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

June 21, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Jun-21 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 21 June 2004 Lundi 21 juin 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

BONNIE BRAE HEALTH CARE CENTRE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

BLYTH FESTIVAL

WEST LINCOLN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

GAY PRIDE WEEK

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRANSITIONAL PHYSICIAN PAYMENT

REVIEW ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA RÉVISION PROVISOIRE

DES PAIEMENTS D'HONORAIRES

DE MÉDECINS

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'HARMONISATION

DE LA TERMINOLOGIE FISCALE /

TAX TERMINOLOGY

HARMONIZATION ACT, 2004

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AIR QUALITY

DOMINIC AGOSTINO

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

HEALTH PREMIUMS

SCHOOL SAFETY

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

DISTANCE EDUCATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ANNUAL REPORT,

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

PHYSICAL EDUCATION

TAXATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

ROUGE VALLEY CENTENARY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): For two years now, I have been advocating for legislation to protect the right of professional firefighters

to serve as volunteers on their free time and in their home communities. The professional firefighters' union wants to force double-hatters to resign as volunteers. If this happens, small-town and

rural fire departments will be weakened and communities will be less safe.

The Minister of Community Safety knows that I recently received a letter from the fire marshal, Bernard Moyle, on this issue. You know that a key part of the

fire marshal's job is to advise the provincial government on fire standards and legislation. In the fire marshal's letter, he expressed appreciation for my efforts to resolve this issue and protect

double-hatters, and he reaffirmed his support for legislative action to resolve the problem.

Just last week, we learned from the Ottawa firefighters' union Web site that the Ontario professional firefighters' union has lifted a moratorium on charges

against double-hatters, essentially declaring open season on these firefighters. The Web site actually encourages union members to seek out double-hatters, urge them to resign as volunteers and

threaten them with charges if they don't, possibly leading to their expulsion from the union and the loss of their full-time jobs.

The minister knows that the fire marshal, in this context, has warned that this situation carries with it "a potential serious threat to public safety." This is

the opinion of the fire marshal. Once again, I call upon the minister to avoid this threat and protect community safety by immediately introducing a government bill to protect double-hatters,

before the summer recess, and send a signal to the union leaders that community safety in rural Ontario is more important than their union membership drive.

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL DAY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to rise today to recognize National Aboriginal Day on behalf of the Ontario government.

June 21 was designated National Aboriginal Day in 1996 to celebrate the cultures and contributions of Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples. June 21 was chosen because of the cultural

significance of the summer solstice, because many aboriginal groups mark this day as a time to engage in traditional ceremonies.

Last week, the minister responsible for native affairs, Michael Bryant, attended the 30th annual All Ontario Chiefs Conference held at Hiawatha First Nation,

where he discussed Ontario's new approach on aboriginal matters. This new approach will be based on co-operation and mutual respect. We will involve the aboriginal leadership in developing this

approach.

At the All Ontario Chiefs Conference, the minister also reinforced Ontario's commitment to resolving pending land claims. This government has already invested

more than $190 million in the aboriginal healing and wellness strategy for a five-year period and has committed $7 million annually for post-secondary education for aboriginal students.

The McGuinty government hopes that by working co-operatively with these communities, we can help improve the lives of aboriginal peoples in Ontario. The quality

of life of all Ontarians improves when we have strong and prosperous aboriginal communities. Please join me in acknowledging the significance of National Aboriginal Day and the important

contribution of aboriginal people to the province of Ontario.

BONNIE BRAE HEALTH CARE CENTRE

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Today I stand to ask the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to make a decision in regard to a long-term-care

facility in my riding of Oxford. Last August, the residents of Bonnie Brae Health Care Centre were notified of the decision of Tri-County Mennonite Homes to purchase the centre for a new community

lifestyle project. The residents and staff were excited to hear the news and have been part of the planning process to upgrade the facility from a D to an A standard.

But here it is, 10 months later, and we're being told the entire project is on hold until the Ministry of Long-Term Care's licensing division has made a firm

decision to allow the transfer of the beds. They had no information on the status of the project, even though public hearings have been held and there were no objections.

I know long-term care is of utmost importance to Minister Smitherman. The minister has often said the government is committed to ensuring that the people in

long-term-care facilities live in dignity and have the highest possible quality of life. Well, Mr Smitherman, here is a resident council telling you what they need to do that. I urge you to fulfill

your commitment to the residents of Bonnie Brae and make the long-overdue decision to let them proceed with the renovations of their facility. Follow through with your promise to let them live in

dignity and have the highest possible quality of life by signing off on this project today.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a statement today about local democracy. It's about what happened in Quebec yesterday, and I hope

everybody was watching that.

Right across Quebec, people had an opportunity in some 89 municipalities to vote on their local futures. They had an opportunity to vote --

Interjections.

