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

October 27, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Oct-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 27 October 2004 Mercredi 27 octobre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DON BEANLANDS

CHILD CARE

NORTHERN ONTARIO

ALTANA PHARMA INC

HIGHWAY 60

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(HOSPICES EXEMPTION), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

(EXONÉRATION ACCORDÉE

AUX HOSPICES)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

HEALTH PREMIUMS

LOBBYISTS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PIT BULLS

INSURANCE

ENERGY CONSERVATION

FABRY DISEASE

HAZARDOUS WASTE

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

DRIVER LICENCES

PETITIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

PER DIEM FUNDED AGENCIES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

OPTOMETRISTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FISCAL TRANSPARENCY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

ET LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DON BEANLANDS

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): It is a great pleasure for me to rise and congratulate Dr Don Beanlands of Ottawa. The University of Ottawa

Heart Institute recently named a new centre in honour of Dr Don Beanlands. On September 29, the heart institute officially opened the Donald S. Beanlands Ambulatory Care Centre, a modern centre

that receives more than 20,000 patients each year and where Dr Beanlands spends much of his time.

Dr Beanlands has been with the heart institute since the beginning. The exemplary care for which the institute is known is due in no small part to his remarkable

leadership. His commitment to his patients is always well above and beyond the call of duty. His role as a teacher and a mentor is indeed unmatched.

Dr Beanlands is someone who is loved and respected and admired by patients, by colleagues and by students. He is regarded as the soul of the heart institute, and

his extraordinary legacy after 29 years will remain and be celebrated by the Donald S. Beanlands Ambulatory Care Centre.

I have had the pleasure of working with Dr Beanlands on a number of issues with respect to cardiac care in eastern Ontario, and I can think of no greater honour

for him than to have this ambulatory care centre named in his honour. This is a man who is a great humanitarian, someone who could have earned great dollars south of the border, but someone who

chose, with Dr Wilbert Keon, to help build one of the most world-class cardiac care facilities in North America, and we are very lucky to have him as a dedicated member of our community.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Today marks the fourth annual Child Care Worker and Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day. On behalf of the

New Democratic Party I want to say thanks to all those incredible workers, primarily women, who provide tremendous early learning and care to Ontario's most precious resource, our children.

Early childhood educators and child care staff play a fundamental role in shaping the social, cognitive, physical and emotional development of some of our

youngest citizens. They have critical responsibilities as primary caregivers for so many Ontario children. Early childhood educators and child care staff support Ontario families by providing safe,

high-quality early learning and care so that parents can work and participate in our economy. These workers provide an essential public service, and our province can't work without them.

On the eve of the meeting of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers responsible for Social Services, it would be most fitting to truly recognize the

contributions made by early childhood educators and staff by finally funding a national child care program. Early learning and care are critical components of early childhood development. Other

OECD countries have long recognized this fact and have invested in universal child care and early learning programs. It's a disgrace that Canada lags so far behind in establishing this essential

public service.

Our thanks to Ontario early childhood educators and child care staff. They do a wonderful job and they deserve our thanks today.

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I too rise today on annual daycare day to congratulate all the child care workers in Ontario who

do such a phenomenal job every day.

Affordable, high-quality child care gives our children the best possible start in life and allows them to arrive at school ready to learn.

The McGuinty government not only understands the importance of child care; we're doing something about it. For example, this is the first government that has a

minister responsible for children. We've taken the various government functions that deal with children's issues and have consolidated them into one ministry that is focused solely on children.

In this year's budget, we indicated that the $58 million provided by the federal government for child care would be directed toward regulated child care for

children under the age of six. In July, the minister responsible for children and youth announced that the money would go to the creation of up to 4,000 new subsidized daycare spaces. This marks a

drastic change from the attitude of the previous government, which ignored and neglected child care and child care workers. In fact, they didn't bother funding child care at all. Under the previous

government, all child care funds came from either the federal government or the private sector.

I am proud to be part of a government that not only recognizes the importance of child care and child care workers but is willing to do something about it. Our

children need a positive start in life. The McGuinty government is working hard to ensure that they get it.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Last week, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines sent out a news release to northern media titled

"Northern Ontario is Stronger One Year Later." This release dares to suggest that this government has made significant improvements in the north and that they have been especially evident in health

care. At the same time, we learned that the Minister of Health was bullying and threatening northern hospitals, especially if they dared to ask for fair funding.

In response to this propaganda, the North Bay Nugget newspaper awarded Minister Bartolucci a brick, not a bouquet, and said that events this week on the health

front suggest otherwise.

In the past year, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has failed to deliver on his key election promises, such as the northern prosperity plan and the

northern councils. The Liberal northern prosperity plan appears to be a collection of news releases and speeches, with no real benefits to northerners. One year after becoming a minister, the

northern councils do not even have any members.

In addition, this past week the minister failed to defend northern interests and allowed the majority of northern communities to be excluded from the gas tax

funding. On the Liberal Web site there are only two accomplishments listed for the north: a federal highway funding deal, and the actual naming of a minister from the north. As with the rest of

this government, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has focused on the small issues and has failed to act on the major issues that are so important to the north.

ALTANA PHARMA INC

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It's a pleasure to rise today, especially in the presence of the grade 5 class from Falgarwood school in

Oakville, and my constituency staff from Oakville as well.

Today there is a reception; the Ontario College of Family Physicians will be having a reception at 4 pm right here at Queen's Park.

I rise today to recognize the achievements of Altana Pharma Inc. I recently had the opportunity to attend the grand opening of their corporate headquarters in my

riding of Oakville, and would like to congratulate the company on seven years of growth and innovation.

Since its Canadian inception in 1997, Altana has committed itself to improving the economic life of Ontario through its admirable corporate citizenship and

exceptional employment practices. A recent issue of Maclean's magazine recognized this commitment by naming Altana as one of Canada's top 100 employers.

I welcome the opportunity to highlight one especially important example of Altana's continuing dedication to the province. Last year the company sponsored a

forum with the Ontario College of Family Physicians to address concerns surrounding the growing shortage of family practitioners. As a result of these discussions and their recommendations, Altana

has since established a $125,000 scholarship to support medical students who are interested in pursuing their careers in a comprehensive family practice. They deserve to be applauded.

HIGHWAY 60

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I rise today to draw attention to an issue of vital importance to my riding of

Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, one the McGuinty government has failed to address, namely, the condition of Highway 60.

This stretch of King's Highway, which links Ottawa to Algonquin Park, Huntsville and points beyond, is in grave need of repair. It needs to be fixed and it needs

to be fixed now. From Douglas to the Nipissing boundary, there's no portion of the highway that is in good condition. Some areas have reached the point that I believe the safety of the traveling

public is very much at risk. There is no doubt in my mind that the condition of this highway is among the worst in the province; in fact, this may be Ontario's worst highway.

I invite Minister Takhar to join me for a tour of Highway 60 at his earliest convenience. He will be able to see for himself that this cannot wait for studies or

politicizing any longer.

The government recently announced it will be giving a portion of the provincial gas tax to municipalities with a public transit system. In rural Ontario, our

roads are our public transit system. We pay our share of taxes. We should receive better than we do from the Liberals.

If work does not begin on parts of this highway in 2005, there will be a point where the entire 100 kilometres of which I speak will be simply impassable.

Minister, don't delay. Come and see. I'll drive you around myself.

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): This summer Ontario's finest Olympic and Paralympic athletes participated in the 2004 Athens Summer Games.

Today it gives me great pleasure to announce that a number of these athletes have been able to join us in the Speaker's gallery of the House this afternoon.

On behalf of my caucus colleagues and all Ontarians, I want to salute the hard work, dedication and sacrifices that these athletes, their coaches and guides made

to compete at the 2004 Athens Olympic and Paralympic Summer Games. Being selected to compete at the world level is a tremendous accomplishment.

It's an honour to have you with us here today to celebrate your performances. You have made us all proud, and you have a right to be proud. Your devotion and

your perseverance are attributes that Canadians all across this country can admire.

Thank you for representing our country on a world stage with such determination, courage and dignity. You are setting an excellent example for all of us by

showing us how to live healthy, active lives and to always strive to be our personal best.

These athletes have gone up against the world's best athletes. For example, the performance of the Canadian athletes at the Paralympic Summer Games in Athens

this summer surpassed all expectations: 72 medals -- 28 gold, 19 silver and 25 bronze. Our Canadian Olympic athletes also made us proud, earning three gold, six silver and three bronze medals.

You are role models for our young and old people alike.

I'd like to ask all our colleagues, as we've already done in this House this afternoon, to stand and applaud these great role models for our country, for our

province and all our towns and cities they come from.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you very much. Congratulations.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Point of order.

The Speaker: Can you wait until after members' statements?

The member for Prince Edward-Hastings.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): On February 22, 1999, nine-year-old Brandon Jelley died in Trenton because a school bus on which he

had been a passenger and just gotten off of ran over him. This tragedy happened because, as a nine-year-old, he crossed right in front of the bus and the driver could not see him. His family

suffered a loss that thankfully very few people in this chamber understand and hopefully will never understand. His parents have reacted by, first of all, gathering a petition with over 3,000 names

of people who want to see crossing gates on every bus. In addition, they have personally funded six crossing arms and have obtained support and donations for an additional 10. So they have added 16

safety gates to our buses. But they want to see every child protected from that potential tragedy.

A crossing gate is over $3,000 -- not very much when measured against a child's life. They are here with us today. I would like to introduce Eve and Randy Jelley

and Eve's father, Richard Robertson, who are in the public gallery up there. They are taking what is a tragedy and fighting for the betterment of our children. The first recommendation out of the

coroner's inquest was that all buses be equipped with front crossing gates.

