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

May 16, 2005

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 2005-May-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 16 May 2005 Lundi 16 mai 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

ONTARIO BUDGET

PENSION FUNDS

HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO BUDGET

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

NURSES

HEALTH CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MISSING PERSONS

REPORTING ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE SIGNALEMENT

DES PERSONNES DISPARUES

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE /

ACCÈS AUX SOINS DE SANTÉ

SABRINA'S LAW, 2005 /

LOI SABRINA DE 2005

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

HEALTH CARE

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

HIGHWAY 69

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

HEALTH CARE

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

PETITIONS

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

NORTHERN ECONOMY

CLASS SIZE

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

SCHOOL FACILITIES

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

TAXATION

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2005 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I wish to point out a bit of a bait and switch in this year's budget. Just last year, this

government cried poor in order to take between $300 and $900 out of the pockets of working people in Ontario for what was referred to as a health premium; maybe it was a tax. It was an illegal

health tax, essentially. In their next breath, the government turned around and delisted key OHIP services, many that our most vulnerable people rely on. After announcing billions in extra

taxpayer-funded revenue last week, the budget still remains in deficit and calls for not one red cent of extra revenue to go back to those same working Ontarians we depend upon to continue to drive

our economy.

If this illegal health tax had led to shorter waiting lists and stability in our hospitals, that would be one thing, but that's simply not the case. Waiting

lists grow; nurses continue to be laid off, and we've heard that the lack of support will lead to thousands more leaving in the next year. Where has that extra revenue gone? Has it gone to more

bureaucracy? Has it gone to higher salaries? This, while deserving rural communities, some in my riding, are shut out of needed infrastructure funding. When is this government going to do the right

thing and return at least part of that illegal health tax to the rightful owners?

STRATFORD FESTIVAL

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): On May 30, the Stratford Festival of Canada will mark the opening of its 53rd season with a production of

The Tempest, one of Shakespeare's great late romances, starring the great Canadian actor William Hutt as Prospero.

Drawing audiences of more than 600,000 each year, the festival season runs from April to November and includes, this year, a wonderful array of 15 productions

offered at our four theatres, including three by Shakespeare himself. If that were not enough, the season also includes a full program of fringe activities, including concert recitals, discussion

sessions and readings by celebrated authors.

This past weekend, I was very pleased to join Premier McGuinty as we attended a performance of Hello, Dolly! one of two musicals being staged at the festival

this summer A must-see, the musical is highly entertaining and good for all ages.

Our government is committed to the arts, as Ontario's culture helps bind us together and provides the basis for vibrant economic growth. This past winter, the

Stratford Festival of Canada received $60,000 from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation through the industry partners proposal program to specifically market the Stratford Escapes festival

package program into the Michigan market.

On a more local note, I invite all members and their constituents to visit the Stratford Festival this season, and I stand ready to assist them.

Finally, I want to commend artistic director Richard Monette and executive director Antoni Cimolino for the creation of yet another wonderful festival

season.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): After hearing the budget speech last week, my constituents have one big question for the McGuinty Liberals: How

do you raise taxes one year and then run a big deficit the next year?

Before the election, the McGuinty Liberals first claimed there would be a $5-billion deficit and then wrote an election plan saying there was no deficit. They

made a solemn promise to the people that they would not run deficits and would not raise taxes. Dalton McGuinty gave his personal, solemn word. He signed the pledge. He said he had a plan. He said

we could trust his word, that he would not raise our taxes and that he would balance the budget.

Then they took power and said that the deficit was $5.6 billion, so they broke their solemn election promise and raised taxes.

What happened to the deficit? It's still there. Even after raising taxes, they cannot balance the books. They have embarked on a spending spree. Spending is up

$5.5 billion this year alone. The McGuinty Liberals can't make the hard decisions needed, so they solve their problems by spending.

The PC Party has the experience of cleaning up the mess left behind by tax-and-spend governments. We did it once, and we will do it again under the leadership of

John Tory.

PENSION FUNDS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Saturday's Globe and Mail exposed a restructuring proposal cooked up by Stelco management that would curtail

employee pension rights and slow down the rate at which the company repays its employee pension plan.

As a member from the city of Hamilton, I can tell you that Stelco workers, pensioners, salaried employees and retirees are very upset about what has happened to

their pensions. Instead of being invested wisely and kept secure for their employees' retirement years, those pensions were depleted by the firm, which is now under bankruptcy protection.

News of Stelco's plan to freeze pensions for 11 years, until 2016, has fed the employees' mistrust. The government shouldn't allow a freeze. For a full year and

a half, under creditor protection, Stelco hasn't done anything to improve their billion-dollar pension gap. Seniors, pensioners and retirees have been sick with stress and worry, watching this

nightmare unfold.

The NDP believe it's high time to review the pension laws and reform them so that people's retirement savings and security are truly protected.

The Ontario government has a major role to play, but the McGuinty Liberals are behaving like tourists watching the world go by. The McGuinty government should be

aggressive in dealing with the Stelco pension issue. Any financing deal approved by the government must have a significant down payment on the unfunded pension liability and a clear plan to pay off

the remainder of the gap within the five-year time frame allowed under the law.

If the pension repayment

schedule extends beyond the five-year frame, the government should simply use all the tools at its disposal to guarantee the outstanding

amount to ensure ironclad protection for Stelco workers.

If they really care about the workers, whose money is at risk, the McGuinty Liberals should step up with meaningful financial guarantees that take the heat off

the employees and put it on Stelco, where it belongs.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I would like to talk about an important measure in the recent Ontario budget that will help our province

fight cancer and deliver accessible, high-quality services.

One of the most important accomplishments is the reduction of wait times throughout the province. Our recent budget will increase the number of cancer surgeries

by an additional 2,900 in this year alone.

Families and individuals around the province and the Canadian Cancer Society all welcome the move toward a more coordinated cancer research system. Of the

government's approach to reducing cancer waiting lists, Peter Goodhand, CEO, Ontario division of the Canadian Cancer Society, says, "This is good news."

We are moving forward with an aggressive plan to keep Ontarians healthy. We have introduced a number of proactive measures to reach these goals.

To improve and protect universal health care in Ontario, we passed the Commitment to Medicare Act, which banned "pay your way to the front of the line" health

care.

To address the number one killer in Ontario, we have introduced legislation to make public places and workplaces in Ontario smoke-free within three years. We've

also launched a province-wide ad campaign aimed at youth, stupid.ca, and supported a toll-free smokers' help line.

To shorten hospital waiting times, we initiated a wait-times strategy by investing $107 million this year to reduce waiting times in five key areas: cataract

surgery, cancer surgery, cardiac procedures, hip and knee joint replacements, and MRI/CT exams.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Will Ontario voters be fooled again? That is the question that comes to mind following the McGuinty budget, which

once again promises to do everything for everyone. Ontario has heard promises from Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals before, and they have been disappointed before.

They were told there would be no new taxes before, and that promise was broken when every hard-working Ontarian was slapped with the illegal McGuinty health tax.

It was illegal because it was imposed despite the fact that legislation existed at the time that made it illegal to impose a new tax without the consent of the taxpayers by way of a referendum.

Ontarians were told, once again, that there would be no new taxes, but Dalton McGuinty forgot to tell taxpayers that his illegal health tax would hit them twice

as hard this coming year by making us pay twice as much for fewer services. Once again he has broken trust with the people of this province through longer waits, fewer services and fewer medical

doctors to deliver those services.

Is it any wonder that people in this province have lost faith in this government, have lost trust in the Premier, with fewer services and twice as much to pay in

their health tax? It will not be forgotten by the people of Ontario.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I'm the good news. I rise in the House today to recognize the commitment that the McGuinty government made to

McMaster University's research park in the 2005 budget.

McMaster University will turn a former factory site known as Camco into an idea factory with the help of this government. This $10-million contribution is the

first contribution by a senior level of government and will finance the next stage of development of a life sciences research park to be completed by 2007. When fully developed, the research and

technology park will house over one million square feet of laboratory, office, teaching and training space, as well as conference facilities.

In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance said, "Research is at the core of intelligent societies.... It's the fuel of our economic engine." These are not

just words. This investment in the innovation park in Hamilton shows our commitment to R&D. Brian Wilson, president of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, acknowledged this as a key investment in

the city's future.

We in Hamilton West are extremely proud of our academic institutions. The $6.2-billion investment in post-secondary education shows that this government shares

our values and recognizes the talents in our academic institutions and in our citizens in Hamilton. The investment in the McMaster innovation park is just another sign of the vitality of Hamilton's

economic future.

NURSES

Ms. Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Last week, we celebrated and learned from nurses across Ontario during 2005's Take Your MPP to Work

Week. In Etobicoke-Lakeshore, I personally saw the passion that nurses have for their jobs.

As we all know, nursing is key to quality health care. Last week, I had the opportunity to attend Trillium Health Centre's nursing awards and excellence dinner,

where we marked the unique contribution of nurses. I also went to work at the Queensway site of Trillium in Etobicoke. During my visit, I observed nurses in a variety of roles, working both

independently and collaboratively to provide a wide range of services to the citizens in our community. Last, I visited Lakeshore Lodge Home for the Aged to speak about the important role that

nurses play in caring for the elderly in our long-term-care homes.

With the release of our 2005 budget, I'm happy to say that we are continuing to improve and invest in nurses.

Our plan includes a $32.9-billion investment in health care this year and will mean more doctors and nurses, shorter waiting times and a plan to keep Ontarians

healthier. In nursing, we have provided funding for more than 3,000 new full-time nursing positions in hospitals, long-term-care homes, home care and community agencies. We've also established 52

family health teams of doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners and other health professionals who will work together to provide one million Ontarians with access to health care day and night, seven

days a week, close to home.

