surprise, Ferrero Rocher, Tic Tacs and Nutella, to name just a few of their brand-name products. This is

exciting news for those of us in Brantford who had been promoting the city with hopes of further economic development. My great, great thanks to all of the behind-the-scenes workers and staff,

along with council. While the exact size and number of employees has not yet been confirmed, we know it's sizable. This new investment in Brantford is a welcome addition to the growing list of

multinational corporations that have recently announced moves into the Brantford area.

The Ferrero Group's decision to locate its manufacturing plant in Brantford is a result of the company's assessment of their needs during development of a global

chocolate industry. While the company is based in Italy and Luxembourg, it has expanded production lines to 16 locations worldwide. Brantford was chosen following an extensive North American site

review process. We in Brantford are thrilled to be included in Ferrero's expansion plans.

Brantford is a city that has a great deal to offer corporations like the Ferrero Group that are looking for ways to grow and develop. I sincerely hope that other

companies will come to see the potential that the riding of Brant offers to members of those companies and many others across the world.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Ferrero Group to Brantford, thank them for recognizing our potential, and again say thanks for the hard work

of all the backroom people who did an awful lot of work on our behalf.

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to congratulate General Motors of Canada on its many environmental initiatives.

My Durham riding takes pride in being the birthplace of General Motors of Canada, with the original McLaughlin carriage being built in Tyrone and Enniskillen before Colonel Sam McLaughlin

established General Motors in Oshawa.

Here are just a few points of interest concerning GM's environmental stewardship.

GM has reduced CO 2 emissions from its facilities by 35% since 1990. General Motors of Canada has won more Natural Resources Canada EnerGuide fuel

efficiency awards than any other auto manufacturer. General Motors offers a wide range of alternative-fuel vehicles, including natural gas, E-85 ethanol and E-10 ethanol.

GM has been recognized for supporting the McLaughlin Bay Wildlife Preserve, located next to its corporate headquarters in Oshawa. The company has received awards

from groups such as Durham Region Field Naturalists, Friends of the Second Marsh and the city of Oshawa.

GM's hybrid electric technology enables fuel economy improvements of up to 50% over conventional buses, while reducing emissions.

I'd like to extend my congratulations and the congratulations of this House to General Motors of Canada and its 22,000 personnel nationwide in their pursuit of

environmental excellence.

RIDING OF NIPISSING

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise today to speak of three great assets in my riding: the North Bay Rotary Club, the children's treatment

centre and our just-retired mayor, Jack Burrows.

Just over two weeks ago, I attended a tribute dinner for Jack Burrows. Jack was the mayor for nine years and was active in public life for over 15. In November,

he retired as mayor but agreed to be the honorary chair for the fundraising initiative for the children's treatment centre of North Bay.

The CTC is a new initiative in our region. It will be the 20th in the province. It was approved two years ago, and the steering committee has been working

diligently since then. The executive director was hired in January, and the excitement is growing as we get closer to being able to provide integrated health services for the children of our

community. It is a true community initiative.

The North Bay Rotary Club took on the challenge and has been fundraising for this initiative over the last year. On Friday, March 26, they hosted a tribute

dinner for Jack Burrows, where they raised over $20,000 for our new children's treatment centre.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank our Rotary Club for its great initiative and all the hard work it does in our area. I want to commit my

support to the children's treatment centre and a commitment to work with them on the development of the program. And I want to join with my community in paying tribute to our former mayor. I just

want to say, as did everyone in North Bay on that day, thanks, Jack.

NATIVE HOUSING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Mr Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to give my statement.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Bisson: It was kind of tough to get it out of my own caucus, but I want to thank the rest of the House.

I want to take this opportunity to raise with members a very serious issue that's happening not only in our riding of Timmins-James Bay but certainly is

happening in Kenora and a few other ridings across the north of the province, and that is the despicable situation of housing in native communities. As the ministers across the way know, as well as

former Conservatives who were ministers and certainly myself and Mr Hampton, the member for Kenora, when it comes to taking care of our First Nations, this nation at times doesn't have a lot to be

proud of, to put it bluntly.

As we travel into native communities across northern Ontario, we see substandard housing and a situation that's been perpetuated by years and years of

underfunding by the federal government. I'm here today as a provincial member to try to suggest something new, that maybe the province should recognize that people who live in communities like

Attawapiskat and others live in the province of Ontario and, as such, should get some attention -- that means money -- from the provincial government to assist with the desperate situation of

housing in those communities.

You would know that last winter Global Television, along with CBC and others, came up to report on the conditions of housing in but one community, Attawapiskat.

I want people to know two things: It's not just in Attawapiskat, but in many communities in northern reserves north of 50, and it's a situation that's intolerable. I'm calling on the government to

work with us to try to find a way to address some provincial dollars toward a very serious issue in those communities so people can get the housing they deserve and need.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): There was very interesting news as I awoke this morning and listened to CFRB and read my copy of the Toronto Sun:

Premier Dalton McGuinty's approval rating -- 25%; in fact, a 75% disapproval rating for Premier McGuinty. The Sun

article has the sub-headline "GTA survey finds Premier McGuinty floundering at the

bottom of the pile in public approval." Premier McGuinty's honeymoon is shorter than that of Britney Spears and Jason Alexander, and a lot less enjoyable. In fact, only 2% of the population found

the Premier's performance to be excellent. I guess they got hold of the finance minister in Vaughan to answer the phone as part of the survey.

Do you know what? It's no surprise that 75% of the population is giving the thumbs-down to Premier McGuinty in his first six months in office. This is no

surprise; look at the long and growing list of broken promises: broke their promise on the Oak Ridges moraine; broke their promise to decrease auto insurance by 20%; broke their promise to freeze

hydro rates; broke their promise on the extension of funding to those who suffer from autism, among many others, all documented on promisebreakersclub.com. This Premier could beat Pinocchio in a

nose-growing contest, hands down. No surprise, because we've seen a lack of vision, a lack of leadership and a lack of any ability whatsoever to keep promises. That explains your 75% McGuinty

disapproval rating.

HATE CRIMES

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): I too rise in sadness and outrage today to condemn events that took place in Kitchener over the weekend. As

members have heard, in acts disturbingly reminiscent of those that happened in Toronto several weeks ago, 12 gravestones in Kitchener's Beth Jacob cemetery were toppled. Although this has not been

officially classified as a hate crime, it seems it is more than a crucial coincidence that a Jewish cemetery was targeted during the high holiday of Passover. I know the authorities are working

hard to bring the vandals to justice.

Some of the targets of recent hate crimes in Ontario have even been Holocaust survivors. In my community, the son of two Holocaust survivors, whose parents are

buried in Beth Jacob cemetery, has anonymously offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators.

These attacks have inspired Ontarians to stand together to condemn these acts of hatred and intolerance and to make it clear that an attack upon one group is an

attack upon us all. I know I speak for all members of my community and this Legislature when I say that we denounce all hateful acts and stand behind the Jewish communities in Kitchener-Waterloo

and across Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR RAISON MÉDICALE)

Mr Bentley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family medical leave and other matters / Projet de loi 56, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000

sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne le congé familial pour raison médicale et d'autres questions.

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

Mr Bentley.

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I'll defer my statement to ministerial statements.

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act to make various immunizations insured services / Projet de loi 57, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur

l'assurance-santé afin que diverses immunisations deviennent des services assurés.

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

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): This bill amends the Health Insurance Act to provide that the administration of immunization against

chicken pox and pneumococcal and meningococcal disease is covered by the Ontario health insurance plan. This bill takes it a step further to provide for immunization against not just meningitis C,

but also chicken pox and pneumococcal disease. As we know, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization has recommended that all children, excluding those with specific allergies, receive these

immunizations. Some provinces already cover the cost of these vaccines. However, in our province, parents must pay out of their own pocket.

I believe it's important that all children in this province have access to these vaccines. I believe that's an important principle of medicare. This is an

opportunity for the government to keep its promise to parents and children to provide chicken pox and meningitis vaccines to all children who wish it.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without

notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Duncan: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members' public

business: Mr Peterson and Mr Leal exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr Peterson assumes ballot item 14 and Mr Leal assumes ballot item 11.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE /

CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR RAISON MÉDICALE

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): Today I had the privilege of introducing

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in

respect of family medical leave and other matters. As a government we are delivering positive change for Ontario families, employees and employers. This bill, if passed, would provide up to eight

weeks of job-protected, unpaid time off work for those taking care of seriously ill family members.

Years ago we made a decision, as a society, to be with people during the happy times, through maternity and parental leave. This is a statement that we are

prepared to be there to support people in the difficult times at the end of life. That is why we have introduced this legislation to protect people's jobs while they care for a gravely ill

member.

On ne devrait pas avoir à choisir entre perdre son emploi et demeurer au chevet de son père, de sa mère ou de son enfant qui se meurt. Une

société humaine et bienveillante n'imposerait pas un tel choix, et en tout cas ce gouvernement ne le fera pas.

Instead, Mr Speaker, we are asking members of this House to pass legislation which would give working people the ability to take up to eight weeks from their

jobs to help their son or daughter, their mother or father or their spouse through the last days of life.

Other amendments contained in this bill would reflect the existing law of Ontario. The amendments would ensure that provisions in the Employment Standards Act,

2000, be written to reflect the fact that they apply to people in a same-sex relationship, whether married or common-law.

The health of the people of Ontario is our most precious resource. We share responsibility to protect our citizens from harm and to care for them in time of

need. When families take on the responsibility of becoming caregivers, we owe them our support.