I will be presenting this petition during petition time. I would ask that we welcome the Jelleys with us and applaud what they are doing to make our province a

safer place for our children.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): The opposition was at it again last night. Almost every day, they're proving to have

more interest in being mischievous and irresponsible than in debating important issues. There was the member for Hamilton East playing silly games, first challenging a ruling by the Chair and then

proceeding to adjourn debate on Bill 25, the Government Advertising Act. Passage of Bill 25 will help restore public faith in our democratic institutions and make government more accountable,

transparent and fiscally accountable.

Under the previous government, partisan political advertising cost Ontarians millions of dollars. It's perplexing: Why would the NDP, the proclaimed champions of

working people, want to delay a move to more responsible, transparent and accountable government? Incredibly, the NDP then voted with the member for Lanark-Carleton to adjourn debate on the

professional learning program. So much for their alleged support of Ontario teachers.

The NDP likes to claim they're fighting for justice, yet they won't even debate a bill that would scrap the Tories' irresponsible teacher testing. Perhaps the

NDP needs to understand that there's a difference between "justice" and "just us."

I'm not surprised the member for Lanark-Carleton wasn't interested in debating. His government has never treated teachers with respect. Sadly, it seems that even

in opposition, that sad tradition continues.

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for each

of the recognized parties in the Legislature to speak for up to two minutes in recognition of the wonderful athletes who are here with us today.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The government House leader has requested unanimous consent for two minutes. We have unanimous consent.

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): The representatives of all the political parties in this House who had an opportunity

to do so visited with the athletes, both the Olympians and Paralympians who are here today, who represented Canada and, if we can be parochial, our province of Ontario so very well in Athens. We

were delighted to pay tribute to them. As I say, there were members of the assembly who were able to make it there.

Today they're with us in the gallery. We recognize the tremendous sacrifice that these athletes make in their own personal lives. They have been very determined,

they have persevered more than perhaps any of us can contemplate in our own minds, and they have represented us exceedingly well.

When we see our Olympians on television, or some may have had a chance to see them in person, we recognize that they feel a pride in their country, but also they

have a personal pride in their own achievements that are part of the Canadian team that is in Athens or any other area of the world where we happen to have the Olympics. We certainly recognize that

many of the people who are in the gallery today will be with us, shall we say, in Beijing in just four years from now, representing Canada exceedingly well.

They set, as well, a good example for others. They're role models. I have asked them, as I know all members of the Legislature will be asking them in their own

communities, to be those ambassadors, to speak to the younger people in our communities, to ask them to participate in representing our country. Also, they will have served as mentors to those

individuals. They will be those people who have encouraged the young people in our communities to get out and try their very best, to do their very best and, some day, to represent us on an

international stage, the ultimate being the Olympics.

I join with all members of the Legislature in paying tribute to all our Olympic athletes.

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I'm very pleased to offer my congratulations and best

wishes to the Olympians who are present, and the Paralympians. I was very pleased to be present at the Lieutenant Governor's reception with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Premier and,

of course, the Lieutenant Governor. From our party, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was in attendance. We all offer the outstanding representatives who have done such a great job representing

our country our congratulations and our appreciation.

Robert Marland, the son of the former member from Mississauga South, Margaret Marland, was an Olympian and won a gold medal for Canada in Barcelona. I know

Robert, and I know the considerable and outstanding commitment he made to his training. All the athletes who represent us so well have done the same. Again, our congratulations and thank you very,

very much.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is indeed an honour for me to rise here in this Legislature today to salute our athletes.

I had the privilege of being at the Lieutenant Governor's suite at noon, as I know many members of the Legislature were, to meet first-hand the members who are

in the gallery today. We are proud of their accomplishments, and I think all Canadians can say that we have a tear in our eye when we watch you at the Olympics and at the Paralympics. We have a

tear in our eye when we see how hard you struggle to attain the ultimate goal. We have a tear in our eye when the Canadian flag goes up and the anthem is played. We are proud of you and proud of

our country. I have to tell you as well, though, that we are proud even when that flag does not go up. It does not always go up, but the spirit of the competition is that you try your best, and we

recognize you for it.

All of us heaved a collective sigh and felt so awful when we watched one of our great athletes, Perdita Felicien, fall on the hurdles. We know the pain that she

suffered, we know how long and how hard she worked to make it that far, and we know she will continue and struggle and go ahead in 2008 to take her rightful place on the podium.

It's not that we, as a community, should just be proud, though. As proud as we are, we must also make the commitment on behalf of this government, and stress to

the Canadian government and to all Canadians that if we are truly to serve our athletes as well as they serve us, then we must get ready for the 2008 Olympic Games, we must be ready for the

Commonwealth and Canada Games, and we must be prepared to put money available for training and for sports and to really make a difference.

If they are to be as proud of us as we are of them, then I think that this is a two-way street. We need to give them the tools, and we need all of us today to

make the commitment that 2008 will be a better year for Canada than 2004 was.

The Speaker: I also want to express my view that I'm very proud of the athletes who represented us.

VISITORS

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm very proud of future Olympians and leaders in the gallery from Pleasantville

Public School in Richmond Hill, and their teachers, Mr Bryan Gerson and Ms Olga Hiltz. I want to welcome them to the chamber today.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): This wasn't a point of order, but we can always recognize future Olympians.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move

its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Ms Churley from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presents the committee's

report as follows and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr7,

An Act to revive Key Aircraft Services Inc.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

Mrs Dombrowsky moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act in respect of enforcement and other matters / Projet de loi 133,

Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement et la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario en ce qui a trait à l'execution et à d'autres questions.

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

Mrs Dombrowsky?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I have a statement for ministerial statements.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(HOSPICES EXEMPTION), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

(EXONÉRATION ACCORDÉE

AUX HOSPICES)

Mr Flynn moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 134,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 / Projet de loi 134, Loi visant à modifier la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités.

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

Mr Flynn?

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): This bill proposes to grant municipalities the capacity to exempt independently managed, not-for-profit

hospices from the payment of property taxes at the discretion and the pleasure of the local municipality. It's not imposing that right; it's giving the municipality the right to do that. That's the

entire intent of the bill.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): Today I am introducing new legislation to help protect the health and quality of life

enjoyed by residents of our great province. Our government took office with a firm commitment to ensuring safe, clean, livable communities. I am proud of all that we have accomplished.

We are making excellent progress in developing safeguards to protect drinking water from source to tap.

We have introduced a new five-point action plan for cleaner air. It includes air emissions limits for several major industrial sectors that have never had

limits before.

Aggressive targets have been set for diverting waste away from disposal.

We have introduced regulations to make Ontario's hazardous waste rules the toughest in North America. And we have created the environmental leaders program to

reward and recognize the top environmental performers among Ontario companies.

We know that the vast majority of companies in this province are responsible corporate citizens. It is only fair to them that we target companies that fail to

live up to their environmental responsibilities.

In the past, some have turned a blind eye to pollution, calling it a part of the cost of doing business in Ontario. Well, this is unacceptable. It is not fair

to our responsible businesses and it is not fair to the people of Ontario.

This government will not tolerate companies and individuals who put our environment and the health of Ontarians at risk.

Today I am pleased to introduce legislation that would, if passed, ensure that polluters face immediate consequence for their actions. Our proposed legislation

would impose environmental penalties of up to $20,000 per day for individuals or $100,000 per day on companies responsible for illegal spills.

I want to make it very clear to the honourable members: Environmental penalties are not the same as fines. Fines are handed down by the courts, while

environmental penalties would be assessed by ministry officials within a few days after a spill, enabling faster action on unlawful spills.

This is a whole new approach to preventing industrial pollution. Our proposed legislation will encourage compliance to help ensure that spills do not happen.

It is in a company's power to prevent spills and it is also in their best interests to do so.

I also want to point out that environmental penalties will not replace our existing enforcement. Where warranted, companies could still face prosecution in

addition to penalties.

Under the proposed legislation, the fact that a polluter took all reasonable steps to comply with environmental requirements would not be a defence. If a

polluter appeals an environmental penalty, this legislation proposes that the onus be on the polluter to show that the spill did not harm the environment.

Company officials would be held more liable under the proposed legislation. It would put the onus on corporate directors and officers to prove that they took

all reasonable steps to comply with environmental requirements. If convicted, they could face jail time of up to five years.

Money collected from environmental penalties would be allocated to a special community fund created by the legislation. Among other purposes, this fund would

be used to compensate victims of unlawful spills and could assist those who clean up spills. The proposed legislation would enable the province and municipalities to recover costs incurred to clean

up spills and repair the damage to the environment.

Make no mistake: This proposed legislation is tough. We are holding polluters accountable for spills.

I know that some members have expressed concern about companies being able to write off environmental penalties. Members should know that I wrote to the

federal Minister of Finance about this in March, and I'm pleased that the last federal budget and our provincial budget agreed to make these changes. The changes are retroactive to the date of the

federal budget, which is March 22, 2004. This was confirmed as recently as this morning with the federal Minister of Finance's office.

Our message is simple: You spill, you pay.

Ontario should be a place where environmental negligence is not tolerated and where good environmental performers are rewarded with incentives. This is the

Ontario we envision.

The environmental leaders program we launched last month shows the value we place on strong environmental performance. Environmental leaders are companies that

know that environmental responsibility will improve life in our communities and also our ability to prosper and compete on the world stage. Companies that minimize their risk and improve their

business practices are more efficient, attract more investment and make better corporate citizens.

There are still some bad operators who believe that they can get ahead of the game by lagging behind on their environmental responsibilities. We will not allow

this kind of attitude to continue. From now on, taking a step forward will be rewarded, standing still will be discouraged, and taking a step backwards will be penalized.