Mr Prue: -- if you'll stop yelling to hear -- on how they will be governed locally. That is something that might be foreign and anathema to some

of the members opposite, but that I would think is a fundamental right all the same.

Many of those communities, given the opportunity, voted to remain merged with their new municipalities. Others voted to demerge, because they felt it was in

their own best interests not to be part of a larger municipality. The issue is not how they voted; the issue is that they were allowed to vote in the first place and that the government was willing

to take whatever their votes were and move forward on those referendums.

I contrast that with the government of Ontario, where you have denied those same rights to the people of Ancaster, Dundas and Flamborough. I ask you to contrast

that with the government of Ontario, where you are denying democracy and the vote of the people of Kawartha Lakes.

These people are not going to go away. They are going to continue to advocate for local democracy. They are going to continue to fight for local government. Some

are here today, and they are asking this government to listen and to act. If they can do it in Quebec, you can do it too.

BLYTH FESTIVAL

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): This past Friday, I had the privilege of attending the Blyth Festival grand opening gala dinner in Blyth,

Ontario. The Blyth Centre for the Arts, including the Blyth Festival, was founded in 1975. It is unique in that it produces theatre that reflects the culture and interests of people from

southwestern Ontario, of which I am especially proud.

Blyth has celebrated our life in small-town Ontario very well with its development of new plays. This year, Cricket and Claudette portrays scandal and romance at

the village dumpsite. Test Drive is also on this year's play list. It celebrates the family business of the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

I have a coupon for a couple of tickets for the member, so when he is ready he can call and dicker with the box office to set a date.

I also encourage everyone here to drive to the beautiful village of Blyth, Ontario, and enjoy a wonderful, truly Canadian theatrical production.

WEST LINCOLN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have to ask, if it's good for the goose, is it good for the gander? Certainly the folks in the Sudbury and

Thunder Bay communities will be welcoming the announcement by the McGuinty government and the Ministry of Health that they are receiving 80% of funding toward their capital projects. But if they

get 80%, what about West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby, the hospital that serves the people of Lincoln, West Lincoln, east Stoney Creek and the surrounding area? There are great, talented,

hard-working people there. It has an excellent reputation, but it's a tired old building in need of renewal.

Locally, citizens have raised millions of dollars, expanding from 60 to 85 beds, new equipment and better services. But despite a lot of sweet words and

promises, there's no indication that that hospital will receive any money from the McGuinty government, let alone the 80% level that Sudbury and Thunder Bay are receiving. Surely if these hospitals

are receiving 80% from provincial funds, local residents of West Niagara have a very fair expectation that they too will receive that 80% share. It's certainly justified by the need, the growth in

the community and local generosity.

If that 80% share is good for those two hospitals, it should be good for the people of West Lincoln as well.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My constituents in Perth-Middlesex remember a chap named Tony Clement as the Minister of Health who brought

private MRIs and other diagnostic exams to Ontario. He was the minister who allowed private MRI clinics to poach staff from public institutions despite repeated empty promises that this would not

happen. Two-Tier Tony is now running for a party that, if elected, could force private health care delivery on the provinces, in violation of the Canada Health Act. He would be ably assisted by his

fellow traveller, Ralph Klein.

I for one -- and I know my constituents feel the same way -- do not want to walk into an emergency room or doctor's office only to be judged by the size of my

wallet rather than the reality of my pain or illness. That's why I'm glad our Liberal government has delivered on our commitment to improve the public delivery of health care in Ontario.

Our Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act reaffirms Ontario's commitment to universally accessible, publicly funded health care. We are investing in nine new,

publicly funded MRI and CT sites, and we are funding the first northern Ontario medical school in 30 years. Our actions demonstrate our commitment to the health care system that we can all be proud

of, a health care system that is fully accessible to all Ontarians, not just for those who can afford it.

My message to Two-Tier Tony and King Ralph: Hands off our public health care.

GAY PRIDE WEEK

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): Today is the start of Toronto's 24th annual Pride Week. Over a million people will participate in this

year's festival, named Bursting with Fruit Flavours. There are 18 official events, including the pride and remembrance five-kilometre run, a new speaker series with Winnipeg mayor Glen Murray and

Ann-Marie MacDonald, and the open-air church service led by Reverend Brent Hawkes, who is one of the original champions of Pride in Toronto. All of that leads up to the parade on Sunday.

Thank you to Pride Toronto co-chairs Ayse Turak and Fred Pitt and the 700 volunteers who make Pride possible.

Pride is about coming together to celebrate the fight for equality and dignity for members of Ontario's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and two-spirited

community. It's about people of all ages, from all walks of life, some of whom live closeted lives 51 weeks of the year, and allowing them to have a brief window on what it would be like to live in

a world without homophobia.