It is clear that an aging population and significantly increasing workplace demands have contributed to high levels of employee stress due to work-family

conflict. As a government that cares about people, we are committed to looking after the needs of Ontario families.

A recent Ipsos-Reid poll found that patient care is a growing concern, with almost one third, 32%, of Canadian adults now responsible for the care of older

relatives. Dependant care responsibilities can constitute a major time commitment for many workers. This time commitment becomes even greater should the dependent family member become seriously

ill. Most of our work-life schedules do not include the additional time to provide the necessary care and support for seriously ill dependants, which might range from a few days off to arrange for

care to several weeks off to be with a loved one who is dying.

To make this time, employees must make a very difficult choice: do their job or provide the care. This is an impossible choice, and the stress of it shows.

Reports indicate that employees forced to make the choice are twice as likely to miss work because they are physically or emotionally fatigued. They're 13 times more likely to miss three or more

days of work in a six-month period, trying to care for dependants.

That is not all. More than 40% of employees caring for a seriously ill family member have had to quit their job. One quarter of them lost all or most of their

savings. This is simply wrong. This government does not believe that anyone should lose their job because they are caring for a parent or child who is dying. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has

been happening.

This bill will help caregiving employees by protecting their job, supporting the work-life balance they're struggling to achieve and relieving stress. That is

what a society should do.

So what of Ontario's businesses and their needs? The stress borne by employees translates into a cost to employers and businesses. It is a cost not often

appreciated; however, it is a fact. Employees making the impossible choice are less productive. They're often forced by circumstance into unplanned absences. When employees are forced to quit their

job, the employers lose their skills, training and experience as well as their work.

The costs to businesses are massive. The direct costs of absenteeism alone, due to high levels of caregiver stress, have been estimated to be over $1 billion

per year in Canada. The indirect costs are an additional $1 billion to $2 billion per year.

Workplaces are better off when employees can take time off and come back to work able to focus once again on their job and not a personal crisis. The

inescapable conclusion is that by relieving caregiver stress, we would reduce the cost to businesses and make workplaces more productive. This bill is good for employees and employers.

What of those who need the care? The bill would help to support the dignity of those in the last stages of life. Palliative care studies indicate that more

than three quarters, 80%, of Canadians would prefer to spend their last days at home and not in a hospital or other institution, and yet only one quarter are actually able to do so. The

availability of care from family members will allow many to remain in familiar surroundings for much longer. They will have the comfort and support of those dearest to them at the time when they

need it most.

It goes without saying that the availability of family medical leave will support our existing health care services. In some cases, it might reduce the demand

for those services.

This government is committed to improving the quality of life of the people of Ontario. The legislation that is before us today would provide support to

families when they need it most. It would strengthen the working relationship between employers and employees, making the workplace more productive. And it would provide comfort to people in their

last days of life.

This is what government should do. This legislation is good for those in need, good for families, good for employees and good for businesses. This legislation

is the right thing to do for the people of Ontario.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'd like to respond to the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Labour.

First, I would like to point out that the promise was to help parents and others. It didn't seem to restrict it to what it is being restricted to in this new

act that's being introduced today. We learn in this new act, which I will acknowledge is a good first step, that individuals are going to be allowed to take time off to support their family.

However, we learn now that in the plan that's been put forward by the minister, it only applies in cases of family members who are critically ill, or, stated another way, an individual who has a

serious medical condition, with a significant risk of death occurring within a period of 26 weeks or such shorter period as may be prescribed.

It does not apply to other caregivers who obviously wish to be with family members during times of crisis, crises which will not result in death but obviously

times when people are seriously ill. In that respect, I think the government has not fulfilled their promise to provide family medical leave for families and individuals who are going through that

difficult period of providing care for loved ones who are ill. So this bill is going partway.

This bill also does not provide these individuals who are going to take time off with the support and resources they require during this period. I would remind

the Speaker that in our 2003 budget, we proposed improved tax support for people with disabilities and for family caregivers. We know that people who look after individuals with disabilities, and

caregivers, have additional costs. We also know that the Ontario tax system already recognizes their reduced ability to pay taxes through several non-refundable tax credits for people with

disabilities and individuals caring for disabled or infirm family members.

Three enhancements were proposed to these credits which would have become effective January 1, 2003. First of all, our budget proposed to increase the

underlying amounts for the disability credit, the caregiver credit, the infirm dependant credit and the disability credit supplement for children with severe disabilities to $6,637. Second, our

budget proposed to expand the caregiver credit and the infirm dependant credit to include spouses or common-law partners who are dependent by reason of a mental or physical infirmity, and to

provide support to more caregivers living apart from dependent relatives. Third, our budget proposed that both the caregiver credit and the infirm dependant credit be reduced when the dependant's

net income reaches $13,000. Currently, the caregiver credit is eliminated at a different level.

Taken together, all of these improvements to support those individuals who are looking after people with disabilities, and the family caregivers, would have

provided an estimated $50 million in benefits to about 165,000 people in Ontario. This bill, although it does allow people to take some time off -- again, it's limited to eight weeks even though

the individual who is critically ill and dying may live beyond that time period -- doesn't go far enough. There is no support here for parents of autistic children who are caregivers. There's no

support here for parents of severely disabled children who have special needs. There is no support here to support the developmentally disabled. What about family caregivers who need to look after

parents during times of serious illness? They're not allowed to take time off. They can only take time off if the parents are dying.

Again, this bill is one step forward, but certainly this government needs to do far more for Ontarians than this bill proposes. Our people in this province

deserve more than what is in this bill.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've read the bill. The New Democrats are eager to participate in the debate on second reading and eager to

see the bill go to committee. We're particularly eager to see the bill analyzed from the point of view of thousands and thousands of Ontarians out there who find themselves in tragic but real-life

situations and who, as a result of today's announcement, may believe they have some respite as a result of this legislation, should it pass.

But some things jump out, and some things cry out for immediate commentary. One, of course, is the observation, already made, that this applies to family

members of a person whose health practitioner certifies is at significant risk of death. I suppose one would expect any family member to have some freedom from the demands of their workplace to

attend to and with a family member who is in the final weeks or days. But one has to be able to afford to do it. You see, one can only avail themselves of a leave of absence if their economic

situation makes that financially possible.

I'm thinking of a woman I know -- I know her because I see her from time to time. She works as a chambermaid in Niagara Falls hotels during the day, and in the

evening she works at another hotel where she's a server in the dining room. She works 16 hours a day at two different jobs. I don't know of any tragic situation involving her family members, but

should one happen she would be hard pressed to afford to take even a week's leave of absence, never mind two, three, four or five.

I'm thinking of the single mom I've talked about before. I see her often because she works at the gas bar, and I see her as well because she also works at the

Avondale -- two different locations. Again, she's working at two jobs and raising her kids. Should one of those kids fall deathly ill, God forbid, this legislation would be of no value to her,

because financially it would be impossible for her to forfeit even one week's pay, never mind eight.

I note that this is leave in addition to leaves that are granted under

section 50, under somewhat different circumstances, but I also note that this

legislation speaks to a crisis in our community, in our province and in our society about the adequacy of health care.

I, like perhaps so many of you, recall travelling to various places in the world over the last 10, 15 or 20 years. I recall my initial shock in Third World

countries at seeing families literally camped out at the hospital with their family members -- you know, moms or grandmothers setting up little cooking stoves, and family members being there to

cook and prepare food for their family and remove dressings and clean them. I found that shocking. Yet as I visit hospitals and other health care places, just like you, I find that increasingly

happening in this country.

One of the biggest single issues in our constituency offices for over eight years now has been the increasing inadequacy of home care support. It does little

good to tell a family member, "You have a right to leave your job for one, two, three, four or five weeks," when the real issue is the inadequacy of home care. The real issue is the chronic and

ongoing understaffing of nursing and, quite frankly, of all health professionals in our hospitals that makes it mandatory that family members -- if a family member is going to receive an adequate

level of health care, it's imperative that family members be there participating in it.

The bill is going to get an honest hearing and a legitimate, active and enthusiastic participation in the debate of it by New Democrats. But we're also going

to ask this Legislature to consider what questions the bill legitimately asks. Those questions are about the inadequacy of health services and of health care as it exists right now: the lack of

investment, the lack of real response by this government to Romanow, the chronic and ongoing understaffing and underfunding of home care, and the inadequacy of wages for so many people out there

that makes it impossible for them to take advantage of leaves of absence because it's financially, monetarily, impossible for them to do that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): To the Premier, do you support and agree with the musings of your Minister of Health and your

Minister of Finance that meals under $4 should be taxed in the province of Ontario?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can tell you that we are working as hard as we possibly can on a

number of fronts with respect to how we're going to address the substantial deficit left to us by the previous government. In addition to that, we have some very real concerns about rising health

care costs, which have been rising dramatically during the course of the past several years, approaching 8%, 9% and 10%. We have a real concern about childhood obesity. And again, as I said, we

have a concern about the deficit. So we feel a responsibility to speak to a variety of issues and to consider a number of possibilities.

Mr Eves: I take it from the Premier's rather lengthy response that he does support the musings of his Minister of Health and his Minister of

Finance.