Our government is taking tough action on industrial pollution to build the kind of Ontario where our industries are world leaders in environmental

responsibility and where our communities are clean, safe, healthy places to live.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Minister, here we have yet another in a series of environmental announcements aimed at convincing

Ontarians that this government is getting tough on the environment, despite some serious flaws in the manner that you, Minister, are choosing to carry out your environmental agenda.

It's also interesting that this would come forward now, a year after a subsidiary of a company for which Mr Greg Sorbara, finance minister, was director. This

subsidiary was responsible for three spills in the St Clair River, spills that the ministry was not notified of for a number of days.

With this minister's announcement, the Liberals are once again focusing on areas that the Ontario PC government took great strides in addressing during the

Harris and the Eves years.

Interjections.

Mr Barrett: I will remind the members opposite of the name of their bill. You have named this bill "tough environmental penalties." We named

our bill "toughest environmental penalties," and many of you were here. I'm assuming you're not going to eliminate that legislation as you did the disabilities act.

In the year 2000, we introduced the Toughest Environmental Penalties Act. Our government's Toughest Environmental Penalties Act amended the penalty structure

of not only the Environmental Protection Act but also the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

We increased the maximum fine for a first conviction of a major offence for a corporation, such as a subsidiary I made mention of earlier, from $1 million a

day to $6 million a day; for subsequent convictions, from $2 million a day to $10 million a day. I'm assuming you're not throwing out these toughest penalties.

We increased the maximum fine for a first conviction of a major offence for an individual. Before, it was $100,000, and we increased that to $4 million a day.

For subsequent convictions, we raised it from $200,000 a day to $6 million a day.

The minister mentioned in the statement that was circulated on this side of the House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Barrett: Speaker, can you hear me OK?

The Speaker: I can hardly hear you, but go ahead.

Mr Barrett: In the prepared statement, the minister made mention of five-year jail terms, again following our lead. We increased the maximum

jail term for a person convicted of a major offence from two years to five years. When necessary, the ministry was also instructed to take enforcement action to ensure that the regulations

protecting drinking water were followed. I know everyone in the House was aware of that initiative.

I haven't heard anything from the minister with regard to the ability of companies to deduct environmental fines. There was some late-breaking news.

Environmental fines as a business expense -- I'm glad this was highlighted. Is this considered a loophole? Perhaps the third party will address this issue. It raises the concern, as we all know,

that those businesses that do pollute may well continue to do so and write it off as just another cost of doing business.

How will this be enforced? Will there be a hiring of new inspectors and more inspectors? Where is the money coming from? Minister, we would like to know: How

much will this cost and what does this add to the budget?

I will point out that this legislation represents yet another attempt by this government to take away policing powers -- there's concern here; this may merit

broader debate -- putting more power into the hands of government.

I will note that in our government's Toughest Environmental Penalties Act, the fines were dependent on a conviction. Once again, with this legislation, I

suspect the Liberals are prejudging the legal process, a process that, if jeopardized, could topple.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm surprised that the minister came into this House today and brought forward this bill without, at

the same time, bringing in a piece of legislation to get rid of the loophole in the corporations tax that allows industry and corporations to get back any money they pay in penalties and fines.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): It's a write-off.

Ms Churley: It's a write-off. They get it all back.

When the minister mentions that some members in the Legislature expressed concern about this before, she's talking about me, the member for Toronto-Danforth.

I've raised this on many occasions and I've brought forward a private member's bill, which I've asked to be passed and they've refused to do so. What the minister says is, "Oh, I've written a

letter to the federal Liberals in Ottawa and they're going to do something. We've confirmed that as early as this morning."

Why don't they just do it themselves? I was shocked when I went to hear the announcement up at their retreat a while ago that it wasn't part of that

announcement, because, you see, they have jurisdiction to do this under their own laws. In fact, once the federal government moves, if they move -- I understand that this is tabled, that they have

to have public comments and debate it in the House or whatever -- no matter how long it takes, at the end of the day, the Ontario government still has to pass an amendment to the provincial statute

here. So they're going to have to move anyway. Why not make this into a good, positive announcement by making it very clear at the same time that they are closing this loophole here in Ontario so

that these penalties mean something, so that it's not just the cost of doing business? Just do it.

At the end of my statement here, I will be asking for unanimous consent once again to pass my bill, which is called the Make Polluters Pay Act.

Beyond that, there are some other problems that the government and the minister are not addressing here. There are several that I've outlined before. We have

to make sure that the government gets into offering incentives for companies to clean up their act. We have to have carrots and we have to have sticks. They're talking about sticks today, which, of

course, until the loophole is fixed, aren't sticks; they mean nothing. At the same time, we just heard that Hamilton has now had the worst air quality day in the history of Ontario, I

understand.

Interjections.

Ms Churley: Well, something's got to be done about that, and one of the things that has to be done is incentives. Carrots have to be offered

to help those corporations --

The Speaker: Hold it a minute, please. Order. There's a lot of discussion in the chamber today and I am having difficulty hearing the

member.

Ms Churley: The minister has to make sure that those carrots are offered at the same time, because we need to be focusing on prevention in the

first place.

If we look at the latest report from the Environmental Commissioner, we see a lot of problems identified which we have not received any answers to yet. For

instance, sewer use bylaws in Ontario: The commissioner talks about at least 12,000 industrial, commercial and institutional facilities hooked up to municipal sewer systems across Ontario -- all

kinds of toxins going into our water because this government -- he says that up until 1995, governments paid attention to this problem, under the Tories they stopped and the Liberals still aren't,

so nothing is being done to assist and make sure that municipalities are bringing in these sewer use bylaws so that those toxins aren't going into our water.

Another problem -- and there are so many -- is that we need the adoption of Canada-wide standards for dioxins, furans and mercury for hazardous waste

incineration. These have not been adopted yet. Ontario's two PCB disposal facilities and privately operated on-site incinerators are still not subject to these updated standards. These are the

kinds of things we need to have happen.

There is a company here in Ontario called Eco Logic that's been around for some time that uses a process of thermal reduction to eliminate some of those

hazardous materials. They cannot sell their equipment here in Ontario because the standards have not been updated.

I would call on the House right now -- and I'm asking for unanimous consent, Mr Speaker, that we pass my bill called the Make Polluters Pay Act, and that we

pass it now. I'd ask for second and third readings and final passage today. Have the government put their money where their mouth is. I ask for unanimous consent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I have not put the motion forward yet.

The member from Toronto-Danforth is asking unanimous consent to pass her private member's bill. I heard a no.

VISITORS

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: I'd just like to welcome two guests in the members'

gallery today from the University of Toronto: Keir Wilmut and Jean Thomas. I'd like to welcome you to the Legislature.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. It's quite a privilege to have all members' visitors to our chamber. But we'd also like them all to

know that this is not a point of privilege.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, as you know, a recent arbitration decision

concluded that your new health tax is a premium and, in that case, is requiring the employer to pay the bill.

The confusion over who pays this new tax breaks down into the familiar "he said/he said" argument and which one is true. The problem we have here is that the

"he" in both cases is you. When it was important to try to fool the voters into thinking this wasn't a tax increase, you referred to it as a premium. Then when it became obvious the use of the word

"premium" might put the government on the hook for paying this tax on behalf of public sector workers, you declare that this is a tax.

Premier, is it your goal here to have ordinary voters think of the new tax as a premium and arbitrators and court judges to see it as a tax, and that way, you

can claim you've won both sides of the argument? You've created a potentially costly mess, and I ask you to clear up the confusion today: Is this a tax, breaking your signature promise, or is it a

premium?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. It gives

me the opportunity to speak to Ontarians, I know some of whom are concerned about this particular issue.

The first thing I would let them know is that there has also been another arbitration, this one in connection with the Jazz airline case, which sided in that

particular instance with the employer and said that individuals themselves are responsible for paying their taxes.

We introduced this as an amendment to the Income Tax Act. It has always been our intention that taxpayers would pay this and not employers. That remains our

intention and that is what we want to see happen.

Mr Runciman: The Premier and members of his government have been all over the map on this issue in terms of how they describe it. Yesterday

your Acting Premier said you have always described the health tax as a tax. He was dead wrong, and we distributed quotes from your Minister of Finance indicating quite the opposite. You've always

tried to have it both ways to cover up your broken promise.

Premier, in your rush to bring in this tax and try to confuse voters with your intentionally contradictory descriptions of it, did you ever, even once,

consider the cost implications if arbitrators and courts concluded that this is a premium? Did you ever do that, even once?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again, there are conflicting opinions on this matter when it comes to arbitrations. Some of them may be the subject of

ongoing appeals.

The members opposite may not be interested in this, but I know employers in particular have a great deal of interest in it.

If, at some point in time, we need to do something to inject further clarity into this matter, then we will, but our intention has always been that this should

be paid by taxpayers.

Mr Runciman: I think the Premier is trying to prove that old P.T. Barnum axiom wrong: He thinks all the people can be fooled all the time.

We know the Premier breaks his promises with impunity and blames someone else. Your ministers provide incorrect information to the House and you say they were

misunderstood. You are asked direct questions on important issues and you refuse to answer and play your juvenile blame game. Premier, once again, a direct answer, please: Did you do your job? Did

you ever consider the cost implications of arbitrators in courts concluding that this is a premium?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member opposite may not like to receive this information, but it's accurate. There are conflicting opinions right now

when it comes to this particular provision, this amendment to the Income Tax Act. If this situation persists, then we will take the necessary steps to introduce whatever clarity is required. Our

intention remains the same today as it was from the outset: This is something that should be paid by taxpayers.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr Runciman: If there are conflicting opinions with respect to what this tax means, it's because of the government. They have to take complete

responsibility for that because those conflicting opinions have been coming from virtually every member of that front bench. We have an arbitrator's ruling that shows an employer of public sector

employees will now have to pay the health care premium on behalf of its employees. Premier, you know that once one union wins this right for its employees, it will become a pattern for future

labour negotiations.