It's about families celebrating their diversity. There are a lot of "I love my gay sister," "I love my gay brother, uncle, aunt, grandmother" buttons worn during

Pride.

If you join us on Sunday for the parade, you will hear the warmest and most enthusiastic cheer for PFLAG, which is Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and

Gays. That's an organization that understands that many gay, lesbian and transgendered people are ostracized from their families, and they are support for those people.

Today I ask you to join me in celebrating Pride. Next Monday we will, as a country, make an important choice. We will choose to build on our fragile successes

and continue to promote equality and dignity for all of us, or we will vote to turn back the clock. I hope you will vote to build on our successes with a government --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): At the end of each session, for the last four years, I was pleased to give the government an

evaluation of how it has done so far. To be fair, I believe I need to do it for our government.

If we look at what we've done over the last few months, we've uploaded public health costs instead of downloading them. I'll explain uploading to you

afterward.

We've created 8,000 full-time nursing positions. They're not Hula Hoop workers; they're nurses who provide quality care.

We're providing free vaccinations to children. The public health officers begged you for the last four years to do it. We've done it.

We're investing in our children. It is common sense to have classes of 20. It's only common sense. You ruined that phrase, and we're taking it back.

We're investing in our cities. You created gridlock over eight years. Accidents went down because no cars moved on our highways under your jurisdiction. One cent

per litre of gasoline will go to municipalities, followed by two cents. It's too bad you didn't listen to me in the last four years.

We're taking care of those most in need. We will increase care at home for 97,000 Ontarians who want to stay at home, not in long-term care.

We're opening an additional 3,760 long-term-care beds. They don't belong in hospitals; they belong in their homes in long-term care.

We've increased, for the first time in 11 years -- and both parties can listen to this one -- the basic allowance and maximum shelter allowance for ODSP and

Ontario Works.

We're protecting Ontario's drinking water. Shame on you. We're doing it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to standing

order 109(b).

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Mr Racco from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presents the committee's report

prescribing the ministries and offices assigned to certain standing committees.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Racco: No, thank you.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 109(b), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRANSITIONAL PHYSICIAN PAYMENT

REVIEW ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LA RÉVISION PROVISOIRE

DES PAIEMENTS D'HONORAIRES

DE MÉDECINS

Mr Smitherman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 104,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act and the Ministry of Health Appeal and Review Boards Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 104, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur

l'assurance-santé et la Loi de 1998 sur les commissions d'appel et de révision du ministère de la Santé.

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

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Briefly, I've had the opportunity to share this bill with both opposition parties

and with key stakeholders. The request for submissions to Justice Peter Cory's review of the medical audit practice in Ontario was posted in major daily newspapers today. This bill would

temporarily halt the activities of the MRC while we ensure that the MRC process is fair and accountable to the people of Ontario, to the positions and to the government.

Pending Justice Cory's review, the legislation would put in place a process that would give doctors the choice to freeze their case or to pursue an alternate

process in the meantime.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent of this chamber to proceed with second and third

readings of this bill.

The Speaker: The member from Niagara Centre has requested second and third readings of the bill. Do we have unanimous consent? I heard a

no.

LOI DE 2004 SUR L'HARMONISATION

DE LA TERMINOLOGIE FISCALE /

TAX TERMINOLOGY

HARMONIZATION ACT, 2004

M. Sorbara propose la première lecture du projet de loi suivant :

terminology used in the French version of certain statutes.

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

des lois fiscales de l'Ontario afin que cela corresponde à la nouvelle terminologie utilisée par le gouvernement fédéral dans la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu du Canada.

Nous diffuserons ce projet de loi pendant l'été afin de recueillir des commentaires. J'espère que nous pourrons obtenir le consentement unanime

de tous les partis afin que le projet de loi puisse être adopté rapidement à notre retour à l'automne.

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2004 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2004

SUR LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES (N O 2)

Mr Sorbara moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 106,

An Act to implement Budget measures and amend the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 106, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines

mesures budgétaires et modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne.

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

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1354 to 1359.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Flaherty, Jim

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Witmer, Elizabeth

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 53; the nays are 20.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): This is the second bill that I've introduced to implement our Plan for Change. Among its provisions is

a proposal for the Ontario health premium, which will help transform health care in the province of Ontario. The bill also proposes the enactment of the Trust Beneficiaries' Liability Act, 2004, as

anticipated in the budget and as requested by my colleague Gerry Phillips, the Chair of Management Board. In addition, the bill contains an amendment to the Crown Forest Sustainability Act that my

colleague David Ramsay, the Minister of Natural Resources, has requested.