Do you not understand that you are talking about raising a tax, putting a tax on meals under $4 on the most vulnerable in our society, on modest-income

earners, those on social assistance and low-income seniors? Yet you seem to be determined to do it. Why?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's desire to stand up for the vulnerable in Ontario, but where was he when he stood

as the Minister of Finance on this side of the House and cut welfare rates by 22%? I am proud to say that in our short time in office, we have already raised the minimum wage, we have established a

rent bank for those who are finding difficulty making rent payments, and we have begun to invest, for the first time in eight and a half years, in affordable housing. He cannot stand and be seen to

lecture us when it comes to standing up for the vulnerable in Ontario.

Mr Eves: The Premier neglects to mention a few small, little subjects, like the fact that when you went through with your little plan to

exempt those people, to raise the minimum wage, you forgot to exempt them from the Ontario tax reduction benefit. So you're giving on one hand and your Minister of Finance is taking away even more

money than you gave them on the other hand. It's a shell game. You are hurting the most vulnerable people in society. You are taxing them more.

We completely removed over 800,000 people, the most modest-income Ontarians, from the tax rolls in the province. We'll wait and see what you do during your

term of office.

To the Premier, are you telling us today that you are going to again break your taxpayer protection promise of September 11 last year that "I, Dalton McGuinty,

leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, promise that if my party is elected as the next government, I will not raise taxes or implement any new taxes without the explicit consent of Ontario

voters"?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I assume the Leader of the Opposition is asking me about a piece of legislation which he, in government, contravened; I

assume that's the one that they're talking about, just so we're very clear.

Let me say that we are working very diligently to put together a progressive, balanced budget that will achieve, as its end result, to demonstrate our

competence when it comes to managing the fiscal issues of the day, that demonstrates we are compassionate when it comes to looking out for our most vulnerable and, finally, that clearly

demonstrates we have a hopeful plan that will set this government on the right course, that will bring us continuing and sustained prosperity, that we will live within our means, that we will make

ever-growing investments in health care and education, and the people of Ontario will see real, measurable results at the end of our first term.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question. The member for Whitby-Ajax.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Premier. You promised to hold the line on taxes, and now you're not satisfied with going

after the dollars of the people of Ontario but you want to go after the loonies and toonies of the people of Ontario.

The people of Ontario already pay an extraordinary level of taxes. On your own estimates they're paying $18.6 billion this year in personal income tax and

$14.6 billion this year in retail sales tax, and you're going to take more from them. On your own estimates, in a few years you're going to go up to $23 billion more than that in income tax and

more than $17 billion in retail sales tax.

You promised to hold the line on taxes, and now you're on a spending spree in Ontario. Now you want to take money from seniors and students. We know that 84%

of the cafeteria sales in our schools are meals under $4. Premier, will you confirm that there will not be a soup-and-sandwich tax on the people of Ontario to satisfy your apparently insatiable

appetite for taxation?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Let me thank the member opposite for the question, because it gives me an opportunity to distinguish us on this side of the

House and the approach we bring when it comes to providing good government to the people of Ontario, and those on the other side of the House. I will not apologize for the revenues we receive from

the people of Ontario. What we intend to do, rather than denigrate government day in and day out and castigate our public servants, is make the case for government day in and day out and deliver

quality for the money we're receiving from the people of Ontario.

Mr Flaherty: We know you love government, and we know you love spending. You've increased spending in this province by at least $2.4 billion

in less than six months, and that's why you have to tax as much as you are. That's why personal income tax is where it is, that's why retail sales tax is where it is and that's why now you even go

after meals costing $4 or less in the province of Ontario. You've gone on a spending spree, and now you're going after the poorest: the students, the seniors, the people who eat in coffee shops in

Ontario. What steps have you taken -- you're the government -- to control spending in Ontario during your six months?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I am delighted to be able to speak to this matter. Let me begin a lengthy list with only three particular items: In the first

case, we are moving to get rid of expensive consultants who were hired by the previous government so that we can get value for the people of Ontario. We have introduced a law -- to our knowledge

the first of its kind in North America, if not the world -- that will ban the use of taxpayer dollars on partisan, political advertising. Finally, we're going directly to the motherlode -- I'm

talking about OPG and Hydro One. We're going to bring transparency and sunlight into those contracts, so the people of Ontario understand that we're bringing to them, for the first time in a long

time, accountable government.

Mr Flaherty: You promised that you would balance the budget. You promised that you would hold the line on taxes. Instead, you've increased

spending by more than $2 billion in less than six months.

Now, just so the people of Ontario can know what to expect from your big-taxing, big-spending government, will you produce the report? You asked the public

service in Ontario to produce a report on the cost of each one of your 231 promises. Will you produce the report so that when the people of Ontario are sitting in their coffee shop trying to choke

down a coffee and a soup and a sandwich, they can see what your plans are going to cost them as they go out year after year after year? Will you produce the report so that people can see it?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Speaking of meals, I'm sure that struggling Ontarians find this defence of their cause by this party all too much to stomach.

For eight and a half years, they failed to stand up for those Ontarians who are struggling day in and day out to get ahead.

I am proud to say that our platform was reviewed, supported and endorsed by a variety of economic experts. We put those numbers out for the people of Ontario

to see during the course of the election. We were upfront with them when it came to our financial plans. What they terribly regret is the fact that this former government was not upfront with them

when it came to the situation of our finances in the province of Ontario. We intend to continue bringing transparency and honesty to the management of the people's finances.

The Speaker: Member from Kenora-Rainy River.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. I want to ask why he's going after the lowest-income Ontarians.

Whether it's increasing hydro rates, skyrocketing auto insurance premiums or property taxes that are going through the roof, your government is picking the pockets of ordinary Ontarians.

Now your government says that you need to tax meals that cost under $4. Premier, 95% of all the meals sold in our hospital cafeterias are for under $4; 86% of

the meals sold in our colleges, our schools and our universities are for under $4. Why are you hiking a tax that will hit the lowest-income people the hardest?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to say to the leader of the NDP that I'm not about to speculate on what may or may not be in the budget, but I'm very

pleased to take the opportunity to talk about some of the things we are doing for our most vulnerable in a very short period of time.

As I said just a few moments ago, we have increased the minimum wage. We have established a rent bank. We've established an emergency fund to help those

vulnerable people who may have difficulty with the new responsible hydro-pricing regime. We have frozen tuition in the province of Ontario for two years. My understanding is that tuition went up by

some 53% under the NDP government. We are standing up for vulnerable people in the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: I did not hear a denial, so let me try again. We're not talking about junk food and we're not talking about expensive meals. We're

talking about the basic meals that a lot of people across Ontario try to exist on: soup and a sandwich, milk and a sandwich. Now your Minister of Finance says, "Oh, we're going to tax that."

Individuals with incomes of $100,000 a year got a 35% tax reduction from the former government, but I don't see you going after them; I don't see you talking

about even restoring some of that tax. Instead, what I hear is that you're going to hike taxes that affect the lowest-income people. If it's not true, then stand in your place and categorically

tell us now that you are not going to hike a tax on meals that cost less than $4.

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, I'm not going to speculate as to whether or not a particular provision is going to be found within the budget.

But I can say, generally speaking, as a characteristic of our budget, it will reflect our values as Liberals. It will reflect the fact that we are committed to

Ontario's most vulnerable. It will reflect the fact that we are dedicating ourselves to ensuring that those people who find themselves up against it get every opportunity that they need to succeed

in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: Premier, where is your sense of fairness? Here is the reality: auto insurance premiums up 20%; for many people, hydro rates up

20%; transit fees in many places are going up; property taxes are going up; and now, you say, an 8% tax on the most basic meal that people could buy. At the same time, you promised that you were

going to end the clawback of the national child tax benefit, which would restore at least $1,400 a year to the incomes of poor families with children, but you're not. You're going to hike the

taxes, and you're not going to end the clawback.

Where is your sense of fairness here? Where is your sense of what's reasonable for the lowest-income people in Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, if we want to compare and contrast, the NDP government raised tuition fees by 53%; we're freezing them for two years.

Hydro rates went up some 40% under the NDP government; we understand some of the difficulties involved with raising hydro rates, and that's why we've created an emergency fund to help our most

vulnerable. I think that speaks volumes about the difference between the approach that we're bringing to assisting Ontario's most vulnerable and the approach brought by my friends in the NDP.

Mr Hampton: There are 390,000 children in this province living in poverty. Sue Cox of the Daily Bread Food Bank says thousands of families

would not have to use the food bank if the clawback of the national child tax benefit were rescinded -- in other words, if you gave that money to the families who need it. The only promise you seem

to be keen on keeping, though, is your promise to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. You need to remember your promise to children.

Will you do two things: end the clawback of the national child benefit and state categorically that you're not going to tax the meals of the lowest-income

people in the province? Here's your chance. Say it and do it.

Hon Mr McGuinty: Now I know I'm in government. The Conservatives are accusing me of breaking the Taxpayer Protection Act and the NDP are

accusing me of not being prepared to break the Taxpayer Protection Act.

I appreciate the advice. I will take it as constructive advice offered by the leader of the NDP with respect to the benefits available for Ontario children

growing up in poverty and his concern about the price of low-cost meals. I will carefully consider that advice as we put together our budget. I can assure you that this budget will, through its

details, reflect our concern for and our desire to help Ontario's most vulnerable citizens.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Premier: Your government has floated a plan to increase retail sales tax from 0% to 8% on meals

under $4. In your opinion, is that a tax increase?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I know the Minister of Finance would like to speak to this.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I just want to make it clear to the members of the House that today is the first day of the campaign

of the Ontario Restaurant Association talking about a tax on meals under $4. I met with the restaurant association and representatives from McDonald's and Tim Hortons. They advised me of the

campaign. They were concerned that such a tax would have an impact on the profitability of their businesses. I just want to say to my friend from Erie-Lincoln that it would be entirely

inappropriate to comment on any measure that might or might not appear in the budget when it's presented later on in the springtime.