Today you are describing the health tax as a tax and you said every individual taxpayer must pay. You've reiterated that today.

Just a partial list of employees in the public sector: nurses, teachers, community college instructors, university professors, hospital employees. If the

unions representing these employees win the right to have the employer pay your health tax on their behalf, this has the potential to cost the public sector organizations approximately $500

million.

Premier, will you make a commitment today to amend your legislation to ensure the money will not be diverted from cash-strapped hospitals, classrooms and

front-line patient care to pay for this premium?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member refuses to take into account all the facts. He talks about one particular arbitration, but he denies the existence

of another. I will bring that to his attention again: the Jazz airline case. In that case, the arbitrator sided with the employer and said that individuals themselves are responsible for paying

their taxes. In this case, we have a conflicting opinion.

As I've said twice already, and I'll repeat it again for the benefit of the member, if we need to do something to introduce further clarity into this to make

it perfectly clear that this is something that is to be paid by the taxpayers, as we indicated at the very outset, then we are prepared to do that. I would think that employers throughout Ontario

would want to pay heed to this very important message I'm conveying to them.

Mr Runciman: The Premier accuses me of not paying attention to another arbitration ruling. But the reality is that he didn't pay attention to

this when they were designing this legislation -- the implications. He has a responsibility. This reflects on his competence and the competence of the Liberal government of Ontario.

He has not responded to the direct question I placed earlier with respect to whether or not they gave any consideration to the implications of the courts or

arbitrators concluding this was a premium. We know that many collective agreements across this province have those rights incorporated within them. We now know the Ontario Nurses' Association has

filed grievances in order to have your Liberal health tax covered by their employers. We know their employers are hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies. The taxpayers fund those employers.

This is, as I said earlier, dangerous negligence by not considering the implications.

Premier, you have played fast and loose with the facts, and now taxpayers are facing the consequences. I would ask you today to answer John Tory's challenge

and scrap this ill-thought-out, ill-conceived Liberal health tax.

Hon Mr McGuinty: There's been a reference to the mystery man. I'm sure he's somewhere.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): He needs a home.

Hon Mr McGuinty: He's looking for a home. We welcome his presence here in the House whenever he decides he'd like to join us here, but I

gather he's otherwise occupied at the present time.

It's always a lot of fun watching the Leader of the Opposition work himself into a lather over one particular issue or another. But here, again, are the facts:

We have conflicting opinions rendered by arbitrators. I guess some of them, if not more of them, will be the subject of appeals. If we need to do something here as a government to introduce further

clarity into this matter to give full expression to our intention that this be something that's paid by taxpayers, then we will do just that.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Today we learned that a bacteria outbreak at North York General

Hospital has infected at least 10 newborn babies, and up to 400 recently born babies may have been infected as well. This is on top of the continuing crisis of C difficile bacterium, which has

killed at least seven people in Ontario and over 700 people in Quebec in the last two years. Everyone recognizes this bacterium is there because there are problems with hospital cleaning, yet your

government wants to force hospitals to cut their cleaning budgets, reduce the wages and cut the jobs of hospital cleaning staff.

Your government is receiving an additional $825 million of federal money that is to be dedicated to health care this fiscal year. Will you stop forcing

hospitals to cut the jobs and wages of their cleaning staff? Will you work with them co-operatively so that we can better protect the patients in Ontario hospitals?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Health.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I had the opportunity, in a question from the honourable member earlier in the

week, to make an important point that I recommend to all members of the House again. It is simply that the honourable member's attempts to confuse what is a challenging issue around issues of

labour, I think, is highly inappropriate, particularly given the reality that the challenges we face with respect to infectious disease in Ontario's institutions are challenges that are being faced

in a very equal fashion, regardless of the nature of the provision of housekeeping services.

On this issue, it's important to note that the provincial infectious disease advisory committee, something that has come to life under our government as part

of our renewal of public health in the province, is co-chaired for the first time by public health and hospital officials. Dr Zoutman, an established leader from Kingston, and the chief medical

officer of health from northwestern Ontario are leading us in a process that ensures that Ontario will build on the strong standards that we have. We're tackling this issue with vigour, and I offer

the assurance to Ontarians that we're tackling this with all the appropriate attention that they would want.

Mr Hampton: The issue that the Minister of Health was attacking with vigour last week was suggesting that hospitals go after the wages, the

working conditions, the benefits and the jobs of hospital cleaners. He suggested that hundreds of millions of dollars could be taken out of those workers and their work. And yet we have Mr Justice

Campbell in the SARS report, the Ontario Nurses' Association report, SARS Unmasked and several other reports that have all concluded that hospital cleaning lies at the heart of protecting patients

from these kinds of deadly bacterium. Studies in the United States and the United Kingdom repeat the same thing. Yet we've got a Minister of Health who goes across the province saying, "Cut the

hospital cleaning budget. Cut those wages. Cut those benefits of the hospital cleaners." Minister, are you interested in protecting patients, or are you just out there for a money grab on the backs

of the lowest-paid hospital workers?

Hon Mr Smitherman: Notwithstanding the honourable member's desire to confuse the issue, I think it is important to note that several of the

most distinguished health care institutions that we have in our province include those that are receiving services from people that are not part of Sid Ryan's union. I think this is an important

distinction to make. At the end of the day, it's very clear: We have standards and it's critically important that those standards be appropriate to offer the appropriate protections to the people

of Ontario.

The member, in his question, offers up a series of reports. I think it's incredibly important to note that Dr David Walker, who chaired an expert panel on this

very matter on our behalf, is someone who has spoken out clearly in support of the initiatives that the government has undertaken to respond to the things that we needed to learn as a result of

SARS. We recognize that there's more work to do and that's why every single day we seek to continuously improve the quality of the environment in order to control infectious disease. That is what

we're undertaking in a dedicated way every day, and we will continue to do so.

Mr Hampton: People are dying from C difficile in hospitals because there's a problem with cleanliness. In North York General Hospital, newborn

babies have contracted serious infections. Why? A problem with cleanliness. And you go around the province suggesting that the way to save money in hospitals is to go after the cleaning staff. Do

you know what a cleaner in a hospital makes? They make $17 an hour. They make $35,000 a year. They're not overpaid. They do important work.

I want to remind you of something. The Conservative government cut funding for water inspection. The result: Walkerton, deaths and many people very seriously

ill from water that was not fit to drink. The former government cut money for meat inspection. The result: tainted meat at the abattoir near Aylmer. Have you learned nothing from this? Why do you

insist on going after the wages of hospital cleaning staff when report after report and your own experience says it's the wrong thing to do?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I'm one of those who is not prepared to stand in judgment in advance of the evidence. That is not something that the

honourable member seeks to use. There's no evidence whatsoever that, as the honourable member has now said, the difficulties with respect to bacteria at North York General Hospital, where the

employees are unionized, are because of cleaning. This is a conclusion point that he has drawn, and he has drawn that because it supports his political argument of the moment.

But the fact of the matter is, all across the province of Ontario, dedicated people are working on behalf of Ontarians to do the best that we can to improve on

the standards that have already been established to improve our capacity to deal with infectious disease. We will continue to work with those people across the breadth of the health care system,

dedicated to the task at hand, and we will not be sidetracked by the political arguments the honourable member seeks to advance.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Your Ontario health premium is creating quite a bit of controversy

lately. This, of course, is in your budget. On page 3 of your budget you say, "We are proposing an Ontario health premium." Then you go to page 9 of the budget and you say, in short, "Every cent

from this premium would be invested in health. Every cent from this premium would be used to provide ... results in health care." You mention the words "health premium" 10 times in your budget

document. You also compare your health premium with health premiums in British Columbia and Alberta. But recently you've tried to say it's a tax.

So my question to you, Premier, is this: Are you saying that the people of Ontario should not believe what your Minister of Finance said in the budget, that

they should not believe what the McGuinty government said in its first budget?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I had the opportunity to address this issue just a few moments ago and

I'm pleased to do so again. Our intention remains the same today as it was at the outset. That intention is that taxpayers will be paying this premium. We're going to allow arbitration to continue

to happen. If there is some uncertainty connected with this matter and we have to act, then we will do so, to make it perfectly clear that this is something that is to be paid by taxpayers.

Mr Hampton: Premier, this is about your Minister of Finance's words. This is about your government's words in the budget. I want to remind you

this is the decision of Speaker Carr, May 8, 2003, where he talks about the sacredness of the budget, the unique status of the budget, that it's the one thing that can become law as soon as it's

spoken. I want to remind you of the words of your Minister of Finance, because he said in the media lock-up, "We had the option of looking at personal income tax increases, or going with the

Ontario health premium. Our choice on the health premium was very clear. We chose it because it gives us an opportunity to identify a revenue stream separate and apart from personal income tax,

that will be applied, every single cent of it, to health care."

Premier, I ask you again, are you now saying that a budget that has the capacity to become law as soon as it's spoken, the first McGuinty budget, should not be

believed by the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The Minister of Finance.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I understand why the leaderless Tories would go down this line, but I'm very surprised at my friend,

the leader of the third party. He's been in this place too long to make those sorts of criticisms. On the day --

Mr Hampton: It's the Speaker who says that the budget is sacred.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Let me just tell you --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order.