I do look forward to discussing the bill with members during debate in this House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AIR QUALITY

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): Today I attended the smog summit at Toronto city hall. This event is attended by some of

the most influential experts in the field of air emissions and smog-causing pollutants.

The smog summit is usually an opportunity for governments to highlight their actions on cleaner air. For the past few years, the previous government has shown

up empty-handed, if they showed up at all. Today, our government has changed that. Today, we unveiled our five-point plan for cleaner air, the most far-reaching commitment on air quality in this

province in 30 years. Our five-point plan is built on the basic principle that people's health should not be compromised by air emissions, and our plan has real, concrete, measurable results.

Our five-point plan for cleaner air limits reduces emissions of harmful pollutants. It is built on the best science, and it puts a priority on actions that

will reduce the risk to human health. It tackles major smog-causing pollutants as well as lesser-known substances.

Our plan sets tough new limits for the two most smog-causing pollutants: nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide. These limits will apply to a whole range of

industries that never had limits before: the iron and steel sector, the cement industry, petroleum refineries, pulp and paper and the producers of glass and carbon black.

Second, our plan sets out right now that these limits will get even lower in future years. This means that our pollution rules not only apply to more sectors

than ever before but they will make each of these sectors keep improving.

Third, our government is looking beyond the big pollutants like nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide. Today, I am announcing proposals for new and updated air

emission standards for 29 different substances. These substances include carcinogens and toxins that could pose a more serious threat to human health. In some cases, we are proposing standards for

the very first time.

The fourth point of our plan is better modelling. This means using newer, better science to get a clearer picture of how air pollution gets dispersed. Ontario

has been using a 30-year-old dispersion model. If you think about how much our science has improved in that time, it is clear that we need to make changes.

Finally, the fifth part of our plan is a new, risk-based approach to implementing air standards and models. We look at the effects on the local communities and

consider the efforts that local businesses are making to improve air quality.

The McGuinty government is committed to delivering real, positive change to improve the quality of life enjoyed in our communities. Ontarians deserve safe,

clean, livable communities to call home. We are paying too big a price with our health, with our prosperity and with our ability to provide proper health care to those affected by poor air. In one

five-point plan we are making up for a decade of half-hearted measures by previous governments and setting the course for a future of cleaner air, better scientific knowledge and a stronger link to

human health. This plan will reduce air emissions; it will reduce the risks to human health; it will decrease the likelihood of smog days in the future. It puts the needs of Ontarians first and

ensures that, even though it is tough, industry can find ways to meet it.

Our five-point plan for cleaner air works for Ontarians, and our government works for Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I've just returned from the Toronto smog summit. As far as the comment about showing up, I can't

speak for the previous Toronto government. At this Toronto summit, the minister announced nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide limits for heavy industry, including Stelco, Dofasco, cement, Esso and

other refineries -- I'll point out that Ontario hasn't built an oil refinery since 1978, and I don't think this is going to help -- the pulp and paper industry, glass and carbon black.

This continues the work done by previous governments, NDP and PC, to introduce both NO x and SO x limits to the electricity sector and

non-ferrous smelting. I'll point out that these efforts have already produced important gains in emission reductions. OPG Nanticoke, for example, has dropped sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide

emissions, including the implementation of the SCR, the selective catalytic reduction units. These installations at Nanticoke and Lambton have served to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by 80% from

the units to which they're attached. Due to these and other efforts, nitrogen oxide emissions have dropped more than 50% from 1984 at OPG Nanticoke; sulphur dioxide has fallen more than 60% in that

same time period. This new regulation would require significant NO x and SO x emission reductions by 2010 and further reductions by 2015. That's a fair bit down the road.

Again, I point out that these initiatives build on what I consider the full-hearted work of previous governments. The Fraser Institute reports that Canada's

environment is markedly healthier than it was 30 years ago. In fact, 84% of environmental indicators have improved since the 1970s. Airborne sulphur dioxide has decreased by 73% between 1974 and

2001. Levels of particulates are down by over 50%.

That said, there is more to be done, of course. I'm happy to see that this recent report outlines Ontario's implementation plan for Canada-wide standards for

particulate matter and ozone, something our Conservative government committed to in the year 2000. Let's look at some of the clean air incentives outlined in the discussion paper presented. The

government wants to exempt biodiesel from fuel tax, exempt natural gas and ethanol, provide a lower tax rate for propane -- a very laudable concept, and I'm pleased to assure the minister that

these measures do work. In fact, all these measures were in place during our government's term in office and we were able to reduce emissions by 12%.

I'll turn to page 18 of the accompanying minister's report, entitled Taking Stock and Closing Gaps: Ontario on Track to Meet Emission Reduction Targets:

"Ontario's smog reduction efforts have been successful. Over the last decade, emissions of the four key pollutants have been declining, even while Ontario was going through a period of strong

economic growth."