Mr Hudak: That was just a straight question: whether this would constitute a tax increase or not.

In today's Toronto Sun, in an

article entitled "GTA survey finds Premier McGuinty floundering at the bottom of the pile in public approval," they report that

in fact a mere 25% of those surveyed approved of that leadership. Let me make a suggestion: Your inability to answer a simple yes-or-no question, if that constitutes a tax increase, may be one of

the reasons why you're at 25% in the polls. Let me also suggest that you are at 25% in the polls, Mr Premier, because you consistently break your campaign promises.

The Premier was in TV ads, spending millions of dollars, saying to Ontarians, "I will not increase your taxes." Since coming to office, he has said repeatedly,

"I will not raise your taxes." He is the leader of the Liberal Party; he can say no. Why don't you just say no to this new tax increase, or are you getting ready to take on Pinocchio in a

nose-growing contest?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I'm not recommending to you that you make the venerable Pinocchio something that is out of order in this House,

notwithstanding the remarks of my friend from Erie-Lincoln. I just want to say to him, and I want to make it very clear, that a week ago I was advised that this campaign by the Ontario Restaurant

Association would be mounted today. I'm impressed that every single member of the opposition has got on that bandwagon and related their lead questions to that campaign.

I, as Minister of Finance, have said absolutely nothing about the possibility of taxing meals under $4. I would note that in Canada we are one of only three

provinces that does not tax meals under $4. The taxation regimes around Canada are as varied as the landscape itself. I simply want to repeat, no matter how many times they ask the question, that

we are not prepared to make budget announcements before budget day.

FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE

Mr Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): My question is for the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Chris Bentley. In today's society, many people

find themselves in a position where they are not only caring for young children but also for aging parents. This puts incredible stress on the working people caught in the middle. In addition to

holding down a job and building a career and a future for their families, many people want to be there in order to care for gravely ill family members near the end of their lives. Minister, my

question is this: What is the government of Ontario doing to help families care for dying family members and to alleviate the stress the situation puts on families?

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): The member for Etobicoke North raises a very important point, and a timely one. Many years ago,

we as a society decided to be with people during the happy times, with maternity and parental leave. Today, with the introduction of amendments to the Employment Standards Act, we made a decision

as a government to ask this House to be with people at the difficult times of life, at the end of life. With the bill, if passed, we are going to provide up to eight weeks of unpaid but

job-protected leave so that family members can be with a gravely ill dependant or parent -- an extremely important, significant social advance which recognizes the very points raised so

appropriately by the member for Etobicoke North.

Mr Qaadri: Minister, will this initiative present certain cost issues for business? For example, I assume that small employers would have a

difficult time coping with the absence of an employee. Are small businesses also expected to provide job-protected leave for employees?

Hon Mr Bentley: Once again, this legislation is the right thing to do, and responsible businesses recognize that. The costs to businesses from

absences and caregiver stress have been estimated to be upwards of $1 billion in direct costs and almost $2 billion in indirect costs. Businesses understand costs associated with the need for

workers to give care.

This legislation will in fact benefit business in the long term, because it enables employers and employees to better manage, to recognize the cost. It will

ensure that the 40% of workers who are forced to quit their jobs because of the stresses of providing care will not be lost to businesses. Businesses will not lose their work, they'll not lose

their skills, they'll not lose their knowledge, they'll not lose their experience. In fact, this legislation will help businesses.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Premier. Last week, Ontarians were shocked to learn that Canada's confessed

first family of terrorism, the Khadrs, received unprecedented assistance from the federal government to return to Ontario.

While we appreciate that these matters generally lie within federal jurisdiction, the Ontario government used to take an active role in suggesting reforms and

improvements to promote domestic security within Ontario. We made submissions on federal anti-terrorism and immigration legislation, offered tangible operational policy improvements, fought for

federal funds for emergency management and advanced a security perimeter strategy that promoted both enhanced security and cross-border trade.

Since last October, Ontario's voice in these matters has gone silent. We know Ottawa is reviewing immigration enforcement, conducting a national policy review,

designing a new border services agency and reviewing a scathing Auditor General's report on their failed security efforts since 9/11.

My question to the Premier: Can he give us a specific example of any participation by Ontario in these ongoing subjects? Has your government made any

submissions on any of these subjects on behalf of the people of Ontario, or are you content to simply let Ottawa do as it wants?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the minister would like to speak to this.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): The member should know -- and I'm surprised he doesn't -- that I

have met with my federal counterpart. I did that very soon after she became the minister responsible in this area. I went to Ottawa and met with her, had lengthy discussions -- my officials did. I

have visited Albany, New York; I have visited Lansing, Michigan; I have visited Columbus, Ohio. I have met with the homeland security people there. I have met with state police officers, discussing

how we can coordinate our activities.

If you don't think that's enough, we have continuing discussions with them. Not only that, but we have made a recent appointment at the ministry, where we've

changed the status of Dr Young so that he is now responsible for emergency response items. I am delighted with what we are doing.

Mr Runciman: That was a non-response with respect to the question, but we're getting used to that.

In all sincerity, I'm urging the minister to get involved. He has actually disbanded the security council of Ontario. We ask him to get a handle on these

matters, because they are critically important to the people of this province. What he's really doing is playing an ineffectual role.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I'm trying to ask a question.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Mr Runciman: Something more straightforward and immediate: Can the minister indicate whether he plans to write to his Liberal counterparts in

Ottawa to express his views on the return of the Khadr family to Ontario and whether he thinks the Citizenship Act needs to be amended to create the capacity to revoke acquired citizenship when it

can be shown that the persons in question have used it to further interests harmful to Canadian national interests, such as supporting al-Qaeda and raising monies for it? Can the minister confirm

that he will take action, or does he disagree with that idea?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I find it interesting that the former minister should talk about his security advisers. These were ad hoc appointments to deal

with you as a public relations item. They did not meet for a single year. These are people who were supposed to be advising you. They did not convene for a year prior to the change of government.

Not only that, but I have met with my federal counterparts and we are now dealing with these issues.

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Like many other members of the

Legislature --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Could I get some order, please. It looks like these long holidays have had a negative impact on how we

behave today.

The member from Thunder Bay-Superior North.

Mr Gravelle: My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Like many other members of the Legislature, a growing number of my

constituents are families of seniors with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. It is my understanding that Ontario's strategy for Alzheimer disease is now in its fifth and final year. Could you

tell the House what steps are being taken to sustain the benefits of this strategy?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Thanks to the member for this very important

question. It is indeed a tragedy that over 130,000 individuals in the province of Ontario, most of them seniors, suffer from Alzheimer's and that that number is expected to rise over the next 10

years to over 200,000. That's why it's so important for a strategy like this to have taken place over the last five years.

The strategy has resulted in expanded respite services, in the hiring of 50 new psychogeriatric resource consultants across the province, and public education

coordinators for each of the 39 local Alzheimer Society chapters. Training initiatives have helped educate front-line staff to better serve the people with Alzheimer's disease and their families,

and that's just the beginning. We must beat Alzheimer's, and only a collective action by government can make it happen.

Mr Gravelle: As you will know, Minister, I have a very close relationship with the Alzheimer Society in my riding of Thunder Bay-Superior

North. They, along with other chapters in the province, have worked very hard on developing the province's five-year strategy, which, as you point out, is now wrapping up. Can we assure the Thunder

Bay chapter, as well as the many other partners in the province, that they will play a significant role in the development of our government's follow-up to the provincial strategy? Certainly I

presume we'll want to take advantage of their expertise in this vital area.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: Last week, the Ontario Seniors' Secretariat, together with the Alzheimer Society of Ontario, held a think tank here in

Toronto which brought together a hundred professionals -- academics, researchers, caregivers and service providers -- to help individuals and their caregivers deal with the effects of Alzheimer's

disease. As a matter of fact, this coming week, on April 16 and 17, the Alzheimer strategy invitational workshop will take place, which in effect will help celebrate the success over the last five

years and also generate new suggestions as to how to deal with this tremendously threatening disease in the province of Ontario in the future.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Premier. You announced money for the apprenticeship enhancement fund today. Can

you tell me, are you spending less or more money on this fund than the previous government?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I was very pleased and proud to make an announcement this morning on

behalf of the government which provides in excess of $18 million to our apprenticeship programs. It speaks to a number of different initiatives within that, including providing more funding for

equipment within our colleges and funding for pre-apprenticeship programs, which, as I discovered, are absolutely essential if we're going to get more young people to develop a keen interest in

going into an apprenticeship program. So we are proud and pleased to have participated with an announcement this morning at Centennial College, and we look forward to doing much more in the days to

come.

Mr Marchese: Premier, I do have the numbers that I can share with you. I'll just offer them to you. The Conservatives spent $10.3 million in

2003. They budgeted $10 million for 2004 -- it's all here -- and today you announced $9 million for this fund. Not only did you not announce new money today; you are cutting over $1 million from an

existing grant. Explain to me why you are masquerading this cut as a funding increase.