I want to thank the nurses in Etobicoke-Lakeshore for opening their doors to me last week. I know that the valuable work you do affects lives daily, and we are

truly thankful for your efforts.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): John Tory doesn't know where he stands on health care. He won't tell the people of Ontario whether he

plans to devastate our health care system immediately or whether he plans to devastate it over a long period of time. He owes it to the people of Ontario to fess up.

In contrast, our government has laid out a clear set of goals to provide Ontarians with high-quality, accessible health care services. These goals are crucial to

providing Ontarians with a level of service that they've asked for, that they need and deserve.

Our agenda includes promoting healthier lifestyles and increasing public health funding, new vaccination programs for children, smoking cessation programs,

banning junk food from vending machines in elementary schools, the reduction of wait times and an increase in the number of full-time nurses, and an unprecedented focus on primary care through

family health teams.

We will continue to ensure that our hospitals have the resources they need to provide quality and accessible care. We will provide adequate funding to secure new

full-time nursing positions throughout the health care sector right across Ontario. An investment of over half a billion dollars in hospitals will provide enhanced opportunities for nurses. We have

also provided $292 million in investments in community-based mental health services, as well as a $264-million investment in long-term-care homes, which will result in the creation of new positions

for nurses.

Why won't John Tory give Ontarians a straight answer on whether he will cut $2.4 billion out of health care immediately or whether he will bleed the system to

death gradually? Why won't he tell us what he's going to cut out of health care? That's what I would call back-of-the-napkin planning.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MISSING PERSONS

REPORTING ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE SIGNALEMENT

DES PERSONNES DISPARUES

Mr. Racco moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 198,

An Act to amend various Acts in respect of the reporting of missing persons from care facilities / Projet de loi 198, Loi modifiant diverses lois

à l'égard du signalement des personnes disparues d'établissements de soins.

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

Mr. Racco?

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): The bill amends the Charitable Institutions Act, the Developmental Services Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest

Homes Act and the Nursing Homes Act to ensure that police are immediately notified when a resident of a care facility operated under one of those acts goes missing. I ask that the House support

it.

RURAL ONTARIO DAY ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ONTARIO RURAL

Mrs. Mitchell moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 199,

An Act to celebrate and recognize rural Ontario / Projet de loi 199, Loi visant à célébrer et à reconnaître l'Ontario

rural.

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

Mrs. Mitchell?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): This bill, if passed, will declare June 21 as Rural Ontario Day. This day will recognize those who have made

a commitment to strong rural communities and highlight the rural way of life. I look forward to private members' business.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 p.m. till 9:30 p.m. on Monday, May 16, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, please say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flaherty, Jim

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE /

ACCÈS AUX SOINS DE SANTÉ

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It is with great pride that I rise in my place today to speak about one of the

most significant initiatives in our government's budget this year, and it involves access to doctors.

Ontario needs more doctors. It is as simple as that. We inherited a situation from previous governments in which approximately one million people in this

province do not have access to a family doctor. These orphan patients, as they are called, are depending upon us to do something about that. All Ontarians are depending upon us to do something

about that because they understand, as do we, that a million people without a doctor is unacceptable in a society that prides itself on a system of public health care. And so we have acted.

The budget we introduced last week contains a provision to increase the number of medical school undergraduate positions by 15% over the next four years.

Through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, this $95-million investment will result in 104 new first-year undergraduate positions being added to Ontario's medical schools,

beginning this fall. It will also be used to improve programs in the five existing medical schools, to better fund the clinical evaluation for health sciences students and to create a new nursing

program for northern Ontario. Over and above all that, it will result in care for thousands and thousands of Ontarians, many of whom might not have previously had access to a doctor at all.

I want to make it clear that we are not, with this investment, simply throwing money at our medical schools and telling them to create more spaces. We are, in

fact, going to be working very closely with our schools, devising a rollout plan for these new positions. We will be looking for innovative ways of meeting our current needs, such as support for

primary care and, of course, providing better access to care in our underserviced communities.

This is only the latest step we've taken in the past 19 months to improve the access Ontarians have to a doctor. The truth is that we've been working double

time since taking office, trying to make up for the ground that was sadly lost in the course of two previous governments. We more than doubled the number of training spots for international medical

graduates, from 90 to 200 -- that's a lot of qualified people who, until now, have had their dreams of practising medicine in Ontario frustrated -- giving them a crack at making their dreams come

true. And we need them. We established a program with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to repatriate doctors practising outside Ontario who would like to work here. We increased the number of

family residency positions in our medical schools. By 2008, we will have produced an additional 340 family doctors, providing care to some 400,000 Ontarians.

Then there's the deal we reached with the Ontario Medical Association. This is an extremely good deal both for patients and for doctors. It will reward docs

for practising medicine in new and better ways, including spending more time working with seniors and managing chronic disease, helping people stay healthy. It will also reward them for working in

more efficient, comprehensive health teams, and it will offer specific incentives to doctors who practise in northern and rural communities. Overall, it will bring more doctors to Ontario, because

it will make Ontario a better, more competitive place to practise.

One of our signature initiatives as a government, one of the most positive steps we are taking to improve access to health care for Ontarians and to improve

that quality of care, is the creation of family health teams. Last month, we established the first new family health teams -- 52 of them, along with three family health team networks -- where

doctors work in practice with others, with nurses, nurse practitioners and other health care professionals, providing around-the-clock care to patients close to home. Thirty-five of these new

family health teams will be located in communities considered to be underserviced in terms of family physicians. That means that thousands of former orphan patients will have access to a whole team

of health care professionals working together on their behalf. This year's budget is going to support the creation of more family health teams, and by 2007-08, we will have created 150,

establishing the capacity to deliver care to an estimated 2.5 million Ontarians.

In short, we have done, we are doing and we are going to continue to do a very great deal to bring more doctors to Ontario and to ensure that the people of

this province have better access to the health care they need. We have a vision of health care in Ontario that we share with Ontarians: a system that will help people be healthier, that will get

them good care when they're sick and that will be there for generations to come. With initiatives like increasing the number of medical school spaces in this province, we are taking a big step

forward in taking that vision to reality.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm very pleased that the Liberal government has seen fit to build upon the vision and the

foundation for increasing access to medical care that our government put in place. As the Minister of Health knows, but doesn't want to acknowledge, it was our government that appointed the expert

panel to undertake long-term planning to address Ontario's physician shortage. In fact, I'm very pleased to say that it was our government that introduced primary care reform -- the first province

in Canada.

This government continues to rebrand the same PC program, but I have to tell you that by the time September 2003 rolled around, we actually had 3,000

physicians in this province who had joined primary care models serving three million patients. I'm pleased to say that one of the first patients to sign up -- and John O'Toole witnessed this -- was

Dr. Neil McLeod in Thunder Bay, and Ruth Wilson was there to witness that taking place. So thank you for building on our model. If you want to give it another name, that's fine. We're just glad

you're doing what you can to improve access.

Our government also increased access to medical schools by 30%, so you're not quite there, Minister. We also expanded the international medical graduate

program for foreign-trained physicians. Of course, as the minister and the government well know, it was we who announced the first new medical school in northern Ontario, and I'm glad it's finally

getting set up. I would say to the government today, I'm glad you're building on our foundation and on our vision. We believe it's important.

However, you have not yet delivered on a promise from your 2004 budget. You said you would introduce a health human resources strategy. You haven't done it.

There is no strategy or plan in place, which I think is regrettable because, unfortunately, we don't have much detail today as to how these positions are going to be phased in. Furthermore, if

there's no long-term-care planning, how do people know what type of residency programs are going to be available in the next four years? You must expand residency spaces.

The other thing you have to do is continue to improve access for Canadians who have graduated from international medical schools. I would say to you that

presently we have 260 Canadians who are completing their medical degrees in Ireland. These students desperately want to come back to Ontario, but the policy we have today makes it difficult and

adds at least two years to the total process. I would encourage you to allow these graduates to apply for residency in their fourth year. That would encourage these badly needed medical students to

come back to Ontario and practise here. This government knows that other Canadian provinces, such as Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, allow these graduates to enter into the second round of the

Canadian residency matching service. You could do the same thing here.

If you're really committed to improving access to doctors in the province of Ontario, continue to build on our foundation, but at the same time allow these

students in Ireland to return to Ontario. Also make sure you have residency spaces for the new students that you're going to allow into our medical schools and continue to remove the barriers for

these very qualified, internationally trained physicians.

There's much more that you could do. I would encourage you to go back and focus on the expert panel recommendations.

I would just remind you of a couple of other things that we did. We doubled the number of community development offices to help underserviced areas recruit

doctors. We expanded the two northern family medicine residency programs by increasing the number of entry training positions by 25%. Another olive branch that we handed out to doctors who were

willing to practise in underserviced areas was to announce $4 million in funding for free tuition and location incentives to new doctors.

Today I say to the government, I'm glad you recognize that we had a vision, that we had a great foundation. I want to congratulate you on continuing the work

we started to address the doctor shortage and improve access to medical care.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to check some facts as related by the Minister of Health today, because this is another

announcement that is more spin than it is reality. I think this is very important for people across Ontario, because the reality for people across Ontario is that over the next few years it's going

to become more and more difficult to find a family physician, not easier, and I want people to know why.

First of all, the Minister of Health's propaganda campaign against physicians last fall really angered doctors. It angered doctors to the extent that many of

them came forward and said, "I'm leaving the province" -- and that is happening. When the government engaged in a propaganda campaign against physicians and then suggested that it was going to

legislate physicians according to terms of work, that went a long way in terms of burning bridges and destroying relationships. We know that there are physicians who are leaving Ontario today

because of that wrong-headed approach by the McGuinty government.