We thank you, Minister, for that comment. It's nice to know that people on the other side of the House recognize the success we've had in reducing emissions.

We appreciate the acknowledgement that strong economic growth is possible while we continue to protect the environment.

I will point out the minister's message on page 3 of the report: "Government is working to improve Ontario's Drive Clean program to make it even more

successful in reducing smog-causing emissions from vehicles." Only three months ago, this same minister was reported to be musing about phasing out Drive Clean. Which is it? We know auto emissions

are the cause of 60% of our domestically produced smog. It's essential that we continue, and this government continue, the work our government started -- a far superior strategy to speaking out of

both sides of one's mouth.

You know, this government is actually going backward when it comes to providing incentives to reduce emissions. We put in place a program that would provide

incentives for businesses to engage in self-generation of electricity and for people to purchase energy-efficient equipment. What did this government do? Their broken-promise budget has cancelled

these incentives. They have told businesses that they're on their own.

I regret that this report doesn't even address transboundary air pollution.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): The finance minister just got out of the picture in the nick of time. He was over here trying to give

me some advice as to how I should respond to this statement.

I don't know if anybody in this Legislature -- I'm sure they do -- has children or grandchildren or a parent or somebody in their family who suffers from

asthma or some other kind of respiratory illness. I know I've mentioned in this House before that I have a little grandson who has been hospitalized on several occasions and was close to death on a

couple of those occasions. I saw this little boy in a hospital bed, hooked up to every machine possible, with a mask on. It's one of the scariest, most heartbreaking things you can ever see.

More and more children are being affected on smog days. As you know, seniors can't go out, kids with asthma can't go out, and we know that smog is contributing

to that. So any announcement that attempts to deal with smog is always welcome. I'm sure the minister and the government would love everybody to stand up and applaud the measures today, but as a

comprehensive smog strategy, it comes up rather short. Let me tell you why.

The minister's own paper says that transportation produces 63% of NO x emissions and electricity produces 15%. That's not to say they're not

significant and don't need to be dealt with. The problem here is that there is no plan to reduce or relook at the building of a ton of new highways in the Golden Horseshoe area. In fact, at the

greenbelt legislation hearings I put through a number of amendments to deal with expanding highways within the greenbelt area, and that was rejected. So an amendment that could have prevented at

least a review of some of these highways from crossing the greenbelt, as well as infrastructure -- the big pipe in King City just got permission to go ahead.

The reason I'm bringing all these things up is that -- you've heard me talk before in here, and we'll be debating the greenbelt soon -- it is directly related

to smog because of the inadequacy of the greenbelt legislation which is coming through this House very soon. Minister -- and I'm talking directly to the Minister of Municipal Affairs now -- I put

forward amendments that would have dealt with the big holes, Mack-truck-like holes, in the legislation.

I have to say, the Tory members voted against me, but I expected them to. However, the Liberal members voted against every one of my amendments. The reason why

I'm bringing this up is because of what we're referring to as leapfrog development. That is in the Simcoe area. It has been pointed out time and time again that allowing development to leapfrog

over the little greenbelt area is actually -- and it's happening as we speak -- going to increase transportation use. That is a fact. Nobody is denying that. The government is allowing that to go

ahead.

The other thing is, when the Premier announced his plan for funding the TTC, it -- actually, the Tories will like this -- turned out to be less than the

Conservatives had committed. This is hardly the bold new plan that we needed.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): That's not true.

Ms Churley: It's true. It is true.

The government's commitment to fight urban sprawl is also less than meets the eye. The leapfrog development will mean tens of thousands of more cars on the

roads, causing more and more smog.

I'm also worried about the timetable on the coal-fired plants. We're not seeing much movement there. We're not seeing nearly enough on conservation and

creation of more green power.

On the conservation front, the government thinks that smart meters in homes will deliver what they need. They should get serious about conservation instead of

relying on gimmicks like this.

Finally, better standards are a good thing, but they don't mean much without enforcement. Your own budget -- get it out; page 12 -- shows that the Ministry of

the Environment is one of 15 ministries about to take an average cut of 12% in its operating budget. At the end of your term, those ministries, including the Ministry of the Environment, will have

12% less purchasing power than they have this year. That will mean you'll be laying off inspectors, scientists and enforcement officers, not hiring new ones to make sure that these new standards

are adhered to.

As usual, the Liberals have rolled out something that is far less than meets the eye.

DOMINIC AGOSTINO

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

party to speak for up to five minutes to pay tribute to our dear friend and colleague, Dominic Agostino.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent to pay tribute to our late colleague, Dominic Agostino? Agreed.

The member from Hamilton West.

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr Speaker, if Dominic was here,

he would have heckled you for that. It's Hamilton Mountain.