Hon Mr Sorbara: He doesn't want an answer.

On the day that the budget was introduced, we also introduced Bill 83, part of which reads as follows, "A provision that amends the Income Tax Act to establish

Mr Hampton: It was Speaker Carr who said that the budget is sacred. You know Speaker Carr. He's the Liberal MP for Halton. He said the budget

is sacred.

This is what the Brantford Expositor says: "McGuinty hoped to fool at least some of the people that he was not raising taxes. It didn't work. He fooled no

one." The Hamilton Spectator says that the Liberals' "weasel words have come back to bite them on their sit-down parts.... The government has grotesquely mishandled this issue."

I say to the Premier, if this were any other organization, they would be reporting you to the Consumers' Association of Canada for false advertising.

I want to ask you about your words, because you went on radio across the province, and you said to the people of Ontario, "I'm Dalton McGuinty, and I want you

to know that every penny of Ontario's new health care premium will go to health care." Are you now saying that the people of Ontario shouldn't believe your words?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I say to my friend, I'm Greg Sorbara, and I want the people of Ontario to know that every single penny of the Ontario health

premium is going to go toward improving health care in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I find it much more effective if you address the Speaker rather than playing to the opposition. Thank you.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, through you, might I also invite the leader of the third party to actually read the budget papers where it says,

"Since the premium is proposed to be implemented through the Income Tax Act and administered under the existing tax collection agreement between Ontario and the federal government, income tax

withholding and instalment rules ... apply" to the premium. Thank you very much. I invite him to read it.

LOBBYISTS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of Agriculture: You are holding a fundraiser for the Ontario Liberal fund at $300 a

ticket, and this we know is not a problem. The problem is that the person holding the fundraiser is Bruce Davis, and on the invitation, Bruce Davis is advertised as a lobbyist. Here we have a

lobbyist advertising that he has access to you, and for a $300 fee he will open the door. Minister Peters, do you condone the practice of lobbyists advertising their access to you for a fee? We

want to know, is this how your McGuinty government does business?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I would certainly encourage the member to be conscious of the stones he throws, and I

would also encourage the member to be conscious of the fact that John Tory, who is not even a member of this Legislature, is out there fundraising on a full-time basis. How can a non-elected

official be fundraising? I think quite --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I'm just trying to get a sense of the relevance of the question to the Minister of Agriculture and

Food. I'll get a supplementary and maybe I will hear it from that.

Mr Barrett: I was trying to get a sense of the relevance to that answer as well. Minister, you also advertise your so-called concern, your

support for tobacco farmers in your riding and my riding.

Bruce Davis is a registered lobbyist for the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco. It's an organization -- I looked up the registration file for lobbyists --

dedicated to anti-tobacco initiatives.

As Minister of Agriculture, it's your job to defend farmers; it's your job to defend tobacco farmers. We now know you've obviously chosen sides with the antis.

This invitation makes it clear --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask you not to wave that around. It may be a prop. Will you put the question in 10 seconds?

Mr Barrett: You have obviously chosen sides. This invitation makes it clear -- I won't show the invitation -- that tobacco farmers can no

longer count on your support. Minister, why do you now join the anti-tobacco group to put tobacco farmers out of business?

Hon Mr Peters: I'd like to know where the honourable member has been. We campaigned very clearly that we were going to have an aggressive

anti-smoking strategy in this province. This province is committed to saving people's lives. We've also made it very clear, and the honourable member should very well know it, that as a result of

the fiscal mess your government left behind for us, we can't move as quickly on some of the priorities we have put forward. But we are committed to ensuring that we are there to provide a

transition program, to ensure that we help communities and growers move from producing tobacco.

I stand up and support that. I don't stand up and support people like Leslie Noble receiving $341,000 from your government; Michael Gourley, $4.6 million from

your government; Jaime Watt, $815,000 from your government. I don't agree with that at all.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, you should rename your "you spill, you

pay" bill to "you spill, you pay nil." That's because it fails to shut a tax loophole that lets companies write off pollution fines on their tax returns. Companies can write off fines for polluting

our air, water and land as a normal cost of doing business.

Minister, you know I've raised this issue before. When I did, you promised -- and I have it in writing here -- that you would shut this grossly unfair and

unjust loophole. To make keeping that promise easier, because I know you need help sometimes, I introduced the Make Polluters Pay bill to shut the loophole. Will you pass my private member's bill

today and keep your promise, or will this be yet again another broken promise?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very happy to talk about what this government is doing to close that loophole. We

contacted the federal Minister of Finance in March, and I'm delighted that it was included in the federal budget in March.

I would recommend that the honourable member might do a little bit of homework and read page 121 of our budget document, where our Minister of Finance has

committed that Ontario will "parallel the following ... tax measures: The limits on the deductibility of fines and penalties, patronage dividends and unused charitable donations," for corporations.

That's the commitment of this government. It was made during our budget.

We have confirmed with the federal Minister of Finance: We are going to work with them. Your bill is only addressing Ontario corporate taxes; our action is

going to close the loophole, both provincially and federally.

Ms Churley: Minister, nobody believes your budget any more.

Let me say to you, your government had no problem amending the provincial income tax to bring in new taxes on average Ontarians, but you won't close a loophole

for polluting corporations. Tell me, what is wrong with this picture?

Minister, you have a responsibility to protect Ontario's environment now, and there is no guarantee -- I have checked -- that any federal legislation will pass

before this fiscal year closes. And you will still have to amend Ontario's statutes. That's going to take a while. It's time for you to show leadership now.

As I've said, I've done your work for you. I've given you the ball, now why don't you just run with it? Will you pass my private member's bill today to make

polluters pay, or are you going to break another promise?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I would recommend that the honourable member do some homework and check her facts. I'm very happy -- I'm proud, in fact --

to stand in this House today. I want to just share with you some of the responses that our government has received to the initiative that we have proposed in this Legislature today. This is from

Robert F. Kennedy Jr, president of Waterkeeper Alliance: "This announcement signals a renewed commitment to enforcing Canada's environmental laws and an end to the race to the bottom for lower

standards in North America."

I have another quote from Pollution Probe. Ken Ogilvie has contacted us and said, "For too long, we have treated our environmental commons, our rivers, streams

and lakes, as dumping grounds for pollution, failing to recognize that spills impose a dear cost on us all." That's the kind of endorsement that we've received from known environmentalists around

the world.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question?

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is to the Minister of the Environment in regard to the legislation on environmental

penalties. My community has been greatly affected by a series of industrial spills into the St Clair River. In fact, many of my constituents and those further down the St Clair River live with the

constant concern of the next spill. I'm pleased to see that it is now time for our government to take action to ensure that industries do not ignore their responsibilities in preventing industrial

spills. So I want to ask the minister, what will this legislation do to protect my community?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm very happy to respond to the member from Sarnia-Lambton, who has been a great advocate for her community and the

protection of its environment. Very clearly, this legislation means that in Ontario, if you spill, you pay. It is that simple.

All of this has come about because of the very good work of the Industrial Pollution Action Team. This is a team that was established after an unacceptable

number of spills had occurred in the St Clair River. This team was charged to provide this minister with recommendations on how, going forward, we can better protect our environment and establish a

regimen that is going to be more preventive in nature.

That's exactly what the legislation that we've introduced here today will do. It will slap fines immediately on perpetrators of industrial spills and, more

specifically, create a fund that communities affected by spills can access to help them remediate the cost of the spill.

Ms Di Cocco: Many of my constituents believe industrial spills can no longer be considered a cost of doing business in the province of

Ontario. As a matter of fact, the cost of doing business in this new era in Ontario is about protecting the environment and doing what is necessary to prevent spills. We have many examples of

industry in Sarnia-Lambton that have, on their own initiative, made the necessary investments and changes to prevent spills into the St Clair River, which is a foundation of sustainable

development. But the problem of industrial spills does persist, not only in my community but right across the province.

I'd like to ask the minister: Who would be subject to these environmental penalties and how are we encouraging companies to raise their standards to ensure

that they're responsible for preventing industrial spills?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: This legislation will apply to the MISA sector of industries, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement sector.

There are about 176 facilities in this sector in the province of Ontario, which includes petroleum refining, iron and steel mining, pulp and paper, inorganic chemical manufacturing and electrical

power generators. They would be included in the MISA sector.

I'm very happy that the honourable member has asked about what incentives the government is offering. Contrary to what may have been reported earlier, we have

a very good program that we've just established. I announced on September 29 the industrial leaders program. This is to incent those good corporate citizens who have consistently demonstrated a

record of compliance and who go above and beyond good corporate business practices. We're going to reward them. We're going to enter into an agreement with them, and we're going to inspect them

less because of their good environmental record.

PIT BULLS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, on this side of the House we are strong

supporters of effective legislation that protects the health and safety of our citizens. Further, we sympathize with the many victims who have been attacked by various breeds of dogs due to

irresponsible pet owners.

Unfortunately, in your rush to score cheap political points, you've introduced legislation that not only raises serious questions about how it will be

implemented and enforced, but also ignores a fundamental problem. According to the Canadian hospitals injury reporting and prevention program, pit bulls are not even amongst the top four breeds of

dog that are responsible for the majority of dog attacks in Canada. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association rightly says that you'll have to ban all dogs to eliminate dog bites. Is this where

you're taking us, Minister?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I do thank the

member for the question. I just want to make it very clear, and this legislation makes it very clear, that we are addressing pit bulls. The ban will be applied to pit bulls and only to pit bulls.

The legislation goes on to deal with responsible ownership of dangerous dogs, fines and jail time for serious incursions, but this ban only deals with pit bulls, period.