Second, the government says that they want to increase medical school spaces by 104 new first-year undergraduate positions. But you have to read the fine

print. Only 26 of those positions will happen next year, and 26 the following year, 26 the year after that and 26 the year after that. We'll be into 2009 when this announcement is actually

implemented. The reality is that with four years of medical school and two years of residency, this policy will not take practical effect until sometime in 2012, 2013, 2014, if then. Meanwhile, we

have the reality of a community like Geraldton, where virtually all of the family physicians have indicated that they're quitting and that they're leaving the community. Geraldton is just the tip

of the iceberg, because that is also happening in other communities, where physicians are simply saying, "I'm out of here."

Third, the minister tried to dress up his announcement by referring to the so-called new family health teams, saying that there are 52 new family health teams.

In fact, over half of these are simply renaming the family health programs put in place by the former Conservative government. Simply renaming something that wasn't working very well under the

former government hardly presents something new for people across Ontario who cannot get a family physician.

Finally, I know that this announcement includes a pilot project for the training of nurses in small communities -- a good pilot project. But I say to the

minister, in terms of nurses, that it needs to move beyond being a pilot project very quickly, because in all kinds of communities across this province not only are we running short of family

physicians, but we are running short of nurses as well, and the one problem is just as serious as the other.

I say to people across Ontario, I know the Minister of Health wants to spin this as a brave new world and a brave new announcement. Much of it is a

reannouncement. Some of it is renaming what the former government put in place, and I have to say it wasn't working that effectively. But this is not going to produce any new physicians for Ontario

communities -- not in four years, not in five years and not in six years. In the meantime, there are lots of communities across Ontario that are going to encounter more and more severe nursing

shortages and more and more severe physician shortages.

Et je dis à tout le monde dans la province de l'Ontario que la question est claire : où se trouvent les médecins pour les petites

communautés dans le nord, pour les petites communautés francophones dans la province de l'Ontario?

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for the order of third reading of Bill 3,

An Act to protect

anaphylactic pupils, to be called immediately, and for the Speaker to put the question for third reading forthwith, without debate or amendment, and that if a recorded vote is necessary, the

division bells be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

SABRINA'S LAW, 2005 /

LOI SABRINA DE 2005

Mr. Levac moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic pupils / Projet de loi 3, Loi visant à protéger les élèves anaphylactiques.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1415 to 1420

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Horwath, Andrea

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 75; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise to take a moment to thank the members of this House, the Premier, the

Ministers of Education and Health, and my colleagues in the official opposition and the third party for their co-operation in the successful passage of this bill today. All members of this House

understand the importance of this law, Sabrina's law. It will go a long way toward the safety of our children.

I know that our guests in the gallery have fought a long fight with their children, who are with us today, especially Max Eck, a 6-year-old boy who created

Epi-Man, a superhero. They have worked tirelessly for this bill. I want to thank my honourable colleagues in this House for the good work we do. We will save a life.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order, but I accept it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Acting Premier. My question is about the inability of your government to stick to

fiscal plans in Ontario. Before the election in 2003, the Premier promised that he would not increase taxes, that he would hold the line on taxes. After the election, we had the largest single tax

increase in the history of the province of Ontario. Why did we have that tax? According to the Premier, "To honour my commitment that I made to Ontarians, which was to hold the line on their taxes

and to make investments in health care and education, was impossible." Why? Because he said that there was a revenue problem.

Then we saw the budget last week, and a massive tax revenue windfall because of the extra work done by the people of Ontario creating that revenue. But is

there a reduction in taxes? No. Is there anything going back to the people of Ontario? No. There was massive new spending of more than $1 billion last year. Why don't you give some of the money

back to the people of Ontario --

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

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I appreciate the opportunity to get this one-last-gasp question from the

honourable member, soon to depart, he hopes, for greener fields. He had the opportunity in the minute of his question to underscore so well the fundamental incoherence that is the heart of that

party.

The honourable member stands in his place and asks about hitting the numbers, when this honourable member himself was a prominent member of a government that

told Ontarians on one day that there was no deficit, and Ontarians learned only a few days later that the government of the day was concealing a $5.6-billion deficit. I ask the honourable member,

as he takes the opportunity to stand in this House for another minute, to tell us just what the impact would be of the proposed $2.4-billion cut to health care that his leader is currently

proposing.

Mr. Flaherty: I'll tell you what the impact is. Do you know what the impact is of your spending increases? Next year, there's going to be as

much money spent on interest on the debt -- $10 billion -- as is spent on education for primary and secondary schools in the province of Ontario. Congratulations on wasting $10 billion of

taxpayers' money.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to ask the government side to come to order. I can't hear the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Flaherty: I hear the Minister of Natural Resources say, "Who cares about this?" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It doesn't mean that when I sit down, you start talking; that's not what it means.

Mr. Flaherty: I hear the Minister of Natural Resources say, "Who cares about this?" Well, it's obvious that you don't care about debt; you

don't care about deficits. Deficits are tomorrow's taxes, plus interest. When I was the Minister of Finance, we reduced the public debt by a record amount of $3.1 billion. You should be seizing the

opportunity to reduce deficits and debt in the province of Ontario and to give something back to the people who work half the year now to pay taxes to your government. Why don't you do it? Seize

the opportunity; do the right thing. Reduce the tax burden to the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): It is passing strange to hear lectures from a former Conservative finance minister who drove this

province during good economic times into the most significant debt we have ever experienced in good economic times. Now, before he leaves to wreak some of that havoc on the federal Parliament, he

has one last lecture. I want to tell my friend that for the first year in a very long time, we've set ourselves an objective for deficit reduction, and we exceeded that objective by 100%. We're

cutting the deficit, we've got a plan to eliminate the deficit we inherited, and I don't need any advice from that former minister.

Mr. Flaherty: Actually, I'll be pleased, Minister of Finance, to leave this place having balanced the budget and reduced the public debt by

$3.1 billion, two things you'll probably never do in this place. I wish you good luck. Some day --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll give you an opportunity to ask a final supplementary.

Order. The member for Whitby-Ajax listened very attentively when the response was being given. I would like the same courtesy extended to him when he is asking

the question.

Mr. Flaherty: I was pointing out to the Minister of Finance that he has never balanced a budget and he has never reduced the public debt, both

of which I was proud to do. I hope you do it some day. Work at it, and I hope you do it some day.

Then I see in the budget -- here is a Paul Martin-esque thing now. This is good. Look at this: an increase in the reserve from $1 billion to $1.5 billion. This

is putting money aside; this is the phony surplus stuff that we get in the federal government now, so that at the end of the day the Minister of Finance and the Premier can make themselves look

good.

People are paying more and getting less. The people in Whitby are paying, on average, as a family, $1,000 more a year, and what do they get for it? Longer

waiting lists at Lakeridge Health, nursing layoffs at Lakeridge Health. Give them at least some of their own money back so they can carry on their lives and support their families.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: This from the representative from Whitby-Ajax, who is about to pack up all his little political tricks and take them up to

Ottawa.

Let me just tell you about one of those tricks. In the budget that he presented in this Legislature, at the very last minute, what did he slip in? A huge new

tax credit for private schools, with public taxpayers' money. Now he's going to go sell that in Ottawa.

I just want to invite my friend from Whitby-Ajax to do what his leader has done and acknowledge that our investment in post-secondary education is the most

historic and significant investment in 40 years and is hailed by the Leader of the Opposition, and to do what his leader has done and acknowledge that our investment in infrastructure -- $30

billion over the course of the next five years -- will be a new foundation for this economy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I will start naming some members today. I am in a naming mood today, so I will start naming members if they can't come to

order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I would start by warning the Attorney General.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Acting Premier. As you know, the unexpected $1.2 billion in revenues

generated by Ontario businesses last year did give you the opportunity to help hard-working Ontarians. Rather than doing that, you continued to punish them by doubling the cost of your illegal

health tax. We now know that hospitals are also going to be forced to make significant staff and program cuts because of the lack of a plan and your misspent priorities.

Despite the fact that revenues are higher, despite the fact that the OHA is going to have to make some cuts, why are you forcing Ontarians to pay double your

illegal health tax this year, and yet they are getting less health care because you've privatized eye exams and chiropractic services?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The incoherence of the Tory party continues. With them, it comes down to this:

Tory, Tory, same old story. Here they are one more time complaining out of one side of their mouth that there should be a reduction in the amount of revenue that the province takes in, and on the

other hand calling for additional investments in essential public services.

I'm proud to confirm for the honourable member that as a result of the commitment of the people of the province of Ontario to a good-quality health care

system, my ministry has the opportunity this year to invest fully $1.8 billion more resources. In what things? In things like double-digit increases in five key areas related to wait times, in

addressing the critical shortages of doctors that were created on that party's watch and that party's watch.

We will continue to invest appropriately in our hospitals, which this year are seeing a 4.7% increase, almost 1% fuller than was projected last year, and $500

million --

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

Mrs. Witmer: Talk about incoherence and lack of a plan. This is a government that's had four plans in less than two years. Talk about

incoherence. This is the government that criticized P3 hospitals, and now you're introducing private-public partnerships yourself.