I'm honoured to have this opportunity to pay tribute to our friend, Dominic Agostino. Dominic was a hard-working and dedicated member of provincial Parliament.

He embodied the very essence of what it means to work for the public good. I know he earned the respect and admiration of all of us in this Legislature and indeed the province.

I had heard about Dominic even before I met him. This probably comes as no surprise. At the tender age of 20, he was elected as a trustee to the

Hamilton-Wentworth separate school board and was re-elected for three subsequent terms. He was the youngest trustee ever to be elected in Ontario at that time. Then in 1987 he was elected to

Hamilton city council and Hamilton-Wentworth regional council in a by-election. He obviously worked hard for his constituents because they returned him to council, re-electing him three more

times.

I met Dominic 10 years ago, when I sought the nomination in my riding. The first thing I noticed was, he had an aura about him. There were always a lot of

people around Dominic wherever he went. I was in awe that someone so young could command such fierce loyalty and respect. He was the go-to guy in Hamilton. If you wanted anything done, you knew

Dominic could help you out. If you had Dominic Agostino on your team, you were very lucky.

In 1995, he was elected as the MPP for Hamilton East. In opposition, he held a number of important posts, including chief whip and the critic for labour,

housing and community and social services. He was a tireless worker for the people in his riding, and they rewarded him by returning him to Queen's Park in 1999 and in 2003.

Dominic had a reputation for jumping on government issues that he felt needed attention. I'm sure everyone remembers the time he wanted to make a point about

the quality of our air and he wore a gas mask in this House. Apparently, that stopped him from being heard, but he made his point nonetheless.

This kind of creative thinking made him a popular member among the press gallery. You could always count on getting a great quote from Dominic, and he freely

admitted that he liked to dominate the media. In fact, because of this and his electoral successes, he was named the Dominator in Hamilton -- a big headline in 1999. But not only did he give

colourful remarks; he had the research and the work to back it up. I think that's why he was respected. He had substance behind the style.

Dominic drew strength from his roots growing up in a working-class neighbourhood. He was always a great defender of the little guy. He often worked to help

injured workers in his community because of his own father's struggles. In 2003, he introduced an amendment to the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act to increase the penalties for

workplaces that did not take action to ensure a safe work environment.

Dominic was a strong advocate for his constituents. Last year, a woman in his riding approached him for help because she needed a new wheelchair but she wasn't

getting anyone to listen to her case. He helped her cut through the bureaucratic red tape, which took several months. But they persevered, and the woman got the assistance she needed. She received

her wheelchair two days before he died. That was typical of Dominic: his passion to right wrongs right to the end.

It's something that I know his family can attest to. I've had the honour of meeting members of his family several times, and they're here today: his mother,

Teresa, whose house was always open; his brother, Ralph; his sister, Mary; nephews Michael, Nicholas and Sammy; and niece Krystina. Anthony is graduating today; otherwise he'd be here as well. We

all know how many times Dominic bragged about his nieces and nephews.

Signora Teresa's house was always open for barbecues. I remember one summer I went to one. There were wall-to-wall people in and out of your house, Signora. I

said to Dominic, "Where's your mom?" "Oh, she's in Italy." I thought, "This is probably the last time we'll see Mrs Agostino's house for one of these," but every year you were there for your boy,

for us.

He often made a world of difference to people needing support and help. If that isn't what public service is all about, then I don't know what is.

Dominic was instrumental in helping me find my way as a politician when I was first elected in 1999. All of us know how daunting it can be to arrive here.

Right after the Roy Green show the morning after the election in 1999, I said, "Dominic, can we have a coffee?" He said, "Sure." I said, "OK, now what do I do?" He lent me one of his assistants for

the summer, who showed me the ropes.

Working alongside him was a wonderful experience. He had an incredible sense of humour, and he kept me in stitches, often at the Tories' expense. He loved

heckling. We sat close together in opposition, and every day in question period, I was wondering what he would say next. I literally missed him when he was away here and there. I literally missed

him. I said, "It's not the same without Dominic here." And it's not the same without Dominic here.

We were more than just colleagues. I felt he was more like my brother in here -- sometimes my little brother and sometimes my big brother. We shared many

opinions and views and believed what we were doing made a difference.

Dominic will be remembered for his dedication, tenacity and drive. He will always be remembered for his love of politics and the love of the people he

served.

A great philosopher once said, "When you are sorrowful, look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your

delight." Dominic was the delight of his family, friends and colleagues. Signora Teresa, he was a delight to me as a friend. He held a special place in my heart -- indeed, in all our hearts -- and

he will always be remembered with great affection.

Lui serà sempre con noi, Signora Teresa.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): It's a great privilege for me to speak on behalf of the official opposition, and certainly a greater

privilege to speak about my good friend Dominic Agostino.