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again -- we need to provide more details with respect to this particular announcement this morning -- it was nearly $18

million in Ontario's apprenticeship training programs. That included $3.6 million in the pre-apprenticeship training program. Students can use this program to strengthen their skills to be eligible

for apprenticeship in a skilled trade. We're investing $5 million in the apprenticeship innovation fund to provide our training delivery agencies with the resources to update and develop new

training materials. And finally, and I think this is what the member was referring to, we're making a $9-million investment in the apprenticeship enhancement fund, helping colleges to update their

training facilities and allowing them to train more apprentices to industry standards. We understand that if we're going to compete in this highly competitive knowledge-based economy, the best way

for us to do that is by investing in the skills of our workers, and that's what this announcement is all about.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. I'd like to refer to a letter that I'm sure many members of the Legislature

received. It comes from the president of the Toronto Association of Law Libraries and reads as follows: "Over the past few months, a worrying trend on government Web sites has alarmed the law

library community. Access to many documents such as press releases and government background papers has disappeared from ministry Web sites as new government ministers overhaul" their "department

Web sites." She challenges you in this letter to ensure that these documents removed are in fact reinstated. Can you tell me why you and your ministers would be removing important government

information from the Web sites?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm sure the Chair of Management Board would like to speak to this.

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): In terms of ensuring that the public get the information they're entitled to,

as the Premier just said, among other things we've introduced the advertising piece of legislation. In this particular case, I think ministries will be ensuring that their Web sites reflect the

up-to-date information that the public deserves. I think that's what you probably will find on the Web sites.

Mr Klees: With respect, this is very serious. There is a very specific action on the part of government, of government ministries, to remove

specific information that relates to press releases and background papers; they have been removed. I spoke to the president of the Toronto Association of Law Libraries this morning. I asked if she

had heard from the government with regard to her appeal. She said no, but that she had spoken with the privacy commissioner, who has also expressed serious concern about the government's action in

this regard, and indicated that she's looking into it. I'd like to know from the minister, why was this information removed, and will you now, today, commit to the House that whatever has been

removed will in fact be replaced on these government Web sites?

Hon Mr Phillips: What I'll undertake to do is make certain that any information the public is entitled to that should be on the Web sites is

there.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Phillips: The member is saying they've been removed. Any information that should be on government Web sites to inform the public

properly, I'll undertake to ensure that that takes place. It's consistent with everything the Premier has done since elected: to ensure that we are a government that is accountable and transparent,

and the information the public is entitled to, they'll get. The information that the previous government chose to disseminate through paid partisan advertising won't be done. If indeed there is

information that should be available to the public, that should be on our Web sites, I'll make sure that in fact that takes place.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): My question is for the Minister of Health. As you know, the federal government has proposed a new national

public health agency in its latest budget. Many cities in the country are now submitting bids to house this new agency.

I understand that Ontario has taken a different approach. I understand that we have submitted a proposal that would take advantage of the talent pool in many

cities across Canada. Can you tell me, please, more about the proposal, and why do you think Ontario's proposal is the best choice for the new public health agency?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm pleased to say in response to the member from Hamilton West that the

position the Ontario government takes is a position in support of the view of Dr David Naylor, the esteemed dean of medicine at the University of Toronto who prepared a report for the federal

government that proposed this agency and further proposed that the agency build on the strengths across our great country.

So the approach that the province of Ontario has supported is one that builds on strengths here in Ontario and also other strengths that can be brought from

the various regions. We believe that all hands on deck is absolutely the best way to proceed when we're talking about public health emergencies and therefore that Ontarians will benefit not only

from the extraordinary capacities that we have at home in our great province but from those capacities which exist in other parts of our country as well.

Ms Marsales: As a very proud Hamiltonian, I know we have a plethora of exceptional talent and could offer a good case for making Hamilton the

major centre. Why is making Toronto the major centre for the agency good for Toronto and its regions?

Hon Mr Smitherman: In response to the honourable member, I say that what we've done, with respect to this proposal, is build on the

extraordinary strengths that exist here in the city of Toronto and add to those these enormous capacities that are present and emerging at McMaster. I was incredibly impressed, at a recent visit to

McMaster, to see that they dedicated fully $10 million of the enormous gift from Mr DeGroote to their infectious disease and public health capacity. Further, given the reality of human and animal

interaction around disease, we really felt that those extraordinary capacities that exist at Guelph were an enormous piece of what we call our public health powerhouse: that these three

communities, Toronto, Guelph and Hamilton, working together, provide the very best benefit to the country.

With respect to Toronto's role, I do think it's incredibly important, and it's some advice that we've given the federal government as well, that all

decision-makers be aligned in the same geographic setting, so that in a time of crisis or emergency all of the decision-makers are close at hand. That's why Toronto's leadership role and connection

to the largest public health agency in the country at Toronto and the Ministry of Health and the government of Ontario is critically important.

TAXATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday and today, we had the opportunity to hear from the people

at the food banks in the province of Ontario. They are extremely concerned about your plans to add a tax to meals under $4. They've told us this is a regressive tax that is going to detrimentally

affect welfare mothers and their children, low-income seniors and the working poor. It's a tax that's going to be imposed upon people who have no means to improve their own financial situation. I

ask you, why do you want to tax and hurt those low-income people, who are least able to afford to put food on the table for themselves and for their children?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister would like to speak to this.

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm very happy to address this

House and tell the people of Ontario that for the first time in a very long time we have a government that's prepared to look at the most vulnerable people in Ontario and come to them as partners

to help, not like the last government, which in the last 10 years actually cut welfare rates by 22%, which, as this member knows, affected more women and their children than any other group in the

country.

Let me say this to the member opposite: We've had the opportunity, in these very short few months that we've been the government, to come forward with some

significant change in attitude, which is very important, but as well with additional programs that are meant to help. When the government makes policy changes, we understand that we have to think

of our most vulnerable first.

Mrs Witmer: This government has had six months to help the most vulnerable, and this is an issue that they need to deal with. I just want to

tell the member, it's not we who are saying this is a regressive tax. These are people from the food bank. In fact, in speaking to the Toronto Daily Bread Food Bank, they are telling us that this

tax on meals under $4 is going to significantly impact the number of people who live in rooming houses without cooking facilities and who rely on small restaurants that provide affordable meals for

them and their families. So I say to the minister, when are you going to stand up in your place and tell your Premier that you will not allow this tax to go forward?

Hon Ms Pupatello: I just cannot stand the irony of this. Here is a group of people who sat as government and their first order of business was

to cut the nutritional allowance for pregnant women on welfare. And we said, "Shame on you for doing that." This particular member was also at the time deputy leader of a government who cut welfare

by 22%. Here is a group of people who sat as government and didn't build a single affordable housing unit in this province, who delisted rent control in this province.

Here we have a McGuinty government which is consistent in a short few months: an energy fund for emergencies, a rent bank to prevent homelessness in the first

place, and a budget coming out that finally will speak to the most vulnerable in this province. Let me say to the member opposite, in a very short few months we will have done more for the most

vulnerable people than the government has seen in the last decade, and I am determined to do that, along with the Premier of Ontario.

TREE INFESTATION

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Invasive insect species such as the Asian long-horned

beetle and the emerald ash borer have become a huge issue in this province. Closer to home, the two-lined chestnut borer, which is a native species, has had an impact in the town of Oakville. How

are we fighting the spread of these invasive species, Mr Minister?

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I'd like to thank the member from Oakville. I certainly regret that the Oakville area has

now also been susceptible to a tree infestation, the likes of which the member has referred to, and that we've had two other infestations in the province of Ontario that were first discovered last

year in Toronto and Vaughan, with the Asian long-horned beetle attacking hardwoods there and the emerald ash borer in the Chatham-Kent area.

As the member knows and is now witnessing in his own area, the bitter medicine to basically fight these infestations, because there are no effective or

approved pesticides, is the radical surgery of cutting down trees in the way of these insects. That's what's happening in Oakville. I'm very pleased, contrary to some reports, that the MNR helped

the city forester in Oakville bring in the experts from the US forest service to determine what was the best course of action.

Mr Flynn: This certainly is an urgent problem for the whole province. Whole towns and woodlots have seen certain species of trees already

entirely removed. Homeowners and woodlot owners in Chatham-Kent, north Toronto and Vaughan have been devastated because their trees are being cut down. Even in my own community there are reports of

a large number of trees that will be felled or have been felled in Oakville. Can you advise if the town of Oakville is able to access the tree replacement fund recently announced by your

ministry?

Hon Mr Ramsay: As the member knows, the federal government basically had ordered the taking down of trees, both in north Toronto and Vaughan,

and also in the Chatham-Kent area. It is most devastating news to be received by homeowners or the public lands of our municipalities. I had announced about two months ago a $1-million basic

kick-start to a tree fund to start replacing those trees. I would certainly encourage Trees Canada and other organizations to start to contribute to that, because I think we can raise a lot of

money. As far as I'm concerned, the Oakville cut can be included in that fund.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Premier: During the last election, you claimed that things were going to be different. You claimed

that you were going to bring workers and management together. Well, workers at Casino Windsor have been on strike since April 3. They want to go back to work, but management refuses to meet with

them.

Your House leader, the member from Windsor-St Clair, told the Windsor Star that there's nothing he can do. But, gosh, he's only the House leader. You're the

Premier. Will you keep your promise? All you've got to do is get on the phone and tell the management at Casino Windsor to get back to the table. Being the Premier carries that kind of clout. You

know that all it takes is the will on your part to pick up the phone, call the management at Casino Windsor and tell them to resume negotiations, to get back to the table. Will you do that?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the member is not suggesting that we somehow involve ourselves in

the collective bargaining process and interfere. But I'll take this opportunity to express to parties on both sides our desire that they work together in their general interest.