Let's get back to the issue at hand: your illegal health tax, which people are going to pay double for this year despite the fact that you had an additional

$1.2 billion in corporate revenues. I say to you today that you had the opportunity to do the right thing to help those hard-working Ontarians who are paying more for mortgages, gas and hydro. Why

won't you take this opportunity to help them and give back some of your illegal health tax?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Here we go again. This party does not have the courage or the clarity to stand in its place and say -- with respect, the

honourable member is part of a party that is proposing a $2.4-billion cut to health care. The first phase of that, according to the honourable member's seatmate, who hasn't made it today to talk

about this, is a $240-million cut.

Perhaps in the next question the honourable member can tell us what health care project, what priority, they would be stealing $240 million from? That is at

the heart of the incoherence of this party.

We are a government that's investing in the essential public services that Ontarians depend upon. Hard-working families in Ontario need support for things like

vaccinations. They need to know that when mom has cataracts, they're going to be done. Those are the investments at the heart of our government's budget, and we make no apology for investing the

dollars of Ontarians in public services.

Mrs. Witmer: Talk about lack of clarity, coming from this Minister of Health. It was our government that added $10 billion to the health

budget and added 12,000 additional nursing positions. I say to you today, we know that last year you laid off nearly 800 nurses and you paid for their severance costs -- absolutely unbelievable

that you would do that.

We now know that the OHA is telling us that you're probably going to have to cut, because you're not going to be able to provide the funding, an additional

4,000 nurses and health care support workers. Even the RNAO is very concerned about your lack of a plan to hire the 8,000 new nursing positions that you promised.

I say to you today that you introduced this illegal health tax, and all you're doing is hurting Ontarians, who are getting fewer health services than ever

before. Will you at the very least return a portion of this illegal health tax that isn't going to nurses, other than to fire them?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member stands in her place, and her proposition on behalf of the Tory party is to cut $240 million as

their beginning investment on a $2.4-billion cut to health care. Then, in the same breath, she talks about enhanced services in health care.

We're the government that's putting the money of Ontarians behind the important services that they need:

-- 10% increases in key wait-time areas: cataracts, cardiac, access to cancer service, hip and knee replacement, access to MRI and CT. Why? Because Ontarians

said they needed that.

-- Growing more doctors in Ontario. Why? Because it is the sad legacy of that party that they sat on their duffs for five years while the list of

underserviced communities grew from 60 to 142.

That is that member's health care legacy, and I don't need any lectures from the Hula Hoop party about nurses.

Mrs. Witmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister is not telling the truth. The only people talking about --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let's get some order here.

The member from Kitchener-Waterloo did make an unparliamentary comment. I would ask you to withdraw.

Mrs. Witmer: I wanted to correct the record. If I said anything inappropriate, I would withdraw.

The Speaker: Would you stand up and say that?

Mrs. Witmer: Yes, I would withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the acting Premier. In last week's budget, Ontarians learned that under the

McGuinty government, profit-driven corporations and enterprises will now be profiting from Ontario schools, hospitals, highway and transit systems, and sewer and water systems. That means that

Ontario taxpayers will pay more -- a lot more -- for new schools, new hospitals, new roads and new water systems. Why? Because profit-driven corporations will charge much higher interest rates for

money loaned to build a school, and they will want to make a profit on that loan. It means the Bay Street financiers will do very well, but it means that Ontario taxpayers will pay 30% to 40% more

to see a school built or to see a transit system built. So my question is, when did you decide that our schools, our hospitals, our sewer and water systems, and our transit systems were going to

become the playthings of people who are seeking profit rather than the public interest?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I refer this question to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I don't know where the member opposite gets his figures from. Clearly, they are

not correct. I would like to bring to the attention of the member something that a very prominent person once said. I want to quote: "As well, Metro Toronto presents, in the long term, some

interesting possibilities for partnership with private developers. For example, it might be possible to construct courts and to construct commercial space and to construct housing in co-operation

with a private developer."

Now, that was one Howard Hampton on October 9, 1991. Clearly, the member opposite had a different view when he made those comments to the Globe and Mail. I

don't know where he gets his comments today. In additional supplementaries I will be more than happy to share our principle-based framework for investment in Ontario's infrastructure, because it's

badly needed, as the member has pointed out on occasion.

Mr. Hampton: I hate to have to tell the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal that there is something a lot different about renting

courtroom space in a building and building hospitals, schools, sewer and water systems, and transit systems. If you don't know the difference, then your government is in even more trouble.

We spent some time checking with some of the private financiers, who are saying that if it is a public infrastructure project, whether it is a school, a

hospital or a transit system, they want at least a 10% interest rate on borrowed capital. Right now, your government could put out a 30-year bond for 5%. A billion dollars borrowed at 10% through

private financiers and a billion dollars borrowed at 5% interest through a government bond repaid over 30 years amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars' difference. That's what you're telling

Ontario taxpayers to pay: hundreds of millions of dollars more to private financiers. Tell us why Ontario taxpayers should pay hundreds of millions more just to finance your Bay Street friends.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: The short answer is that they won't. In fact, independent evidence on using this method of financing shows that 88% of the

time, the projects come in on time and on budget, saving taxpayers considerable dollars. I would listen to the former NDP Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, who said on the weekend, "I think that the

public sector unions would be foolhardy to resist that, when now their funds are being used elsewhere," in the UK, in the United States and in Australia, to fund the needed infrastructure all

around the world.

Why does the member opposite have problems with pension-sector dollars invested in Ontario to rehabilitate, to rebuild the province of Ontario? Your former

colleague, the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Laughren, seemed to think that is a good idea, as do other jurisdictions all around the world, including one Howard Hampton.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: Maybe the McGuinty government can explain to taxpayers in Ontario why they'd have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more

with private financing to have a hospital built than if you simply put out a 30-year bond and got a much lower interest rate. Maybe you could answer that question.

I have a quote from one Dalton McGuinty, who said just about two years ago, "We believe in public ownership and financing. I will take these hospitals and

bring them inside the public sector."

That's what he said about the Brampton hospital. We now know the Brampton hospital is going to cost $175 million more because of private financing, because the

private financing, when you work it out over a 25- or 30-year period, will want that much profit and that much higher interest rates. So tell us again, why should taxpayers end up paying hundreds

of millions of dollars more for public assets just because you want to help out your Bay Street financial friends?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: Once again, the member is wrong. In fact, there is not this mythical additional cost. The Brampton hospital is a public

hospital, as the Premier had commented. In fact, if you look at the framework for investment -- the five key principles -- core assets like hospitals, schools and water will always be in the public

realm, will always be in public hands.

On page 18 of Public Power, Mr. Hampton says, "Private investors attracted to the security and stability of government-backed bonds will ... be a primary

source of future capital financing needed to upgrade and, when necessary, expand our system."

I really think it's Mr. Hampton who has some explaining to do. One day he believes that we require the private sector to make these important investments in

our infrastructure, yet today he seems to have some different kind of an opinion. I think you should take a principle-based approach like the Premier and this government did to make sure we get

much-needed investment --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr. Hampton: I think it's sad that the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal doesn't understand the difference between a public bond

offering at 5% and private corporate financing at 10% interest.

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to take the McGuinty government back to another promise they made. You promised a new

relationship with First Nations communities, but instead the McGuinty government cut the First Nations secretariat by 22%. Acting Premier, I wonder if you could tell the First Nations of Ontario,

how does cutting the budget of the First Nations secretariat by 22% create a new and positive relationship with Ontario's First Nations?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The minister responsible for native affairs.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'm glad the

member asked that question, because I think it's important that people understand that in fact there was a one-time payment for the settlement of a land claim in last year's budget. Of course, it

was a one-time cost, and we're not going to pay for that land claim twice. We're going to pay for that land claim in order to discharge our responsibilities to First Nations. As a result of that,

last year's budget reflected that land claim. The following budget, in fact, reflected continued stable funding for the Native Affairs Secretariat. The difference between the two is that one year

we paid a land claim, a one-time cost, and the next year we didn't.

Mr. Hampton: I think the message to First Nations across Ontario is that the McGuinty government won't be settling any more land claims. It's

clear you're not budgeting for any land claims.

I want to point out another absence in the budget. We know that paper mills and pulp mills across northern Ontario are either shutting down paper machines or

looking at shutting down whole mills. We know that it's the McGuinty government policy of substantially increasing hydro rates that is driving that process. We were hoping, in your budget, to see

an investment strategy for the forest sector. We've been waiting for some time to see the nomination of a cogeneration facilitator. Yet we had a budget that provided nothing in terms of an

investment strategy for the forest sector, and you still haven't named a cogeneration facilitator. You have an investment strategy for auto, for casinos, for television and movie production. Where

was your investment strategy for the forest sector in this budget?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I know in a further supplementary I'll be happy to deal with the question with respect to investments in forestry, but I just

want to say to the member that I was surprised to hear him say at the beginning of his question that the message to First Nations was that we would not be settling any more land claims. I've got

some news for you, I say to the leader of the third party: I and my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, David Ramsay, are going to in fact finally ratify the settlement of the Rainy River

First Nation's land claim, up in your riding, sir. We're going to be in your riding doing that. We have 15 fully implemented settlement agreements in place and, in addition, three final settlement

agreements are already being implemented and four final settlement agreements await ratification. We are working to increase the pace of claims settlement in the province of Ontario, and we are on

track to do that right now. That, sir, is the message to the First Nations and aboriginal people of Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: I have to inform the minister that the Rainy River land claim was paid out last year, and it's very clear that there is no money

in your budget to settle land claims now or in the future.

I want to go back to another part of the budget where people were told they don't matter. We know that there is a farm crisis virtually across this province.

We know that farmer after farmer across this province is facing the loss of their livelihood, the loss of everything they've worked for. Yet what happened in this budget? We see a 23% cut in the

budget of the Ministry of Agriculture.