Mr Tascona: Minister, your legislation paints responsible dog owners with the same brush as those who are irresponsible. Furthermore, you

haven't thought through how to implement and enforce this legislation. Most small towns, rural areas and even some cities have no formal animal control capabilities. In these municipalities, who

are people supposed to call for help, who takes charge of the animal and, most importantly, who pays?

Hon Mr Bryant: Pit bull owners are going to need to be responsible for their pit bulls. Once this law passes and the transition period of

three months after the law is proclaimed is enforced, there will be no additional pit bulls in the province of Ontario.

I've said before and I'll say again to the member that those who own pit bulls now will keep their pit bulls. I expect they will love them and they will muzzle

them and they will leash them. And then Mother Nature will do her work and one day there will be no more pit bulls. We believe on this side of the House that that means we will have a safer

Ontario, that we won't have horrible pit bull incidents.

This government is on the side of protecting Ontarians. I understand the Tories are on the side of pit bulls. Let the debate begin.

INSURANCE

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a question to the Minister of Finance. Minister, the secret kickback commission scam that big

insurance companies have been using to ensure that brokers write only the most lucrative and profitable policies has cost Canadians billions of dollars and has cost Ontarians hundreds of millions,

perhaps billions, as well. We were told yesterday that the government has asked the Financial Services Commission to inquire into this matter.

Minister, don't you agree that this is so serious a breach of the obligation that most consumers expect exists between their broker and themselves, and the

size of the rip-off is so large, that this warrants a transparent, independent, open and public inquiry? Why won't you refer this matter to a legislative committee?

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I'm delighted that my friend has asked me this question. In fact, the first thing I want to make clear

is that there's no evidence in Ontario of the kinds of allegations that are being discussed in New York state. Notwithstanding that, we did ask the Financial Services Commission of Ontario to

conduct a review.

In addition to that, I want to tell my friend that our government, through my colleague the member from Eglinton-Lawrence, has asked brokers and property and

casualty insurers to voluntarily agree to a better system of disclosure. I'm happy to announce to my friend and to this Legislature that the insurers have agreed to just that kind of system of much

better disclosure, so the problems that existed there never occur here.

Mr Kormos: You see, Minister, that is not good enough for premium payers across the province of Ontario, who have been hammered away at with

higher and increasingly unaffordable and unavailable auto insurance coverage and, similarly, with home and property coverage. This scandal may well have cost Ontarians hundreds of millions, indeed

billions, of dollars.

You insist it didn't take place in Ontario. I say that Ontarians across this province are not ready to trust that same insurance company that's been ripping

them off over the course of decades and generations in their families. It's not good enough for the people of Ontario.

You see, it's the Financial Services Commission of Ontario that was supposed to regulate and detect these things in the first place. Can we really count on

them to blow the whistle when it appears they could well have been asleep at the wheel? Why won't you just refer the matter to a legislative committee so it can examine this matter, determine how

big the rip-off is, how many people have been ripped off and for how long by those same big insurance companies?

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend from Niagara Centre couldn't recognize good news if it was brought to him by a page, apparently.

We have had direct discussions with brokers and insurers and they have voluntarily agreed to bring in a new system of disclosure for base commissions and any

contingent commissions that may exist. I'll add, to my friend, that directly, right away, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario is going to be working with the industry to urgently implement

these proposals. That is very good news indeed for the average insurance purchaser in this province. I'm very proud that we were able to react so quickly, and I'm very proud of the work my friend

from Eglinton-Lawrence has done to bring us thus far.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Ms Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): My question today is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, your ministry has taken some very positive steps

to encourage consumers to save energy. I attended at Hamilton Utilities Corp, where you announced a simplified electricity bill that will help consumers better manage their electricity costs.

Problems understanding a complicated bill have been raised in my riding of Hamilton West and, I'm sure in many of my colleagues' ridings as well. This new

initiative is one more example of giving consumers the tools they need to better manage their costs. What are the key features of the new simplified bill, and how will it help consumers?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): We have taken action to simplify and standardize electricity bills for

low-volume electricity consumers. This represents the majority of Ontario residential and small business electricity users.

The new bill comes in response to customers' stated confusion about the format of previous bills and is a product of testing and extensive work with all parts

of the electricity sector. Work on this new bill format involved the Electricity Distributors Association, distributors representing the various billing systems, Ontario Energy Board retailers and,

most of all, consumer and business groups.

The new bill format is easier to understand, has fewer line items, uses standardized wording, contains a glossary explaining the terms that are used, offers

consumers information that can help them better manage their consumption costs, including conservation tips and historical consumption data, and is the same across the province. There's no cost to

the consumer as a result of the change in the regulation.

The complicated bills introduced under the Tories made it difficult for consumers to keep track of their energy use. We are committed to helping consumers by

giving them the tools they need to reduce their energy use.

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I'm asking the supplementary on this.

I want to talk about conservation because it's something that comes up in many events I go to. We've been sort of ridiculed about conservation tips, but in

fact conservation is common sense. The previous government did basically nothing to encourage consumers to conserve. In fact, they even went so far as to say, "The private sector asked us to get

out of large-scale government conservation programs. Those efforts may have made the odd person feel good but they had absolutely no effect." Furthermore, the price cap that we were told was

revenue-neutral ended up costing us close to $1 billion and took away every incentive to conserve. Minister, perhaps members of the previous government should take a moment to notice that we have

entered a new era of efficiency and conservation. I would like to know what else we're doing to encourage conservation.

Hon Mr Duncan: We have announced that local distribution companies may begin to invest approximately a quarter of a billion dollars in new

conservation initiatives. I think members will start to see the results of this far-sighted McGuinty policy fairly shortly. We have established a conservation action team led by Donna Cansfield, my

parliamentary assistant. She deserves enormous credit. We are the first government in the history of this province to put conservation on an equal footing with new supply. We're also providing a

plan for installing smart meters in every home and small business by 2010, and have provided the Ontario Energy Board with the authority to establish time-based rates.

The record of the two previous governments: The record of the NDP was to cancel all conservation programs in Ontario. The Tories -- Minister Wilson's famous

quote was put on the record by my colleague who asked the question. I don't want to go through that painful example again. I want to say this: The way to achieve lower electricity prices is to

decrease demand and increase supply. This government is moving to do that.

FABRY DISEASE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Today I attended a forum to discuss a

proposal to manage Fabry disease treatment. I understand you were invited but did not attend. As you know, this is a life-threatening disease, and there are now two enzyme replacement therapies

available that will halt the progression of the disease. However, your government refuses to fund these drugs despite the fact that 40 countries, including the United States and Australia, do.

On April 19, when Donna and John Strauss were in this gallery, you gave them your strongest possible assurance for those suffering with the illness that their

government is working aggressively with a view to respond to the call that is required. In fact, you went so far as to follow this up on July 3 with a personal, handwritten note to Donna Strauss

saying, "I wish to assure you that I will make certain of coverage for Fabry."

What have you personally done to ensure that permanent funding for this life-saving treatment is available for all patients with Fabry disease?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the honourable member for the question. The issue of Fabry

disease is one I've been following closely. I think it's important to note that a process that was established by that party while in government with other provinces, called the Common Drug Review,

is an incredibly important step in terms of this drug. I note the member said this drug can halt the progression of the disease, and of course this is the broadly held view that is there in that

community, but heretofore the manufacturer has not made sufficient progress at Common Drug Review. They are in litigation, as I understand it, and I think going further would be inappropriate. But

the member asked the question, "What have I done personally?" I'm monitoring this situation very closely, but the manufacturer has some responsibility to work through the Common Drug Review

process. That work is ongoing, and I continue to keep myself apprised of this as developments occur.

Mrs Witmer: The minister knows full well that the Common Drug Review process is not and should not be reviewing this therapy. You are

sidestepping the issue. I would just remind you that the Quebec minister intervened to provide ERT for a child with Hurler disease. You now have that same opportunity to make that decision and set

the standard. You are chair of the federal-provincial health ministers conference. I ask you again: You made a commitment to Donna Strauss four months ago. What have you done other than monitor

this?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The member notes my new role as a co-chair of the federal-provincial-territorial Ministers of Health. I met with the

Ministers of Health two weeks ago in Vancouver, British Columbia, and raised this agenda in informal conversations with my colleague ministers. Only Alberta heretofore has gone forward with a

decision to place this product on their formulary. It's a $300,000-a-year treatment on a per person basis. That's why we do think it's appropriate that the manufacturer make some progress with the

Common Drug Review, which is designed to ensure that the precious resources we have are dedicated to the task of providing drugs and benefits that are efficacious.

I say that the issue is one that we're continuing to work toward. But there are other players that have power in terms of how this goes, and it's important

that they continue to play that role.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I'm very concerned. Next week the city of Hamilton will

excavate 70,000 tonnes of waste from a toxic landfill site called the Rennie Street landfill, a site that contains PCBs and other old pesticides and things of that nature. People live less than 200

metres from this toxic excavation zone.

Minister, concerns about environmental and health effects of this project have been repeatedly raised to you by local residents, and even Lake Ontario's

waterkeepers. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario's report, released last week, found that even though your ministry acknowledged that the city of Hamilton had major problems complying with

ministerial regulations, you still decided that it was not in the public interest to investigate.

It's outrageous that the shovels hit the ground next week and there are still outstanding questions about this project. How could your ministry in this day and

age, with monitoring excavation of highly toxic materials from this dump, say that it's not in the public interest? Where is the thorough assessment that's required? Where are the plans to protect

Hamilton workers and citizens and the environment they live in from the very serious harm that will be caused by excavating this toxic site?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): Of course, any time that toxic material is handled in this province, the Ministry of the

Environment has the responsibility to ensure that the processes that are in place to execute that consider all the issues that are raised by the community. The Ministry of the Environment will not

turn away from that responsibility. I can assure you that, as this work is underway, our ministry has conditions that will ensure that the environment for the local community is protected.