I can tell you, this is more than just a matter of passing interest to us. We are losing significant revenues on a daily basis as long as this strike goes on.

So it is in our interest, just as it is in the interest of parties on both sides, that they come to the table, work together and resolve this matter at the soonest possible opportunity.

Mr Kormos: You see, Premier, the nexus between this government, as with the last two governments, and the casinos is somewhat more intimate

than, let's say, the connection between this government and, oh, a private corporation that's somehow listed on the stock exchange.

You're right. The government's losing money every day. These casinos generate nearly $100 million a year in revenue for this government. The workers who are on

strike want to see those profits go to health care and education. They want to get back to work. They want to end the strike. Those workers and their leadership are eager to get back to the

negotiating table.

You have incredible influence, make no mistake about it, on the management at Casino Windsor. All it will take is a phone call. Will you do that? Will you get

on the phone and tell Casino Windsor to get back to the negotiating table, so that this strike can end?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I will not involve our government in any way, shape or form in what might be perceived to be interference in the resolution

of this matter. But I can say this to the member opposite: We have mediation services that are available. If there is anything at all that we can do to work with both sides, bring them together and

bridge the gap, we would be only too pleased to do so.

REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Last December, you

told reporters that the McGuinty government was preparing legislation that would compel hospitals to report gun wounds to police. With the rash of gun-related crimes we have seen over the last few

weeks, when can we expect to see your legislation come before this House?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): The member will know that most Ontarians feel that it's important

that when someone who has been wounded, either by gunshot or knife, turns up at a hospital, the police should be aware of it. I think that's something that most people will support. You should

know, and I'm sure you do, that under Bill 31,

schedule A, it actually provides that medical practitioners may inform police when they feel that it would be appropriate.

So we agree that it's an issue we have to address. Bill 31 makes provision that it may be done. The big issue is whether it can mandatory. Notwithstanding what

some members may think, there are human rights implications, there are privacy implications, and we are looking into how we can get the stakeholders together so we can address this. That's where we

stand on it.

Mr Dunlop: Recently, the chief of Canada's largest police service, Julian Fantino, called on the government to introduce legislation forcing

hospitals to alert police about gunshot wounds. As well, the Ontario Medical Association has already endorsed mandatory reporting of the names and addresses of gunshot victims. Forty-eight of 50 US

states have mandatory reporting as well.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police considers mandatory reporting to be one of its priorities. Citizens in the province agree with you. They already

think, though, that reporting of gunshot wounds is mandatory. Isn't it time that you introduced legislation, almost on an immediate basis, to support our police and keep our communities safer? We

need the legislation now. We believe you should keep the promise you made to reporters in December and introduce the legislation immediately.

Hon Mr Kwinter: I started my answer to the first question by saying I certainly support the idea of reporting gunshot wounds. The problem we

have -- I have talked to Chief Fantino and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police about it, and I am meeting with the Ontario Medical Association this Friday to discuss this very issue -- is

that if we're going to do it, we have to do it right. There is no sense bringing in legislation that will not withstand a charter challenge and that will not withstand criticism under privacy

legislation. It is something we have to do right. I am meeting with the stakeholders to make sure we get it done and that we get it right.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. With growth and prosperity in the GTA has come a growing

population, and population growth brings increased traffic. More and more people are commuting from the 905 region into Toronto for work and other activities. To maintain the competitiveness of the

region and keep our economy strong, we must keep traffic moving. What action has your ministry taken to combat GTA congestion and improve the efficiency of the GTA transportation network?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): It is absolutely true that we have about 100,000 people moving into this area every year,

and in 20 years we will have maybe another two million people. That will create really serious problems in this area, and that is why we are committed to having a region-wide approach that will

address the long-term needs of this region. We are committed to having legislation introduced about the Greater Toronto Transit Authority, which will address the long-term needs. In the short term,

we have introduced high-occupancy vehicle lanes and implemented yield-to-bus legislation, and we are also improving highways like the 400 series to address some of these needs.

Mr Delaney: One way to ease traffic congestion is to encourage people to leave their cars at home and take public transit. An increase in the

use of public transit has the added benefit of improving our air quality by cutting down harmful vehicle emissions. To accomplish this, we must improve public transit by making it more efficient

and more accessible. Minister, what efforts is the government making to ease gridlock by promoting public transit?

Hon Mr Takhar: I couldn't agree more with the statement he made. I think it's absolutely essential that we need to encourage public transit in

the GTA. First, we will need to make sure that people can move from one place to another in an efficient and timely manner. We are committed to providing sustainable funding for transit needs and

have already announced $1.05 billion, along with our federal and municipal partners. We have also given money to the TTC and are committed to improving GO Transit service and increasing parking at

GO Transit stations.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I am going back to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services because we didn't get

an answer from him regarding the Khadr family coming into Canada to access the Ontario health care system. This is a family that has publicly professed support for the Al-Qaeda terrorism

organization and supported the September 11 attacks on the United States.

I asked the minister a very clear question earlier which I think Ontarians have a right to have answered. We see that trade hinges on border security -- we saw

that

article on the weekend -- and I will go back to the minister with the question: whether he thinks the Citizenship Act needs to be amended to create the capacity to revoke acquired citizenship

where it can be shown that the persons in question have used it to further interests harmful to Canadian national interests, such as supporting Al-Qaeda and raising money for it. Do you agree with

that? If you do, will you do something about it instead of warming a chair over there?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I find it somewhat comical that that minister is telling this

minister about warming a chair.

I'm sure the minister will understand that this issue is a federal matter. It's a matter that is being dealt with --

Mr Runciman: Abdicate the file; that's your response.

Hon Mr Kwinter: It's all right for you to tell me that it's my responsibility, but why don't you --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Kwinter: You should know that this is a federal responsibility, and I have every confidence that they will deal with it.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition from seniors, including Millie Willick and Bev Smith and Gord Smith from

Stevensville, Ontario, that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, during the election campaign, the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

In support, I affix my signature.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as

follows:

"Whereas the parliamentary tradition in Ontario of presenting annual budgets in the House of the Legislative Assembly has existed for decades; and

"Whereas the previous government, in 2003, showed disrespect for our public institutions and the people of Ontario by presenting a budget inside a private,

for-profit auto parts factory; and

"Whereas the previous Speaker of the Legislative Assembly condemned the actions of his own party's government;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to uphold parliamentary tradition and hold a public presentation and debate of the 2004

budget, and every budget thereafter, by our publicly elected members of Parliament inside the legislative chamber."

I have signed my name with it, and I agree with it.

TAXATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a petition, entitled "Stay the Course on Small Business Tax Relief," which is particularly

important given the Ontario government is now considering scrapping the retail sales tax exemption on meals under $4.

"Whereas business tax cuts have helped fuel the strongest economic and job growth ever seen in Canada;

"Whereas corporate income taxes on the smaller businesses that create most of our new jobs have been scheduled to be reduced to 5% in 2004 and 4% in 2005;

"Whereas the corporate income tax rate for manufacturing and processing firms has been scheduled to be cut to 10% for 2004, 9% for 2005 and 8% for 2006;

"Whereas the general corporate income tax rate has been scheduled to be 11% for 2004, 9.5% for 2005 and 8% for 2006; and

"Whereas the capital tax on employers is on the road to be cut by 10% in 2004, with the plan to scrap it entirely;

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

"That the government of Ontario stay the course and maintain the scheduled tax reductions for job-creating businesses."

I affix my signature to this.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

AND TRADES

Mr Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): "Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefits of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave

their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

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

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

"Whereas Ontario, its business, 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 other institutions and agencies of and within the government

of Ontario, undertake specific and proactive measures to work with bodies regulating access to Ontario professionals, 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 of Canada into the Canadian

workforce."

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

TILLSONBURG DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition signed by a great number of residents in my riding and the surrounding ridings.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital has asked for ministerial consent to make capital changes to its facility to accommodate the placement of a

satellite dialysis unit; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has already given approval for the unit and committed operational dollars to it; and

"Whereas the community has already raised the funds for the equipment needed;

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

"That the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care give his final approval of the capital request change from the Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital

immediately, so those who are in need of these life-sustaining dialysis services can receive them locally, thereby enjoying a better quality of life without further delay."

I affix my signature to this petition.

TUITION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition signed by a few hundred students from the Canadian Federation of Students. I'm delighted to

tell you that this government has listened to the Canadian Federation of Students and has frozen tuition fees already, but if I don't read this petition I will be remiss in my duties. Therefore, I

must still read it.

"Whereas average tuition fees in Ontario are the second-highest in Canada; and

"Whereas average undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have more than doubled in the past 10 years; and

"Whereas tuition fees for deregulated programs have, in certain cases, doubled and even tripled; and

"Whereas Statistics Canada has documented a link between increasing tuition fees and diminishing access to post-secondary education; and

"Whereas four other provincial governments have taken a role by freezing and reducing tuition fees;

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

"

(1) Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels; and

"

(2) Take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs and professional programs for which tuition fees have been deregulated since 1998."

Since I have agreed, and since the government has already done so, I thank you very much for accepting this petition.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): This petition continues to grow in popularity. I'm over 2,800 signatures.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government was elected after promising in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program

for seniors but are now considering delisting drugs and imposing user fees on seniors; and

"Whereas prescription drugs are not covered under the Canada Health Act unless dispensed in a hospital; and

"Whereas the federal Liberal government refuses to acknowledge this as a necessary health service despite the Romanow report's strong support for a national

drug program;

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

"To immediately and unequivocally commit to end plans for the delisting of drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit program;

"To immediately commit to ending plans to implement higher user fees for seniors and to improve the Ontario drug benefit plan so the seniors can obtain

necessary medications; and

"To instruct Premier Dalton McGuinty to demand more health care funding from Ottawa instead of demanding more funding directly from seniors."