You're telling First Nations they don't matter, you're telling forest workers, pulp and paper mill workers in northern Ontario that they don't matter and

you're telling farmers that they really don't figure in your plans as well. Can you tell us, Minister, at a time when farmers are in crisis, why does the McGuinty government cut their budget by 23%

and have no idea of a plan to reposition Ontario farmers so they don't lose their livelihoods, their homes and all they've worked for?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: There he goes again. The truth is that we have 15 fully implemented settlement agreements and four final settlement

agreements await ratification. The member knows; he understands this, and I don't know why he's not saying this.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I know why.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: You do? Of course, built within the budget are contingencies to deal with the ability for a cabinet and for a government to

ratify land claims. That's how it works, and he knows that's how it works. The good news is that not only are we increasing the pace of claims settlements, but we've also established a relationship

between First Nations and the government of Ontario that in the words of chief Charles Fox is probably the brightest day for First Nations and the government of Ontario that they have had since

Bill Davis was the Premier -- I notice he skipped over a couple in between. But I will say that the ability of First Nations and the cabinet to sit down on a regular basis, the triennial

negotiations that we have in place and the new relationship that the government has with First Nations and aboriginal peoples is a very bright future --

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

HIGHWAY 69

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for Minister of Northern Development and Mines. You have in the past repeatedly demanded

action on Highway 69 four-laning, and let me remind you of some of the things you've said in the past. You asked when the government would finally listen to the many families who lost loved ones on

Highway 69. You demanded to know when the government would listen to municipalities, chambers of commerce, labour groups and service clubs after the CRASH 69 committee. You delivered petition after

petition and presided over a billboard campaign to ensure the government understood the importance of four-laning Highway 69.

Now fast-forward to May 2005. In the budget, minister, your government announced that it will be another 12 years before Highway 69 is completed. That means

four-laning won't be complete until 2017. That's a full five years later than the previous government's commitment. Minister, when will you provide all the details of the government's plan for the

completion of Highway 69?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I don't know what part of the good-news story he doesn't like. Let me tell

you, one month after we took office, we signed an agreement with the federal government that allowed for five projects to move forward in a very quick manner. We then committed in the budget of

2005 to four-lane Highway 69 in 12 years, something the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities -- and he was at the association yearly meeting this past Friday -- thought was one of the

greatest announcements that ever took place in any provincial budget.

Let me contrast that with what this government did. The previous government said in November 2002, "We will commit $1 billion a year to Highway 69," and never

committed a penny to Highway 69.

Mr. Miller: Minister, you campaigned on this one issue. In November 2003, you promised an action plan. That's when you were the minister. In

May 2004, you and the Premier again promised an action plan by the end of the summer. Eventually, that action plan was pushed back to the new year. Then it was pushed back to last week's

budget.

You've been the minister responsible for northern highways for going on two years. As the Sudbury Star said this weekend, "What Bartolucci has succeeded in

doing in the last 18 months is lowering our expectations regarding Highway 69." Minister, where is your detailed action plan? Where is your commitment?

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: The commitment is written in the budget -- I think it's on page 123 -- which clearly says this government is committed to

four-laning Highway 69 in 12 years, a commitment no government has ever made in the past. Certainly the NDP never made a commitment. In fact, they took $20 million out of the highway strategy for

northern Ontario. The former Tory government took out 14.7% in funding for northern highways.

The reality is that for the first time ever, a government of Ontario has committed to four-laning Highway 69 in a definite time frame, and that's 12 years.

That's cause for celebration across northeastern Ontario, and I applaud our government for finally taking action when that government and that party did nothing in the past.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Acting Premier: Fourteen-year-old Justin Kapoor is autistic, severally handicapped,

medically fragile, epileptic and now confined to a wheelchair. His folks from Thorold, here in the members' gallery today, can no longer cope with his daily needs. There are two other younger

children in the family. They've been on a waiting list for three years now for a residential rehabilitation and treatment program for Justin. Last week, they made the heart-wrenching decision to

call children's aid and surrender their child to the custody of family and children's services so that their child, Justin, can get adequate treatment. Why is your government making people

relinquish/surrender custody of their children before they can get the treatment they deserve?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the honourable member will know, this is a matter that is being addressed

more fully by my colleague minister, who's not in the House today. I offer to those people who are here our government's full commitment to work through this case on an individual basis, but also

to continue to re-emphasize the work that the honourable member has been involved in. I know this is a question that has been before the House in the course of the last few weeks and that the

honourable minister is working through the children's aid society with a view toward offering all of the support that's possible to families who are in these challenging circumstances.

I'd like to, in a certain sense, take the question under advisement, as I'm not familiar with the individual circumstances, and relay to the honourable member

that the minister will take this up more fully. I know this is a matter that, as you well know, she's been working on quite a lot in the course of the past little while.

Mr. Kormos: Acting Premier, Connie Covatta and Nash Kapoor love their son. They love their two other children as well. They love their son

enough to know that he has to get the best possible treatment, that he's going to be better and live a healthier and happier life in a professional treatment residential program. Are you assuring

these folks right here today that you're committing your government to working directly with them to ensure that they don't have to abandon their child to the custody of children's aid so that

their child can get adequate treatment? Stand up and tell them that your government will work closely and intimately with them and their son.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: We've gone one significant measure further. We've said that parents should not have to give up their children to receive

this kind of care, and we've backed that up with a significant investment -- $74 million to date -- in support of the kinds of services that are required. We fundamentally believe it's important to

make investments earlier so that children can be given the appropriate support as early as is possible. I believe that these actions on the part of our government speak to the commitment we have

made. I also know that this is an issue that the Ombudsman has taken up.

I think these things combined mean that the matter -- which is a very, very serious one, so that no one misunderstands -- is receiving the attention required

in order to have outcomes which are more positive for families and for children.

I know the minister will want to be apprised of this circumstance, and I will take it upon myself to make sure she is aware of it.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. As you know, today in my riding of

Guelph-Wellington there was an announcement regarding the construction and funding of three new affordable housing projects. These three projects are under construction, and we visited all of them.

Two of them are fascinating projects, restoring old limestone buildings in Guelph. One, the assembly might like to know, is actually an old building that was built by the Sleeman brewery family

originally to house a private streetcar business. It then went on to become what was locally known as the bus barns for Guelph transport. It's now being turned into affordable housing. Another one

was an old stone store originally, now occupied by the army, navy and air force vets, and it's being turned into affordable housing.

I'm delighted that our government places a high priority on ensuring that Ontarians should not have to choose between feeding their children or heating their

homes, and with today's announcement, 84 Guelph area families won't have to. Minister, can you please elaborate on what this means for my constituents and other Ontarians?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I want to thank the member for the question. Today's announcement marks the

beginning of construction for three more affordable housing locations in Guelph-Wellington. This investment, totalling $9.6 million, includes support from the Canada-Ontario affordable housing

program. With this investment, Guelph-Wellington will now be able to provide a total of 84 more units in the region aimed at lower-income seniors and families.

For almost 10 years, the former government sat by and did nothing to help those in need of safe, affordable housing options. However, our government will not

sit by and do nothing. We understand that shelter is a basic human need that cannot be ignored. The McGuinty government has taken decisive action. The previous government may have members who said

that they believe housing is part of the dignity of all and that they would not stand by. Instead, they sat idly for a decade, leaving millions of dollars to languish in that account. But that

decade of discontent is over.

Mrs. Sandals: The affordable housing program is an important partnership between the province, the federal government and, in my case, the

municipalities of Wellington and Guelph. Many stakeholders have been involved in this.

The third project is a Guelph non-profit housing project. They've actually gone beyond the requirement to ensure that some of the units will go to mental

health clients and to Association for Community Living clients, making sure that some of the hardest-to-serve people in our community have housing. This is a wonderful investment for our riding of

Guelph-Wellington and is only part of the affordable housing investment in Ontario.

The previous government ignored this file. As a result, my constituents have a long waiting list for affordable housing. Minister, can you elaborate more on

the overall investment --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Minister?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: Again, I want to thank the member, especially for her passion for affordable housing. The member is correct that it's only a

portion of the overall investment for the province. A short while back, in fact, our government signed a new affordable housing agreement, which will provide a total of $602 million for new

affordable housing right across this province.

The province of Ontario is fully cost-matching with the federal government. We will create over 15,000 new affordable housing units, as well as housing

allowances to provide immediate assistance for approximately 5,000 Ontario families in need.

Our province does not stand by and do nothing, like the former government did. Our provinve, and our government, believes that safe, secure, affordable housing

is a basic human need. With our $602-million investment, Ontario and the federal government will address that basic need for over 20,000 Ontario families. Ontario is back in affordable housing in a

meaningful and significant way.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. In last week's budget, we learned that you will actually

spend $975 million on operating and administration in the Ministry of Transportation but only $622 million on building roads or capital. You barely have enough money in this budget to fill

potholes. It's a cut of $200 million since you guys came to office. We also learned in the budget that you're going to do more studies on the mid-peninsula corridor, the 407 eastward expansion, the

404 and the 427 -- you don't even bother to mention the 410 -- and you also hoodwinked your own member from Sudbury and made the construction period for Highway 69 five years longer.

Minister, given that your capital budget has been devastated, what exactly are you going to do to help alleviate gridlock in many parts of Ontario, not just in

Toronto, given that you're down to a budget that can't even fill potholes?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): Let me just point out to my esteemed colleague on the other side, that if he can look at

page 76 of the budget, he might see that the total infrastructure budget is $1.13 billion. If he could just start learning how to read the budget, maybe it would help in answering the question,

rather than my answering it.