The worth of every human being can be measured, and it can be measured in so many ways. But there's perhaps no greater tribute to Dominic than the outpouring

of grief from those whose lives he touched following his passing just a few short months ago. At his funeral in Hamilton and at a memorial service here in Toronto, people from so many walks of life

showed their deep affection for Dominic. People from every walk of life -- from frail Italian seniors to working people, to students, to business people, to three former Premiers -- all paid

tribute to him by their mere presence.

Hamilton is the kind of place that is part big city and part small town. I can remember en route from the funeral to the burial that the member for Whitby-Ajax

said, as we looked out the car window, that, wow, Dominic was a big man in this town. Police officers had blocked off the entire route through town in honour of the contribution that Dominic had

made to his home community. Even more impressively, many people stopped by the side of the road, with their grocery bag next to their feet and their children at their side, or simply looked up from

their porch to pay respect.

In the game of life, if the person who dies with the most friends wins, then Dominic indeed was a winner. He represented the very best in public service and

commitment to those he served. He had a rare ability to bring people of very diverse backgrounds together, and that certainly was the case following his death. I think of a number of incidents. I

think that maybe the Minister of the Environment isn't such a bad person after all, after she kept passing me tissues during the funeral.

I recall being at the memorial service, where Jaime Watt gave a very glowing introduction to our Premier. I can recall even the Premier's comments at the

funeral service, where for a few short moments -- or maybe even the whole day; I'll say the whole day -- the Premier was even my Premier on that day. Dominic was very proud to be a member of your

team.

Throughout his time in government he strongly, and even forcefully, stood up for the people he served and represented, and it was always easy for him to do so

because he was totally in sync with the people he represented. It was always easy for him to do so. Some say there is no room for idealism in politics, and I can certainly say without a doubt in my

mind that it sure wasn't Dominic Agostino who said that. He was a principled politician who never forgot who sent him to this place.

Sometimes in public life we're all tempted to back away from a challenge, that it is better to simply remain silent on an issue that may not enjoy public

support in the short term. Such was the case in the first year of the Harris government, back in 1995, in the thick of the Common Sense Revolution. Some were licking their wounds from electoral

defeat, but Dominic stood up and aggressively fought for those he cared about and passionately supported. I think of his one-man crusade against welfare reform back in 1995 and 1996, a policy that

wasn't easy to attack because it had, I think, somewhere around 91% of public support. But Dominic would have none of that support and he would represent forcefully the other 9%.

Some thought that Dominic's tactics in that first year in opposition were over the top and were aggressive. His pursuit of Mike Harris's agenda came only

second to his eager pursuit of the media, as they were the ones who would give an audience to his opposition to the government. Back then I thought that he was over the top. But, having thought

about it these last eight months, perhaps he was more accurate than even I could have recognized at the time.

As one person who followed Dominic's career observed, he was not a politician who looked for a political legacy in a new highway or a new government building

in his constituency. Rather, he did it in other ways, in more direct ways that perhaps not everyone saw or even knew about, as one person discovered going door to door during the recent

by-election, when a young disabled girl answered her door. I think the minister of children's services has already told that story. The girl said, "Oh, Dominic Agostino: When I needed help, he got

me a new wheelchair." That wasn't the only story. There are hundreds of stories, if not thousands, whether it was a young child who needed to be on a bus route going to school, whether it was a

zoning problem for a non-profit group in Hamilton or whether it was one of thousands of people he served one-on-one.

He will be greatly missed. For those he loved and for those who loved him -- Teresa, Andrew, Ralph and Rose, Mary and Tony -- and to his nieces and nephews,

whom he was so tremendously proud of, our profound sympathies. You can be so proud of his contributions to his community and of his accomplishments to our province.

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm very honoured to be here on behalf of the New Democratic representatives in the House to talk about

Dominic Agostino. I knew Dominic for many years in Hamilton as a very kind, very caring, very effective and very dedicated representative of the people of Hamilton East and of Hamiltonians overall.

His name in our city became synonymous with advocacy, with the fight for the underdog. He was passionate and well respected by constituents, yes; by activists, yes; and by politicians of every

political stripe in Hamilton as well as here in Toronto.

He cut his political teeth, as was mentioned by the member for Hamilton Mountain, on the school board but also on city council. That's where I got to know him.

At the time when he was on city council or on regional council as a chair of social and public health or the social services committee, I was an advocate at a legal clinic for people living in

poverty in the east end of Hamilton. I had the occasion many times to talk to him and to the people who worked for him about the issues that were facing people in poverty in the city of Hamilton.

He was always there to listen and was always very concerned about what he could do at the local level to try to make it better for people in their everyday lives.