Ms Horwath: In fact, the city of Hamilton itself admits that this project is going to put workers at risk. Their own contract documents say

that no guarantees could be made regarding the potential for health effects associated with activities on this site. They don't want to be liable for serious toxic effects of excavation work at the

Rennie landfill site.

Let me go back to the Environmental Commissioner's investigation. He concluded that the Ministry of the Environment is not prepared to vigorously enforce

requirements that flow out of environmental assessment processes. Minister, are you prepared to vigorously enforce requirements at this time? Are you going to protect the citizens of my riding from

a potential environmental and health disaster?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky: Again, the Ministry of the Environment takes the activities that are underway in communities across Ontario, that could

potentially impact the health, safety and well-being of people in our communities, very seriously. Whenever these kinds of undertakings are underway, there are conditions that must be met, and are

monitored by the Ministry of the Environment, to ensure that those folks on the site and people within the community are not put at undue risk. That's exactly what the Ministry of the Environment

will follow through on in this particular case.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. This past July, my constituents and I were

delighted to have you visit our community. You had the opportunity to visit a number of local agencies, including West Ferris day care centre and our Nipissing Early Years Centre, and you met with

many front-line workers whose daily efforts make a real difference in the lives of children and youth in the North Bay area.

During your visit, you announced that North Bay will be receiving a portion of the $24 million that our government has allocated for children's treatment

centres across the province in this year's budget. Minister, could you give the House details regarding the new funding for the children's treatment services in North Bay and area?

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

member for the question and for her tenacity in representing her constituents in North Bay, particularly children and their families. I'm pleased to say that our government has allocated $7.4

million in capital funding to build a new facility to house a children's treatment centre in North Bay, a region that badly needs one. The new Northern Shores treatment centre will serve Muskoka,

Parry Sound and Nipissing.

Ms Smith: Thank you, Minister. That's very good news indeed for my area.

Over the past 20 years or so, there have been promises about establishing this children's treatment centre, and many headlines, many pictures and many large

cheques with Premiers of the day, but never money to build and operate it. I want to thank you for your efforts in making this project finally come to fruition.

Minister, I would like to clarify one issue in particular. There has been some question about the site for this new facility in our area. Has your ministry

established where the Northern Shores children's treatment centre will be located in North Bay?

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: I can confirm to the honourable member that the facility will be built on the site of the future North Bay Regional

Health Centre. A letter will be sent very shortly to confirm this and the funding that we are providing. The health of Ontario's children is a key priority of this government and my ministry, and

we believe that children's treatment centres provide valuable services to children, youth and their families. We are very proud to be providing $24 million in capital funding over four years to

expand and upgrade the CTCs, and we're working very hard to provide better services for children and youth across the province.

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a question to ask the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday I asked you about your policy that allows

applicants for drivers' licences to use their Costco card but not their health card.

Interjection: Just use a library card.

Mr Hudak: Library cards as well.

In response, you said, "This government is not creating any inconvenience for any student getting a driver's licence."

Minister, we took up your challenge. We called your London office, the home of the Minister of Labour. They said that the only other ID that 50% of young

people have is a health card -- a problem for 50%. Aurora, the home area of your Minister of Finance, characterized this as a frequent problem. In Hamilton, the minister of children's issues' home

area, four out of five young people have this problem.

Minister, you said this wasn't a problem. What are you going to do to fix this issue? Will you admit you've created a problem with the driver's licensing

system?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): As I said yesterday, if there are any issues, he should bring them to my attention, which

he hasn't. Maybe he did it now.

Let me tell you what the issue with the health card is. For every person who applies for their driver's licence, they have to have two pieces of

identification. One is required to prove their date of birth and the other is required to prove their signature. What has happened with the health card is that the Ministry of Health has asked us

to stop accepting health cards because of the problem of misuse of the health cards. But we are working very closely with the Minister of Health to resolve some of those issues and we will make

sure that drivers' licences don't create hardships for any young people.

Mr Hudak: Minister, this has been your policy for six months. I appreciate your using me as the guardian to tell you when there are problems

in the Ministry of Transportation. But if we're seeing four out of five young people who are having problems with this system -- in St Catharines and Niagara, in my area, about 12 of these

situations a day; in Etobicoke, sending folks away constantly because of this problem -- who's asleep at the switch here, Minister? You're running the ministry.

This is an issue of competence of the McGuinty government, and the health bill that you reference was introduced on December 17, 2003, 10 months ago. Minister,

you've had 10 months to anticipate this issue, to fix the problem. You've done nothing. What are you going to do to resolve the situation and help young people to get drivers' licences in

Ontario?

Hon Mr Takhar: Yesterday, I didn't address the issue that the member talked about: being incompetent and all that. I think his own caucus is

calling him incompetent, and he should be very concerned about that.

Let me tell you, the Minister of Health and I are working very closely and we're going to resolve this issue. I'm sure every student has other identification,

definitely a library card, that they can produce as evidence of signature.

So I have not heard about it. Maybe he has heard about it. What I said to him was that if he presents to me the evidence, I would be more than pleased to

address it.

PETITIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, yesterday in the Legislature, Minister Duncan, the Deputy Premier, stated that the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Greg Sorbara, had always

referred to the `Ontario health premium as a tax,' even in the 2004 budget lock-up;

"Whereas it has come to light the opposite is true and on May 18, 2004, during the 2004 budget lock-up, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Greg Sorbara,

in fact" was "recorded as actually saying:

"`We had the option of looking at personal income tax increases, or going with the Ontario health premium.

"`Our choice on the health premium was very clear. We chose it because it gives us an opportunity to identify a revenue stream separate and apart from personal

income tax, that will be applied, every single cent of it, to health care.'

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully request that the Deputy Premier of the day, Minister Duncan, correct the record."

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

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

It is signed by hundreds of individuals. I'm in accordance, and will sign my name thereto.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I would like to present a petition requesting that crossing control arms be installed on all school

buses. I would like to note that in my statement at the beginning, I indicated that crossing arms were $3,000 per bus. They are, in fact, $500 per bus, which strengthens the case to have them

installed. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it has been shown that crossing control arms on school buses reduce or virtually eliminate instances of students being struck by their own bus;

and

"Whereas 91% of all front bumper fatalities involve buses not equipped with crossing control arms; and

"Whereas the safety of the children of Ontario is our number one priority;

We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to require that all future school buses be equipped with crossing control arms and that all

existing school buses be required to be immediately retrofitted with crossing control arms."

There are over 3,000 signatures. Being in full support of this, I am pleased to add my signature.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

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

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

Of course, this petition has my full support. It comes to me from my constituents in Woolwich township, in the Waterloo region part of my riding.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to present this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas,

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

and

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

physician offices and emergency departments; and

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I will affix my signature thereon because I agree with the people from Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Flamborough, Dundas, Ancaster, Burlington -- people from all

over my region who have signed.

Mr Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I present this petition on behalf of almost 2,000 residents of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, and it reads as

follows:

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

"Whereas,

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

and

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

physician offices and emergency departments; and

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition to save the Leslie M. Frost Centre, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Leslie M. Frost Centre is Ontario's leading natural resources education training and conference centre, aimed at fostering an understanding of

natural resource management, with a focus on ecosystems and how they can be sustained for future generations; and

"Whereas this move will hurt the people and economies of Muskoka and Haliburton, especially those in the local tourism industry; and

"Whereas the Frost Centre is a valuable resource for elementary, secondary and post-secondary institutions, as well as a variety of other groups;

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

"That the McGuinty government reverse the decision to close the Leslie M. Frost Centre."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

PER DIEM FUNDED AGENCIES

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

and

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

accepting, safe, supportive therapeutic environment; and

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

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

"Whereas the government has excluded the 93 agencies and more who serve this vulnerable population under a funding structure referred to as per diem funded

agencies; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is signed by nearly 1,400 individuals. I'm in agreement and would sign my name thereto.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I present this petition on behalf of the clients of Dr Ron Wagner in my riding of

Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, and it's regarding support for chiropractic services in the Ontario health insurance plan.

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by, I'd say, over 1,000 people at

least; maybe more.

"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;

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

"To immediately ... 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 vulnerable citizens and to improve the Ontario drug benefit plan so they can obtain

necessary medications; and

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

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan -- Thunder Bay-Superior North.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): The member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is a fine gentleman who just read a petition

earlier.

A petition on behalf of Melanie Perrier: 13,000 of these have been signed in relation to the very tragic loss of her daughter Allyceea Ennis on a school

bus.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Education requires district school boards to ensure that classes, `on average for each board, do not exceed ... 24.5 in

elementary overall'; and

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Transportation states, `For safety and discipline purposes, a school bus is regarded as an extension of the classroom';

and

"Whereas a full-size school bus has 24 seats and can carry up to 72 children, far more than a teacher is allowed to supervise unassisted; and

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Transportation states, `Police can charge drivers with careless driving if they do not pay full attention to the driving

task'; and

"Whereas school bus drivers, no matter how diligent, cannot adequately supervise up to 72 children and safely navigate a multi-tonne bus through busy traffic

and changing road conditions;

"Therefore, all elementary school buses should have a trained adult supervisor on board in addition to the driver."

There are other sections of the petition I will read later, but I'm in support of this petition.