Mr. Wilson: Minister, it's a $200-million cut since you came. The $1.1 billion doesn't mean anything. You're going to spend $622 million this

year. That's all the money they've given you. Don't roll in past projects and say that's new money; you've got $622 million to spend this year. It's not enough money to even fill the potholes in

the highways in this province.

I just want to tell you one more thing. Last Thursday, the day after the budget -- going back to Highway 26, the road between Collingwood and Stayner -- you

actually put up plywood over the highway signs that used to say, "New alignment of Highway 26 coming spring 2003." Minister, you've cancelled 26, and you're going to study all the other major

highways that are creating gridlock in this province. What exactly are you going to do to earn your wage this year?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Minister for Northern Development and Mines, come to order.

Hon. Mr. Takhar: Mr. Speaker, I want to know, first, is the member OK there?

Let me tell you, we are spending $1.13 billion on highway infrastructure. We are spending in excess of $800 million on transit needs, and that is way more than

they ever did. They ignored transit and highways for years in this province. We're going to fix all those things for them, which they didn't do for eight or nine years in this province, and move

forward.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Attorney General: Your small claims court deputy judges walked off the job this month. Their fees

have been frozen for over 23 years, and many say they simply can't afford to provide this service any more. You've refused to meet with them to discuss these issues. As one deputy judge put it to

me, you have simply stonewalled. Minister, you have a crisis on your hands in our small claims courts. Why are you stonewalling these judges?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): Far from it. I

do want to say to all of those lawyers who participate as deputy judges, on average, about two or three times a month, that the work they do is great public service. They do a great job, and I

think most of them do it out of public service. I know that when Jim Flaherty, the member for Whitby-Ajax, was practising law before he was in politics, he served as a deputy judge.

It's business as usual in that court, and I will of course continue to work with the Associate Chief Justice on this issue. But lastly, some deputy judges have

brought an action against the government of Ontario, and as long as we are in litigation, I'm sure you would understand I can't be in the business of meeting with them if the meeting they want to

have with me is in the courtroom of Ontario.

Mr. Kormos: These lawyers have performed a great service. The only regrettable thing is that their rates have been frozen for 23 years now and

you've done nothing to increase those rates. Last week's budget flatlined your ministry, and now you can't respond to many of the pressing needs of our justice system. Small claims courts, as you

know, are supposed to be venues for people who want to settle smaller matters quickly. Instead, we've got an increasingly dysfunctional system, where cases can drag on for over a year because of

deputy judges sitting so infrequently because they can't afford to sit more often, and deputy judges fear for their safety. What is your plan, your government's plan, to deal with the crisis in our

small claims courts?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: There is, in fact, a small claims court system that is working very well, and the description provided by the member is

patently totally inaccurate. It is business as usual in that court. I know that a handful of people have decided not to participate, but the system works in this way: There are many, many lawyers

out there who a couple of times a month, serve as deputy judges. That continues to happen. In fact, the regional senior judge and the Associate Chief Justice continue to ensure that that court,

that very important court, as the member points out -- and I agree with him that it's an important court -- continues to do its work.

I can guarantee the member that we have a system right now where we are tackling issues of backlog, we are tackling issues of ensuring timely justice in a way

that is a complete contrast to the time when the NDP government was in power -- and with the Askov result coming down, thousands of cases being thrown out. I appreciate the member's interest in

this issue, and I will appreciate further questions from him, but I assure him that this is a system that's running extremely well.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I was frankly both

intrigued and pleased with the comments of the new president of the Ontario Medical Association, Dr. Greg Flynn, who said this about the 2004 budget: "New medical school and residency spaces will

mean more doctors practising in Ontario and will result in an improved ability to care for patients."

Minister, quite contrary to the approach that the NDP has historically taken with decreasing spaces, it's clear to me that increasing medical school spots

will, over time, increase access to doctors. I know we are already expanding our capacity with the opening of the new Northern Ontario School of Medicine this year, but I'm curious: Can you confirm

that the 15% increase in medical school spots that you announced earlier today will be over and above the 56 new spots at the Northern Ontario School of Medicine?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Yes, I'm able to confirm that today I was there with my colleague the Minister

of Training, Colleges and Universities, Dr. Greg Flynn, the president of the Ontario Medical Association, and Dr. David Naylor, the dean, about to be president, of the University of Toronto. At the

very same site where, in 1993, under duress from the Mulroney government, the NDP announced that they were reducing our medical schools by 13%, I was very proud to have an opportunity on behalf of

our government to announce a 15% increase in the number of undergraduate seats. They will begin to emerge as of this fall, and they're all part and parcel of a strategy on the part of our

government to make sure that the challenging circumstances of today are not repeated tomorrow, that we're the government that is working double time to try to bill the capacity that was reduced by

that government and very slow to be increased under the official opposition. So yes, 15% in addition to the northern Ontario medical school spots.

Mr. McMeekin: That's just great, Minister. I know the people in my riding who are very concerned about the shortage of doctors are going to be

very pleased to hear that exciting news, because they know that in the long haul this is going to have a positive impact, not just in our riding, but right across the province.

I understand that as part of the $95-million investment in medical education announced in our budget last week, the expansion of medical education represents

just one component. Minister, can you please tell this House in what other ways our investment in medical education is intended to improve the health care of the citizens of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I refer this question to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): The member for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot has long

been interested in the state of affairs in health care, and I appreciate his question.

In addition to the 15% increase in medical spaces, we are also launching a new collaborative nursing program in northern Ontario between Confederation College

and Lakehead University which will bring more nurses to northern Ontario and will serve communities like Dryden, Kenora, Sioux Lookout and Fort Frances, where we want to ensure that Ontarians have

the health care they need.

We're also turning the corner on the funding that medical schools have experienced over the past 10 to 12 years by increasing funding for clinical training,

which is basically the foundation of a physician's education.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week you once again renewed your attack on your

health partners who expressed legitimate concerns about your budget; namely, the hospitals that were predicting that with your budget there would be a possible layoff of 4,000 nurses and health

care workers and a reduction of services. This is similar to a former attack that you made. You accused the OHA of crying wolf when they predicted nursing layoffs. Subsequently, however, you

approved the firing of 757 nurses and provided almost $100 million to fire them. Now you have derided the president of the OHA on the radio, calling her predictions of layoffs duplicit ous. Can you

guarantee today that not one single nurse or one health care worker will be fired?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Speaker, what I can guarantee today to all members of this House through you,

and to the people of the province of Ontario, is that in a province like Ontario, which has 154 autonomous public hospitals with 154 CEOs and 154 board chairs, I will work with those

representatives who work on the front line delivering health care.

I think what's appropriate is that we wait to have the debate framed until such time as those hospitals have been made aware of their allocation, not just for

this year, but what the projected allocation is for the next two years. Yes, I'm confirming that we are the government -- after years and years, perhaps decades, of promise -- that will deliver on

the principle of stable, predictable, multi-year funding. We think it's appropriate that before dire predictions are made and acted upon, as the honourable member is inclined to do, we actually

give those who operate hospitals the opportunity to examine the impact of our enhanced funding on their budget.

Mrs. Witmer: I would remind the Minister of Health that the last time the OHA said there would be layoffs, he denied it. He subsequently,

earlier this year, did provide severance and firing payments to 757 nurses. Obviously the hospitals are skeptical, as are the nurses.

I would say to you, that despite the fact you have more revenue this year, you have only provided increases to hospitals at half the rate of inflation. As you

know, they have deficits left from last year. You have provided no details as to where you're going to take health care as you move forward in a very clandestine manner to implement your LHINs.

You've already fired 757 nurses. You've spent months attacking the doctors. Now it appears you're trying to cripple the hospitals' ability to deliver care, and maybe what you want to do is transfer

governance to the LHINs.

I ask you again, can you promise Ontarians that they will not see a single nurse or health care worker fired or another essential service cut?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: It's always fun to get a question like this from a minister who was part of a government that acted a bit like an axe

murderer when it came to the issue of employment in these places.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker; they take offence. I withdraw.

On the heart of the matter, the issue here is a simple one: We have 154 hospitals in Ontario. They're independently managed. They have very, very high quality

help, and they have very, very high quality leadership. We think it's appropriate, before we succumb to the temptation to address these issues on the basis of a fast press release, that we instead

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): That's a headliner.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: He's not even in his seat, Mr. Speaker -- that we give the opportunity for these hospitals and the leadership in them to

see the resources that are available and to make decisions accordingly, not to deal with the scare tactics of a press release.

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Due to your government's inaction,

Ontario lost the Bombardier C-series jet manufacturing contract. Securing this project would have literally put new life into the province's aerospace industry. We're talking about 2,500 final

assembly jobs, 2,500 supplier jobs; in fact, $250 billion in economic activity over the next 20 years. Minister, Ontario's aerospace industry is on the ropes. What are you going to do about it?

Hon. Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The aerospace industry is very important. It employs 23,000 highly skilled

workers in this province. We made a very strong bid for the C-series final assembly. This was a competitive process. But let me say this: We still maintain that there should be work for the workers

at the Downsview site for Bombardier. The work there with respect to the Q-series prop is ongoing. There are four contracts, and I am set to sit down with the company, Bombardier, to discuss

additional work packages. This is all part and parcel of a national strategy approach to gaining more work for that facility. There is going to be additional work for that facility, and I am

certain of that.

Ms. Horwath: Minister, the truth is that Toronto lost the C-series project because your government didn't have a solid plan. Quebec had a plan

to pledge $118 million, and it said it would pay up to $175 million for a factory that it would lease to Bombardier. They got the final assembly project. The UK government had a plan. They had a

$421-million plan, and Belfast won the contract to develop the wings and other parts.