This has my signature and full support.

LANDFILL

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I present this petition on behalf of my constituents of Simcoe-Grey and also my colleague Garfield Dunlop from

Simcoe North.

"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 source water protection which is a final and key

recommendation to be implemented by 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 definitely affect the design of Site 41 and the nearby water sources."

I agree with the petition and I've signed it.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member from Dur-ham.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): The riding is Durham, just plain Durham, and the member's name is O'Toole.

"To of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

subject to property taxes; and

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

services; and

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

campgrounds;

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

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

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

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

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you, to the member from Durham.

SEWAGE SLUDGE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I think you're doing pretty well there, Mr Speaker.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the residents Wasaga Beach, wish to bring forth our concerns regarding the transfer of approximately 5,700 tonnes of 14-year-old sludge, which

contains metals from the North Simcoe transfer station, to our recently closed landfill site. To date, there are no EBR requirements for hauled sewage.

"Due to this and the geography of the Wasaga Beach site being so close to the longest freshwater beach in the world and other sensitive areas, there exists a

threat to the environment and the public's health. The questionable product should be moved to a desolate location. Once damaged, the environment and people cannot be replaced;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: To stop the sludge from being transferred to Wasaga Beach."

I quite happily sign that petition.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Again, I have petitions from Joan Faria of Hamilton. She's done an incredible job. It's a very simple

petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"To immediately commit to action and funding to ensure the rights and protection for our senior citizens living in nursing homes and retirement homes in

Ontario."

It has my signature of support as well.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling) The member from Durham.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I appreciate that. I will try to read quickly and briefly here.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in Ontario adopted adults are denied a right available to all non-adoptees; that is, the unrestricted right to identifying information concerning

their family of origin; and

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child;

"Whereas these rights are denied to persons affected by the secrecy provisions in the adoption sections of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts of

the province of Ontario;

"Whereas research in other jurisdictions has demonstrated that disclosure does not cause harm, that access to such information is beneficial to adult adoptees,

adoptive parents and birth parents, and that birth parents rarely requested or were promised anonymity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:

"Permit adult adoptees unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information;

"Permit birth parents, grandparents and siblings access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate when the adopted person reaches age 18;

"Permit adoptive parents unrestricted access to identifying birth information of their minor children;

"Allow adopted persons and birth relatives to file a contact veto restricting contact by the searching party; and

"Replace mandatory reunion counselling with optional counselling."

I'm pleased to support this on behalf of my constituent Julie Jordan.

LCBO OUTLET

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I have a petition for an LCBO agency store in the village of Baxter.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the LCBO agency store program is intended to revitalize our small towns and villages and to provide rural consumers with responsible and convenient

access to LCBO services,

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make available to the village of Baxter an LCBO agency store."

I agree with this petition and have signed it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITMENT TO THE FUTURE

OF MEDICARE ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'ENGAGEMENT

D'ASSURER L'AVENIR

DE L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 6, 2004, on the motion for second reading of Bill 8,

An Act to establish the Ontario Health Quality Council, to enact

Act / Projet de loi 8, Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de la qualité des services de santé, édictant une nouvelle loi relative à l'accessibilité aux services de

santé et abrogeant la

Loi sur l'accessibilité aux services de santé, prévoyant l'imputabilité du secteur des services de santé et modifiant la

Loi sur

l'assurance-santé.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We will continue the debate. It's the member from Simcoe-Grey.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I'm pleased to rise and speak about Bill 8, which is the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act.

I sat in on committee hearings in Sudbury, Ottawa and Toronto here just a few weeks ago, and I want to tell you that as a former health minister -- I served as

health minister from 1995 to 1997, for about two and a half years -- this legislation actually makes me look pretty mild compared to the draconian approach the new health minister, Mr Smitherman,

is taking.

I've asked the government to withdraw the bill on several occasions, and I see now they've at least agreed to go back out to the public before third reading to

see if anybody out there agrees with them. Hospitals, volunteer board members of all of our hospitals -- I've got Markdale hospital, which is Grey Bruce Health Services, Stevenson Memorial Hospital

in Alliston and Collingwood General and Marine Hospital. Certainly I can't name one volunteer who serves on those hospital boards, nor the senior staff of the hospitals, nor the CEO of each of

those hospitals -- none of those people agree with this legislation. Not one of them, that I'm aware of, supports the legislation, and I've had a lot of letters and e-mails with respect to this

legislation.

The big problem is that, yes, governments in the past -- and I remember I was the first health minister under Mike Harris's government to have to order the

takeover, as you'd say in layman's language, of a hospital board. I can remember Grand River Hospital, where my brother died. It was so bad there during the weeks I visited that I took over the

board and sent people in. It couldn't have been worse. By the way, when the chaplain first saw me after making the announcement, she said, "Thank God," because the former board had taken away

chaplaincy services that don't even cost any money. It's coffee and doughnuts and a room for all faiths to gather when a family -- and particularly in the case of my brother, who died at 38 years

of age of cancer, going through the palliative care stage.

The government of Ontario always had the ability to move in on governance in hospitals, but corresponding rights were also accorded under current legislation,

which Bill 8 would amend, that says the government can only do that in the public interest. Bill 8 removes the key words "in the public interest" from hospital legislation and allows the minister

to impose his or her will -- in this case, his will -- on any hospital regardless of what the local volunteer board members might say, regardless of what the chief executive officer might say and

regardless of what the community might say. And by the way, the community owns these hospitals.

We have over 100 corporations in Ontario. The community owns those hospitals. People in the local community can buy a membership -- in some cases it's $2; in

some cases it's $10. That hospital is a private hospital; all hospitals in Ontario are. They're not owned by the government of Ontario; they're owned by the community. And those people who take up

membership on a hospital board or as a member of the hospital corporation are entitled to vote at annual meetings. They own the hospital on behalf of their communities. All the Minister of Health

can do is use financial levers and moral suasion to try to get a hospital to abide by provincial policy.

The words "in the public interest" always gave the Minister of Health a need to be cautious when looking at and thinking about moving in on hospital governance

in a particular community. That community, the volunteer board members of that hospital, could, under current legislation, take the government to court. I guess my point is that you don't do it

lightly. The Minister of Health can't move in unless there's a really serious concern about patient care or a really serious concern about how that particular hospital is being governed. A really

serious concern about the finances of a hospital could be a good reason. But at the end of the day, the community, as I said, had the right to take you to court and object to arbitrary measures

that the Minister of Health of the day might try to impose on a particular hospital. That right is being removed.

In the last campaign, I don't remember the Liberal Party talking about removing the rights of volunteer board members in hospitals. I just don't remember you

talking about it, nor do I believe, as a former Minister of Health, that you need this legislation. It has nothing to do with the future of medicare, other than your adding the word

"accountability" to the Canada Health Act, and you can't do that because you don't have jurisdiction to add words to the Canada Health Act. If you don't like the Canada Health Act, talk to your

federal cousins and ask them to add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act called "accountability." Your legislation is null and void, basically, and I'm sure that someday there will be a court

challenge to that part of Bill 8.

The other part of it, as I said, is that it's so draconian. As hospital administrator Paul Darby of the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital said to me, "Mr

Smitherman looks to be more draconian than even you, Jim." Actually, I think I said that to Paul in jest and he said it back -- I've actually heard that phrase from several people. As I said at the

very beginning of my remarks, I was a fairly mild health minister compared to what Mr Smitherman is trying to do, and I did the greatest change in health care in modern history with health care

restructuring and the commission, and also the big construction boom. In fact, we had a contract problem, getting hosed on some contracts, because there were only so many large construction firms

in Ontario that could build all these health care facilities not only that we announced as government but that were already being built in the province -- the largest health care construction boom

in the history of the province since hospitals were incorporated over 150 years ago. No one can deny that. It's a fact of life.

I simply ask the government -- I would withdraw the legislation and not embarrass yourselves. I thought your committee members -- Monique Smith and others --

tried to do a very good job of explaining this legislation a few weeks ago, when I was on the road with them for a few days in committee hearings. But I'm afraid those same members of the social

development committee, of which I am a member, are going to hear the same thing over again from hospital boards, from all those community volunteers, from people like Bernie Grandmaître, a

former Minister of Municipal Affairs. I couldn't believe it: I was sitting 10 feet away from him when he made a presentation on behalf of Ottawa Hospital and Montfort hospital and actually said he

was ashamed to be a Liberal that day. He went on at great length to scold the government for some five or six minutes, which is at great length in committee hearings, to tell them that. He stopped

short of tearing up his Liberal membership card, but he couldn't understand, particularly in the case of the Montfort. The Sisters of St Joseph -- two great-aunts in my family were Sisters of St

Joseph, now deceased -- were very worried about French-language services, about maintaining a French-language hospital. The Sisters of St Joseph of course are very worried about being taken

over, because they're predominantly a Catholic hospital, with a Roman Catholic ethos in their hospital, and they would like to keep that. They don't want some pagan or atheist minister of the day

who doesn't believe in God, which will happen in this House. Society is changing; it will happen. But a government of the day that gets so politically correct may actually try --

Interjection.