OPTOMETRISTS

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

"Whereas the last funding agreement between the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and the Ontario Association of Optometrists expired March 31, 2000;

and

"Whereas the optometric fees for OHIP-insured services remain unchanged since 1989; and

"Whereas the lack of any fee increase for 15 years has created a crisis situation for optometrists; and

"Whereas fees for OHIP services do not provide for fair or reasonable compensation for the professional services of optometrists in that they no longer cover

the costs of providing eye examination; and

"Whereas it is in the best interests of patients and the government to have a new funding agreement for insured services that will ensure that the most

vulnerable members of society are able to receive the eye care that they need;

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

"That the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care resume negotiations immediately with the OAO and appoint a mediator to help with the negotiation process in

order to ensure that optometrists can continue to provide quality eye care services to patients in Ontario."

I affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FISCAL TRANSPARENCY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

ET LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRES

Mr Sorbara moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 84,

An Act to provide for fiscal transparency and accountability / Projet de loi 84, Loi prévoyant la transparence et la responsabilité

financières.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I'm very pleased to be able to lead off the second reading debate on this bill. I should tell you at

the outset that it is really at the heart of the way in which this government is proceeding to transform the management of the finances of this province. It has a very difficult title, Financial

Transparency and Accountability Act, but the themes are not only important for government but they are themes that are affecting the way in which every entity, whether a business entity or a

voluntary entity, is changing the way they do business.

Might I just note that I am going to be sharing the time allotted for the opening remarks with my parliamentary assistant, the member from

Eglinton-Lawrence.

The first point I want to make is that it truly is landmark legislation. There are a couple of things we did in our first year in terms of bills we brought

before the House that are going to change, forever and for better, the way in which governments manage their affairs in the province, and this is one of them.

I'm going to get into the details of the bill in a few moments, but I want to point to the five principles that underlie the way in which I, as Minister of

Finance, am going about my business and discharging my responsibilities on behalf of the province of Ontario. These are the principles that underlie how we're making our budgets, how we're

determining our priorities, how we're making the difficult choices that governments confront, and certainly that Ministers of Finance confront.

The first is that we are bound and determined to get our financial house in order. We inherited a mess. I don't have to devote any time in this speech to the

mess we inherited; simply perhaps to note that it was just about a year ago that Erik Peters, the former Provincial Auditor, made his first report on the disastrous state of finances the previous

administration was leaving. I only point that out because the Financial Transparency and Accountability Act is in a sense a response to that event and that history.

We're going to get our financial house in order and we took some very difficult steps during our first year in order to do that. Within days of this

Legislature returning last November, we brought in a bill that raised significant new measures through changes to the corporate income tax system -- not an easy thing to do.

Much more difficult, in the spring budget we announced a new tax called the Ontario health premium. That was even more difficult, because within the context of

the election we said we thought we were going to be able to balance Ontario's books without this sort of additional revenue. We were wrong about that. We needed that revenue and we took the very

difficult but necessary step of raising this additional money so that we could pay for the health care system we want to create down the road.

We took the steps on the revenue side, and since that time we've been working on the expenditure side. We are determined -- I made a speech about this that was

widely reported -- about the program review we are now launching, which will look at virtually every single expenditure of government and has as its objective the modernization of government so

that we can deliver public services, notably in health care and education, but right across the rainbow of public services, more efficiently, more effectively and in a way that is sustainable with

the revenues we have. So the first principle is about getting our financial house in order.

The second principle is about greater equity in our tax system. That's one of the reasons why, in the budget, we made a specific provision to help seniors on

fixed income with their property taxes, because they represent a constituency in Ontario that was really feeling the pinch. Because of equity, and because equity is an important principle, we said

we're going to take a few resources and allocate them to our seniors.

The third principle is that our tax system must remain competitive. In that sense, we're like a private business or a public company that manufactures a

product and has to price that product so it's marketable around the community and around the world. Tax systems are sort of like that. People pay attention to the level of taxation in Ontario to

make investment decisions as to whether they're going to invest in the province, and thereby create jobs and more economic prosperity. So the principle of a competitive tax system is right at the

foundation of the work we do.

The fourth principle is that we need to modernize our system. This notion of modernization and new architecture is important in every aspect of government, and

that certainly applies to the tax system and the tax collection system. We put an enormous burden on individuals and companies through our voluntary assessment system. What does that mean? It's

simple. It means that we are responsible individually to assess the level of tax we owe our government. So we put a big burden of responsibility on individuals, and we want to make sure that system

is as efficient, flexible and responsive to the lives of individual Ontarians and businesses in Ontario as it can possibly be. So the fourth principle is to have a modern system.

The fifth principle, and this gets down to this act, is about transparency in managing this government. I want to say without undue criticism that the previous

administration got into some very deep trouble when it forgot about the principles of transparency and accountability. The Magna budget was a perfect example of what happens when you forget about

transparency and accountability.

If I could just take my friends back to that time, it was a fascinating period, particularly in terms of the pleas from journalists and people who understood

the parliamentary system. I think the Globe and Mail had some 16 or 17 editorials, one every day, pleading with the then Premier of Ontario, the member from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, to come

to his senses and to present a budget in the Legislature.

Whether presented at Magna or in the Legislature, that budget had its problems with transparency. It had a whole bunch of plugs in it to effectively hide,

cover, the deteriorating financing circumstances of this great province. The cover was removed when Erik Peters did his analysis and said, "It's broken. It's not just that there's no surplus.

There's a looming deficit," he said, "of $5.6 billion."

Now that the final financial statements are in for that period -- the financial statements for 2003-04 -- we find that the actual number is $5.5 billion.

That's the burden that we inherit as we try to bring financial stability back to the province of Ontario.

So how does this act, the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, help out? Well, in a number of ways. Let me tell you what I think is probably the most

important. I think it's the most important because it relates directly to the information that individual voters and the province as a whole will have when they go to vote next time, which is going

to be on October 4, 2007. Let me say, parenthetically, how proud I am that we have brought in fixed terms to this parliamentary democracy, this Legislature and this province.

What the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act requires is that a financial statement -- a statement of the province's financial circumstances certified

or reported on by the Provincial Auditor -- be presented publicly to the people of Ontario. That is going to change dramatically the nature of political campaigning in Ontario, because with this

act, every political party, every political commentator and every partisan -- all of us are going to be working from the same numbers. No more hiding the deficit. No more plugging the problems. The

Provincial Auditor will tell the people of Ontario what the financial circumstances of the province are, as we go into an election and a renewal of our democracy. So the starting point for

political parties will be the report of the Provincial Auditor required under this bill, which we are asking this Parliament to pass as quickly as possible.

But that's not its only strong element. It also requires reporting regularly to the people of Ontario in an unbiased, uncoloured way. Now, if you're one who

looks at the financial pages or even the news pages of daily newspapers, you know that financial reporting, quarterly reports by public companies, is becoming almost an essential element of doing

business. It used to be that companies reported their financial results once a year. Then it was once every six months. Now it's once every quarter. You will be interested to know that the newest

theme in the business world is that the quarterly reports of businesses be certified by the auditors of the company that's doing the reporting. It hasn't been a requirement thus far, but that's

where the world is going -- honest, transparent reporting that represents a very high degree of accountability.

We have a different group of shareholders. There are 12.5 million shareholders in this great enterprise called the province of Ontario. We owe a duty to our

shareholders, the 12.5 million people who rely on us for quality public services. We have a duty to them to report honestly, thoroughly and completely what the circumstances of their government

are.

One of the things that we're going to be doing is to report to give the people of this province a much longer-term analysis of Ontario's financial

circumstances. The Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act will bring about long-term reports about what the issues are confronting the Ontario economy and the government's activities per se.

The act will also bring about a requirement that we report, on a regular basis, major changes to our financial circumstances, much like a company that encounters an unexpected activity is required

to report.

Now, will it fix everything in the world? Of course not. But I want to wrap up my remarks by saying that this bill, quiet as it is and accountant-oriented as

it is, may just have as significant an impact on the way in which we do business, the way in which we represent ourselves, the way in which we conduct our policies and our politics, as anything

that we might do over the course of the four years of this Parliament.

It's interesting that the bill itself is rooted in something that went terribly wrong: the last three years of financial administration by the previous

government. It went terribly wrong. But if there is a benefit emerging out of that period, one of the benefits is the Financial Transparency and Accountability Act, Bill 84, and I commend it to

you, sir, and to the members of this Legislature for speedy passage.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I'm pleased to follow the Minister of Finance. Just before I start talking about this very important bill,

I would like to say that we're talking about fiscal long-range planning and fiscal responsibility, and I think we should note what transpired yesterday in Ottawa. I think the Premier and the

Minister of Finance did a very commendable job in terms of reminding the present Prime Minister and the other Premiers that Ontario is more than willing, and always has been -- whether it's a

Conservative government, an NDP government or a Liberal government -- to be very generous to the rest of Canada. That's Ontario's history and legacy, and nobody can question that. But I think the

Premier and the Minister of Finance made it quite clear that you can't continue to expect the hard-working people in this province, who put $23 billion more into Ottawa's coffers than we get back

-- essentially, there's just so much we can do. We have our own needs in Ontario.

That's why I was quite interested in some of headlines that talked about "the rich provinces." Sure, Ontario is a so-called rich province, but we have a lot of

needs in this province. If you look at northern Ontario, at our First Nations people, at our cities, we have compelling needs that we also have to take care of. Hopefully, the federal government

and our other Confederation partners will realize that Ontario will be better able to contribute to the fiscal health of this country by ensuring that it's strong, that we can create wealth,

whether it be in the financial sector, in raw materials or in our agricultural sector. As I said, all of our hard-working people in Ontario deserve a bit of consideration. The fact is, we do pay a

lot of taxes, we work hard, and we can generate a lot of help for all of the Canadian provinces.

I was glad to