Mr. Minister, your Premier was in Ottawa, talking to the Prime Minister. Did they forget to talk about aerospace industry jobs? I repeat, now that your lack of

action has put Ontario's aerospace industry on the ropes, what's your plan to save it? You let it fly away. How are you going to get it back?

Hon. Mr. Cordiano: That's absolute nonsense and you know it. We had a very strong bid.

Let me just say, with respect to this industry, that it has a very bright future. I was talking last week about Goodrich, which won a contract worth $6 billion

for the Airbus. That's an Ontario company. The industry is on a rebound, and I guarantee this: We will be working with Bombardier to secure additional work for the great workers of Downsview in

that facility. We're working with the federal government. I'm going to hold the federal government to their commitment to create a national strategy to make sure there's additional work for those

workers at Downsview with regard to Bombardier.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In an earlier exchange in the Legislature this afternoon, the Minister

of Health made one of the most offensive remarks that I've heard in the Legislature in my 15 years here, and I would ask him to apologize to the member for Kitchener-Waterloo.

The Speaker: Order. I don't know if you're making reference to the same comment that I heard. I asked the minister to withdraw and --

Interjection.

Mr. Arnott: It's an offensive remark, and he's done it again by saying he directed it at all of us. I would ask him to apologize to this

House.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Mr. Speaker, in the interest of moving along with question period, I most

certainly will. Thank you.

Interjection: Will what?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I withdraw, and to anyone who took any offence whatsoever, I apologize. I could have chosen my words more carefully, and

I absolutely will try harder next time.

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. John Tory says that the deficit is

the self-inflicted wound and that we should have stayed within our planned spending. We know that our government chose to help our farmers through difficult times with emergency one-time

assistance. We made the choice to help farmers of this province. With respect to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the leader of the official opposition has been very critical of our support

for agriculture. Could you please educate Mr. Tory on what his party did to our farmers, the backbone of Ontario, while they were in power.

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Certainly we witnessed the Tory commitment to agriculture: slash and burn the

agriculture and food budget, lack of commitment for food safety within the agricultural budget, cuts to valuable research programs. All one has to do is to look at what happened. In July 1995, they

immediately implemented $12.8 million in cuts to the Ministry of Agriculture. By the time we arrived at fiscal year 1998-99, over $100 million had been cut from the base budget of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food -- program after program slashed and burned.

Unlike the Tories, who were prepared to cut the heart out of the agricultural community in this province, we chose to do the opposite. We chose to be there to

support our farmers: last year alone, $377 million Ontario dollars in direct support and investment of the agricultural community.

John Tory stands up and says we need to cut back on our spending. We are very conscious of where we're spending. We're investing in the future of agriculture

in this province.

PETITIONS

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

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

"Whereas noxious odours from the Halton Recycling plant in Newmarket are adversely affecting the health and quality of life of residents and working people in

Newmarket; and

"Whereas local families have lost the enjoyment of their properties for themselves and their children, face threats to their health and well-being and risk a

decline in the value of their homes; and

"Whereas for the 300 members of the nearby main RCMP detachment, as well as other workers in the area, the odours are making their working conditions

intolerable;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Minister of the Environment take immediate action to halt all noxious emissions and odours from the Halton

Recycling plant, and take all steps necessary to force Halton Recycling to comply with environmental rules, including closing the plant if the odour problems continue."

I affix my signature as I am in support of this, and I'm pleased to give it to Alexandra.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition that reads:

"Whereas the northern economy has lost 6,000 jobs in the McGuinty government's first year of its mandate, mostly due to forest industry job losses;

"Whereas the McGuinty government is making the problem worse by increasing electricity rates by 12%;

"Whereas the McGuinty government has a billion-dollar investment strategy for the automotive industry, the film and television industry and the casino

industry;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario government to immediately implement an investment strategy for northern industries and stop the electricity rate

increases that put at risk northern industries."

This is signed by a number of people from across northern Ontario, and I have affixed my signature as well.

CLASS SIZE

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I have a petition from some members of my community.

"Whereas the Ontario government promised to cap class sizes to 20 children from junior kindergarten to grade 3;

"Whereas, based on the current formula, Bennington Heights E.S. will lose one whole teacher, which will result in class sizes of over 30 for all of our classes

from grade 1 through grade 6;

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

"To keep its promise of decreasing class sizes and ensure that Bennington Heights E.S. students and teachers will not be subjected to oversized

classrooms."

I'll ask page Paula to take the petition.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased to read this petition on the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government were elected based on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional training

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to sign this and present it to Kaitlin to take down to you.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): We're trying to assist the Credit Valley people today. The petition says:

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and a Halton-Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the Credit

Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now, and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley Hospital bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered

each year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million of a $50-million

fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility able to meet the needs of our community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at

Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients in

the hospital emergency department, and to better serve patients in the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

I'll affix my signature to this petition and give it to my friend Alistair.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of the many parents and

community members of Ontario Street Public School, as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Street Public School community in Clarington wishes to alert the Minister of Education to a damaging situation with respect to

overcrowding and underfunding at this French immersion school; and

"Whereas Ontario Street Public School is being penalized because it is located in the fast-growing urban centre of Clarington, but is part of a larger ...

board that includes rural communities with declining enrolments and less access to public funding; and

"Whereas, despite its exceptional track record, Ontario Street Public School's French immersion program is being reduced from a K-8 to a K-6 program, with a

cap on K-6 enrolment, and grade 7 and 8 students being temporarily housed off-site for a third consecutive year; and

"Whereas our single greatest need is in adequate housing of a program that has seen superior academic achievement and a unique community culture, building on

strong values of success; and

"Whereas the entire Ontario Street school community is committed to working with the Minister of Education and all parties to explore a fair, practical and

effective solution;

"Therefore we, the undersigned parents, students and friends of Ontario Street Public School respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as

follows:

"To grant special consideration for a review of funding options that will protect and develop the existing K-8 French immersion single-track program at Ontario

Street Public School in Bowmanville.

"To undertake the necessary actions immediately, in the context of the current budget, to resolve the urgent accommodation needs of Ontario Street Public

School in the shortest time possible."

I'm pleased to sign this in support of the many constituents and present it to Kyle.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This petition is to the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and a Halton-Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the Credit

Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now, and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley Hospital bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered

each year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million of a $50-million

fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility able to meet the needs of our community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at

Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients in

the hospital emergency department, and to better serve patients and the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

I affix my signature as well on this petition.

TAXATION

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I want to thank Ms. Norma Penny of Wasaga Beach for sending me the following petition:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government's 2004 budget will break the taxpayer protection law by not conducting a referendum on tax increases; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty signed an election pledge on September 11, 2003, not to raise taxes without the explicit consent of voters through a referendum;

and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised in TV ads not to raise taxes by one penny on working families; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty pledged in writing to obey the taxpayer protection law, which requires a referendum before increasing taxes;

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

"To ensure that all of the McGuinty government's tax increases are put before the people of Ontario in a referendum to force Premier McGuinty to obey the

Taxpayer Protection Act."

I agree with this petition, and I've signed it.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition signed in part by Glen Miller of Gananoque Drive, the McTear family of Oslo Crescent,

Betty and Hugh McGeach of Copenhagen Road and their neighbours, all of whom live in Meadowvale in Mississauga. It reads as follows:

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and a Halton-Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the Credit

Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now, and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley Hospital bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered

each year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million of a $50-million

fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility able to meet the needs of our community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at

Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients in

the hospital emergency department, and to better serve patients and the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

As one of those who live in Credit Valley's catchment area, I wholeheartedly support this petition. I've signed it, and I'm going to ask Lindsay to carry it

for me.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government were elected based on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional training

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

I'm pleased to sign that and again give it to Kaitlin to present.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that comes to me by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3904. It reads as

follows:

"Whereas rebuilding our post-secondary education system is critical to the future of our communities and our province; and

"Whereas high tuition user fees are resulting in massive student debt; and

"Whereas Ontario ranks second-last among all provinces in terms of total PSE budget received from government grants and has the highest percentage of total

post-secondary education revenues from private sources; and

"Whereas working and learning conditions must be healthy and safe, because working conditions are learning conditions; and

"Whereas the deferred maintenance cost at Ontario university campuses is estimated to have already reached the $2-billion mark;

"We, the undersigned, support the Canadian Union of Public Employees' call on the provincial government to invest sufficient public funds that will:

"

(1) Restore public money cut from operating" grants "since 1995 and bring Ontario up to the national average for funding post-secondary education;

"

(2) Finance the $1.98 billion needed for deferred maintenance; and

"

(3) Provide the funding needed to continue the tuition freeze beyond 2006 and increase grants to working-class families."

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2005 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 12, 2005, on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate? The leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of New Democrats to what was, in my view, another very conservative

budget.

Before addressing the specifics of the budget, I'd like take a moment to reflect a bit on what this budget and the really telling Conservative Party response

to the budget say about the current political situation here in Ontario in the spring of 2005. I see the situation this way:

On the one hand, we have two centre-right political parties, the Conservatives and now the McGuinty Liberals, who are looking to Bay Street for guidance, who

are looking to Bay Street to tell them what to do. For the life of them, they can't articulate the difference in their overall fiscal priorities.

On the other hand, we have one progressive force, the NDP, which represents the mainstream values of an Ontario that increasingly embraces the principles of

fairness, decency and public-spiritedness. I want to elaborate.

Over the past few days, I have read and reread the budget and also listened quite carefully to not only the budget-related remarks of Messieurs McGuinty and

Sorbara but also Monsieur Tory. This is what I find remarkable: Taken together, this budget and Mr. Tory's complementary response to the budget outline a moderate, updated conservatism that fits

nicely with today's Bay Street politics. Gone are the days of massive, across-the-board cuts and the obsession with balanced budgets, even if they are a phony balance, and budgets that cut taxes.