Mr Wilson: It's exactly the submission from the Sisters of St Joseph.

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): Actually, it isn't at all.

Mr Wilson: It is. They talk about Catholic ethos. I have a 20-year history on this issue, believe me. I'm the one who had to go down to St

Mike's after Ruth Grier messed it up, when they were $69 million in debt, and talk to the sisters. The fact of the matter is, they would be worried that some Minister of Health would arbitrarily

impose his or her will upon them. The law is so clear that almost anyone of any age who can read can figure it out for themselves.

So these volunteers, the chief executive officers of the hospitals, my local hospitals -- Markdale, Alliston and Collingwood -- are not making this up. They

are very, very concerned about it. I don't see the need for this legislation. You have current legislation on the books that was refined when I introduced the health care restructuring act a few

years ago, I guess in 1996. It was refined to make sure that both parties, the hospitals and the government, have rights. You are taking away the hospital's rights. You have not changed that bill.

I can't emphasize it enough. I think you'll regret the day when a minister in secret cabinet meetings --

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Rue.

Mr Wilson: -- rue the day. In the cabinet, the health minister, without informing the members, could very easily be ordering a hospital to do

something it doesn't want to do. It will create a huge impact on your local communities and you'll wonder what happened. You'll wonder, what piece of legislation did we introduce to allow Mr

Smitherman or his successors to be so draconian? You'll look back at this debate, you'll look back at Bill 8 and you'll regret that you ever voted in favour of it.

So just withdraw it. No one will notice. It will be a one-day wonder in the media. If you withdrew a bill, you probably would get credit in terms of maybe

bringing up the Premier's popularity, which is lower, by the way, than Mike Harris's ever was. Mike was always over 50% in the eight years I served with him. Mr McGuinty could use his popularity

coming up. Withdrawing Bill 8 would help the Liberal Party, would help the Premier with his popularity and would be the right thing to do for the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

M. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-Baie James): C'est intéressant d'écouter un membre conservateur dire à l'Assemblée que le

gouvernement est draconien. Je pense que c'est carrément intéressant. Je me rappelle que le gouvernement conservateur, quand ils ont été élus en 1995, a introduit un

morceau de législation qui s'appelait projet de loi omnibus 26. Ce projet de loi donnait au ministre de la Santé dans le temps, mon collègue, un pouvoir absolu de créer des

commissions de restructuration dans le domaine de la santé et de restructurer les hôpitaux.

On regarde le fusionnement qui était fait par ce gouvernement sur la question des hôpitaux, où on a fusionné beaucoup d'hôpitaux, un

hôpital à l'autre, ensemble, avec le pouvoir donné ou accordé par la législation directement au ministre de la Santé. Je trouve cela très intéressant qu'un

député conservateur, un ancien ministre de la Santé, a dit aujourd'hui, « Vous autres, vous êtes draconiens. » C'est pas mal difficile à prendre.

I also want to say that I agree with my colleague from Simcoe-Grey on one point: that the government would probably be doing the hospital sector and volunteers

who are on the boards of hospitals a great service just to withdraw this legislation. The title purports to try to do something to enhance medicare in Ontario. The reality is that it doesn't do

that. It actually goes in the direction of giving the minister additional powers to impose their view. Remember, you give that right to the minister. There may be a Liberal government at this

point, but in the future you might be giving it to a government that will have the same rights. Do we really want to give the Legislature that kind of right when it comes to running our community

hospitals? I say that withdrawing the bill would be the best thing to do.

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I listened carefully to the comments of the member from Simcoe-Grey. In fact I believe he was the

Minister of Health at one time, but I'm not positive about that; he may have been. I appreciated his comments, but I find the suggestion that we should withdraw this bill a pretty odd comment and a

strange approach coming from a former minister, if you ask me. Frankly, I look at the things that were going on in the health care system when he was in government and what little was being done to

deal with it.

We need to have accountability in this system, plain and simple. We need to find a way to get the institutions within the health care system to go along. The

only way to do that is to ensure that there is some level of accountability in this system. The member knows full well, because he was the Minister of Health -- in fact, as Minister of Health I'm

sure he did this -- that we have the ability, if we want, to walk into a hospital and replace the board with a supervisor, but that's not something we want to do. We want to have other tools to try

to prod the system along, instead of walking in there in draconian fashion and taking over the hospitals ourselves.

We need to prod the system along. We need to get those lineups for procedures reduced. We need to improve primary care. We need to make sure that Ontarians are

being soft on this issue. We have to have accountability. We're going to stand up and demand accountability within this system. We are going to get it and we're going to turn this health care

system around, unlike the previous government.

Mr O'Toole: I would say quite the contrary: that the member from Simcoe-Grey should be listened to. In his time as minister there were

enormous changes in health care. The main failure in the partnership with the people of Ontario and indeed Canada was the federal government. I think we all know that.

This bill is no way to build bridges with one of the more important components of the health care delivery system, that is, our hospitals. I spoke last week on

this bill and I have spoken with the member from Kitchener-Waterloo as well. The

article in the Metroland on March 23, 2004, characterized this as "the failure for the future of health care."

I am pleased to say that under pressure from former Minister of Health Wilson and former Minister of Health Elizabeth Witmer, the government has relented and

decided to hold public hearings on Bill 8. I can tell you, if you hold public hearings -- I did sit in on the clause-by-clause of the now version of Bill 8 and I didn't see one single amendment

adopted from our health critic, the member from Kitchener-Waterloo, or the NDP critic, Ms Martel, from Nickel Belt -- not one single amendment. It's quite conspicuous when all these people put all

this effort into making presentations and there is not one single respectful amendment.

The point I am trying to make is I think the Toronto Star had it right. They said in their article, "Bill 8 will decide health care future." It goes on to say

that it's actually the demise of the health care future.

I have a lot of respect for the effort the former minister from Simcoe-Grey, Jim Wilson, put into rebuilding health care, from $17.4 billion to almost $29

billion when we were finished. Clearly there has to be accountability. This way isn't accountability; it's about taking complete, undemocratic control over the hospitals in Ontario.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I just want to say how much I agree with the member from Simcoe-Grey. It's amazing what happens when

people get into opposition. They tend to agree a lot with each other. Then they get into government, by and large, and they change. It's a bit bizarre how that happens, but it does. Then they come

back into opposition and they change again. It's extraordinary.

Some of the observations that the member from Simcoe-Grey made are quite appropriate and correct. He made reference to Bill 26, except I think he's got a

little more fragile memory on this issue than we do, because Bill 26 was one of the most egregious examples of draconian powers that a minister could give unto himself. It's for that reason that

the member from Simcoe-Grey said that someone criticized the Liberals for being worse than the Tories, and the example that individual wanted to use was Bill 26, because that's the bill we all make

reference to as a way of showing how a government can forget so much and decide that, "In order to make changes, we need to give ourselves absolute power." That's what Bill 8 is all about. It's for

that reason that Bill 8 equals the effect of Bill 26; in fact, in most cases surpasses -- surpasses -- the effect of Bill 26. At least in this example, for Liberals to have attacked the Tories for

being so egregious in their desire to have absolute power, that they should forget and then institute Bill 8 -- you get members here standing up for their two minutes saying how great this bill is

and what it will allow them to do, how it will allow them to improve medicare and so on, and they forget that Bill 8 is worse in its effect than Bill 26.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe-Grey has two minutes in which to wrap up.

Mr Wilson: I just want to follow up what my NDP colleague has just said -- absolutely right. This bill -- I wish the media were here. I wish

Richard Brennan and the gang were here, who criticized me on Bill 26. This bill goes far beyond Bill 26. Bill 26 set up the health care restructuring commission. You had full access to the courts.

You didn't like any of the processes of that committee. In fact, that's how the French-language hospital in Ottawa won their appeal. There's no appeal now. One thing that the health care

restructuring commission did was close Wellesley Hospital. It was, frankly, a rat-infested, filthy hospital. I agreed with their decision, even though it was their decision to take.

I wouldn't have had to do Bill 26, I wouldn't have had to do a health care restructuring commission, and you don't need any courts. Bill 8 says the minister

can order the hospital closed by telling the local board to take a hike. So when people go on about all the rhetoric for Bill 26, Bill 26 contained some fundamental rights of justice for all

parties as we restructured the system.

The Liberal government today -- and my NDP colleague and others on this side are right: You don't even have to bother with a commission that took three years;

you don't even have to bother with the courts; you simply order the hospital closed. If this bill passes, the minute after it passes and receives royal assent, any minister of the day can close a

hospital on his or her own whim. You have no rights and the volunteer boards are gone and the CEO will become an employee of the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health. Today, under current

legislation, the CEO is an employee of the hospital and only the hospital and those volunteer board members who represent the community.

The system isn't so broken -- in fact, they say the system is better today than it was a decade ago -- that you have to take over boards, throw out the

volunteers and, without any recourse to any rights, you could actually close hospitals or do whatever the heck you wanted in the system, and there's not a darn thing the people of Ontario will be

able to do about it because you're taking away their access to the courts. Shame on you.

The Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Marchese: I just wanted to say that I had the pleasure --

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: It's only 10 minutes. You've got to compact your speech in such a little time.

I want to say that I was in this committee for one day, replacing my colleague Shelley Martel from Nickel Belt, and I've got to say that during all of the

deputations, all the members who came in front of that committee said they had a problem with Bill 8. Normally, you will have bills coming before you and you'll find a couple of people saying,

"This is great," and a couple of people saying, "This is bad." Normally, that's the kind