Those were all the hallmarks of the 1990s-style conservatism. But what we have now in its place, in the form of the McGuinty government, are modest investments in health and education -- much too

modest for my taste -- and an almost complete disregard for the everyday concerns of the average Ontarian.

I repeat, the McGuinty-Sorbara-Tory-conservative budget is a budget for Bay Street and for some Ontario elites. But the majority of Ontarians don't see

anything that will benefit them in this budget. It is not a budget for ordinary Ontarians, and it is certainly not a budget that the New Democratic Party can in any way support.

I want to refer to some specifics. I'd like to elaborate on some of the issues which really stick out.

Example one: This is a budget blinded by the false Bay Street ideology that the private sector always does things better and cheaper than the public sector.

The best illustration of this rigidly held ideology is the role that private, profit-driven financiers will now play under the McGuinty government in our schools, our hospitals, our transit

systems, our sewer and water systems -- indeed, the role that Bay Street financiers will now play in what we consider to be, and want to be, public services.

Put bluntly, so-called public-private partnerships, or P3s as they are generally known, will cost Ontario taxpayers billions of dollars more in terms of the

traditionally, governments in Ontario, British Columbia or Quebec -- typically, if the hospital costs $1 billion, the government would go and issue a 30-year bond for $1 billion. If you go to

the Report on Business pages in the Globe and Mail today, you'll find that the interest rate on that 30-year bond would be about 5%. So government would borrow the money directly and then provide

the money for the building of the hospital. And since that hospital is going to provide public services for over 30 years, that bond would be paid back over 30 years. It makes sense. All the people

who benefit from that hospital, not just the people who are alive now, but people who will be born 15 years, 20 years, 25 years or 30 years from now, should make a contribution to the construction

of that very necessary and very valuable public asset. By issuing a public government bond at 5%, all of us who benefit from that new hospital will, in effect, pay for it. Again, the interest rate

would be 5%.

The McGuinty government, instead of issuing a government bond at 5%, now wants to go to Bay Street financiers and say, "You borrow the money." But those Bay

Street financiers will want at least a 10% interest rate on that 30-year financing, and they'll want to make a profit. When you borrow $1 billion to build a hospital, the difference between a 5%

annual interest rate and a 10% annual interest rate comes out to hundreds of millions of dollars more. That's what the McGuinty government is up to in this budget.

Yes, this will be very popular with Bay Street -- very, very popular -- because the McGuinty government will literally be taking hundreds of millions of

dollars out of the pockets of ordinary Ontario taxpayers and transferring that money to Bay Street on a speedway. Bay Street will love this: "Hey, instead of having to lend our money directly to

government at 5%, we can do this private financing at 10% and make twice as much money; in fact, more than twice as much money."

This will cost the taxpayers of Ontario, when you look at it over a 20- or 30-year period, not hundreds of millions of dollars, but billions of dollars. Will

we get that many new hospitals out of it, that many new schools out of it, that many new university buildings out of it? No. Billions of dollars will go directly from the pockets of ordinary

Ontario taxpayers into Bay Street financial corporations.

To give you just one real-life example, because we've actually had a chance to look at the numbers, the privately financed hospital in Brampton will cost about

$520 million to build. But because it is being financed through private, profit-driven financing, that will add an additional $175 million to the cost of the hospital. What could you build with

$175 million that's now going to go into those private financiers' pockets on Bay Street? You could build several schools. You could build another small hospital in a smaller community somewhere

else in Ontario. You could fix up the sewer and water systems in literally dozens of communities across Ontario. But that's not going to happen now. It's not going to happen in those communities

because that money is going straight to the McGuinty government's financial friends on Bay Street through private financing. And I can't tell you how much I disagree with that direction.

Over the years, a 20- or 30-year period of this private financing, the public actually ends up paying 30% to 40% more for the same school or the same hospital.

As I say, on a project like the Brampton P3 hospital, the additional cost through private financing at 10% interest rates rather than 5% interest rates comes out to $175 million. I just want to

say, I'm all in favour of building public infrastructure. I'm all in favour of replacing older hospitals with newer hospitals that can provide a better service. I'm very much in favour of public

transit. I'm very much in favour of fixing the roads and bridges across Ontario. But the private financing that the McGuinty government now wants to put in place will cost Ontarians far, far more

and deliver far less.

What's really amazing is that Dalton McGuinty, just 19 or 20 months ago, when he was Leader of the Opposition, couldn't criticize private financing enough. He

told his hometown newspaper in Ottawa, "I am opposed to private, profit-driven financing of public services because it costs too much. It costs taxpayers more, a lot more." And then he said that he

would end the Conservative experiments with private financing. That's what he said before the election. Once again, this is another case where Dalton McGuinty says one thing before the election and

then does entirely the opposite after the election.

I couldn't help but notice that the Conservative finance critic, Mr. Flaherty, was practically doing somersaults, congratulating Dalton McGuinty and Greg

Sorbara for adopting the Conservative financial plan, for following in the fine tradition of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. I've heard Greg Sorbara and Dalton McGuinty castigate the former

Conservative government -- castigate them, scorn them -- and here we see them adopting the centrepiece of the Conservatives' private financing plan. No wonder the Conservative finance critic says,

"Congratulations. You've finally come to see the Conservative view, the Conservative vision that public assets, public hospitals, public schools ought to have that much domination by private,

profit-driven interests."

New Democrats reject that, and we reject it because we know Dalton McGuinty was right before the election: This will cost taxpayers far, far more, and looked

at over a 10-year period, a 15-year period, a 20-year period, it's going to deliver the public of Ontario, the taxpayers of Ontario, far, far less. New Democrats can't support that.

The next thing I want to turn to, though, is what this budget does to the lowest-income people in Ontario. I remember, when the Conservative government came

into office and cut the incomes of the poorest people in Ontario by over 22%, that most of the people who are now in the Dalton McGuinty cabinet couldn't speak in tones more holier-than-thou about

that. When the Conservatives cut the incomes of the lowest-income Ontarians by 22%, Dalton McGuinty and company swung from the chandeliers. They said it was criminal. They said it was inhumane,

that it was a vicious, vicious attack on the lowest-income people in Ontario, and they said it had to be reversed.

I read this budget in detail. Do you know what this budget does for the lowest-income Ontarians? Do you know what it does for those people who have to survive

on Ontario disability support plan payments, for those people who have to survive on Ontario Works? Do you know what it does for them? It does nothing. Zero. Nada. It says to those people who have

had their incomes cut so badly, and who have also had to endure inflation rates at 2% and 2.5% a year, that the McGuinty government doesn't care one whit about them.

After all of those sanctimonious speeches, after all of that holier-than-thou rhetoric -- that the former Conservative government was attacking the poor, was

vilifying the lowest incomes and was attacking the most vulnerable -- what did the Liberal budget do to restore any of that? What did it do to help the lowest-income Ontarians? Nothing. When you

read this budget, it's as if someone who's struggling to survive on Ontario disability support plan payments or somebody who's struggling to survive on Ontario Works doesn't even exist. It is

shameful. It is especially shameful when you put it in the context of all that holier-than-thou, sanctimonious rhetoric that we used to hear from the McGuinty Liberals. It is shameful.

Another example: the national child benefit. I know the McGuinty government likes to blame Paul Martin for all of their troubles. If you listen to the McGuinty

government, it was Paul Martin who made all these promises in the election campaign without a plan to implement them, without a plan to do anything about them, without a plan to put the money in

place to address the promises. You know, the federal government actually provides something called the national child benefit. For those who don't follow all the technical things, the national

child benefit used to be known as the family allowance.

In my home, when I was growing up, my mother waited for that family allowance cheque to come in, because that's when my brother and I got a new pair of shoes,

or maybe a new pair of pants or a baseball glove or maybe just some winter clothes. But that was important. Every family across Ontario waited for the arrival of the family allowance cheque and had

plans on how to use that family allowance cheque to improve things for their kids, make a difference for their kids. Do you know what? The McGuinty government takes that money away from the

lowest-income kids in Ontario. A family of four with two kids, struggling on Ontario Works or with ODSP benefits -- when they receive the national child benefit, when they receive the equivalent of

the family allowance, the McGuinty government reaches into the pockets of those children and takes that money back. They take $3,000 out of the pockets of that family of four who are struggling on

the very lowest of incomes.

What's really interesting -- actually, it's tragic -- is that, once again, before the election Dalton McGuinty promised he was going to stop the clawback. He

said the clawback was wrong. He said the clawback was immoral. He said he was going to end the clawback, that that money belonged to those poor kids. But after the election, what does the McGuinty

government do? Once again, they adopt the same policy, the same direction, as the Conservative government they used to criticize. The McGuinty government continues to take the national child

benefit supplement out of the pockets of the poorest kids in Ontario.

Since the election, we've been calling for the McGuinty government to live up to their promise on this issue, to stop the clawback, to stop taking money from

the poorest kids in the province. It hasn't happened. This budget didn't do anything for those kids.

I've received some of the postcards from these kids. I've received some of the postcards where they talk about what it means when the McGuinty government takes

this money out of their pockets. They talk in terms of a child who goes to elementary school, when the parents don't have enough money for lunch, and they have to say to other kids at school, "I

forgot my lunch," because they're too embarrassed to say, "In my house, we don't have enough money for lunch." It means kids going to school in beat-up shoes, where other kids laugh at them and

ridicule them. It means kids ashamed to go to sc