I can recall when he got elected in 1995. At the time, I was still in that position when I was advocating on behalf of tenants. I had the occasion to call

Dominic up and ask him for some quotes for a particular document that I was preparing for tenants in Hamilton who were trying to organize against some very nasty changes to legislation that were

going to hurt tenants severely. He was there. It didn't take very long for his staff to get him on the phone. I can recall my phone ringing, and it was Dominic and I was shocked. I said, "You

called me back," and he said, "Of course. You wanted a quote, didn't you?" I said, "Yes, I did, as a matter of fact. Thank you." I can recall that the thing about him was that, for some strange

reason, he became very skilled at encapsulating the very essence of an argument or an issue in a very small phrase that just took off in popularity and the media could just grab on to and it became

a headline. I can remember talking to him that particular time, and I think he said, "Tenant rejection act." I was floored and I said, "Did you just think that up on the spot?" He said, "Yeah; is

it a good one?" I said, "It's a very good one, Dominic." Nonetheless, that's what we knew about Dominic in Hamilton. He was always a fighter for the people and always committed to having a strong

voice.

On a personal level, although I was from a different political party, Dominic really did encourage me from the day I was elected at city council. Every time he

came to city hall and was in the council chambers or around city hall talking to different people, he would always take the time to say hello to me, ask me how I was doing, to ask if there were any

questions that I had or any advice that he could provide. He really was a very decent person, and several of his friends became friends of mine.

He was also a controversial figure locally, as people will know. He never did waiver in his fight and his desire to vocalize the things that he was concerned

about. He was always very committed to making sure that the things he believed in were well-known and were at the top of the public agenda. The local media loved him. He was known to be quite

accessible for quotes from time to time. Once in a while, he would find a way to make a story out of something that other people wouldn't have thought had a story in it. Dominic could always find a

way to make sure that something with little fodder became something very major. Often, some of the things that he came up with were quite insightful. He turned them to make people think about how

the small things really matter in day-to-day lives of people.

He will be definitely be missed forever and remembered by members of this Legislature, definitely by his family and friends, but also by every single

Hamiltonian whose lives he touched, and those were many.

The Speaker: I want to thank all members for their kind remarks. I will ensure that copies of these comments in Hansard will be sent to the

family.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Today in the east gallery, I would like to welcome the mayor of Hawkesbury, the county warden of

Prescott-Russell, the eastern Ontario warden and the president of AFMO, Jacques Hétu.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Premier. During the past eight months, you have repeatedly broken your

promises to Ontarians. You promised very specifically not to raise taxes, but in your budget you introduced a punishing health tax for those earning over $20,000. You promised to increase access to

health care, but you delisted physiotherapy, chiropractic and eye exams. I ask you today, will you commit that you will not take away any more health services from Ontarians or delist any more

health services?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this once again. First

of all, with respect to the premium itself, it's important to put this in some perspective. Some 48% of Ontario seniors will pay nothing; 43% of Ontario tax filers will pay nothing; 37% of Ontario

families will pay nothing. We've made it as practical, progressive and responsible as we could.

What was the impetus for this? The member opposite may want to account for this at some point in time. The impetus was a $5.6-billion hidden deficit. We found

out about that after the election. We brought in the Provincial Auditor, and he said, "It's there. You're going to have to do something about it."

We decided that in all the circumstances, given the options before us, instead of cutting water inspectors, teachers, nurses and the like, it would be better

for us to invest in health care. We've called upon the people of Ontario, and with them we're going to improve the quality of their care.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Premier, people do not believe you. You had an opportunity to reduce and eliminate the deficit. You hired a private consultant

to get that opinion. I would remind you that in a Canadian Press

article today you said, "Ontario residents needn't fear that anything else will be dropped any time soon." Then you said, "We'll

look at these on an annual basis." What does the quote in the CP

article mean? Are you going to be cutting more health care services? Will you be delisting more services? Is this more toward

privatization and two-tiered health care?

Hon Mr McGuinty: It's important for the member to cast her mind back, and I think it's helpful to Ontarians as well to understand what the

Tories did given their financial circumstances and what we are doing given our financial circumstances. They cut welfare funding by 22% and then froze it; we've increased it by 3%. They fired one

third of the Ministry of the Environment staff and cut the budget by 40%; we have hired back water inspectors and meat inspectors. They slashed education funding by some $400 million; we have

committed, over the course of our four-year term, to increase funding by $2.6 billion to reduce class sizes and have, in each and every one of our elementary schools, lead teachers with expertise

in numeracy and literacy. That's their approach; this is our approach. There's the contrast. We're proud of our approach.

Mrs Witmer: How can anybody believe you? Our track record on health is as follows: When Paul Martin cut funding to health care, our government

increased funding by $11 billion. We invested in education --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Stop the shouting. I would like to hear the member from Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mrs Witmer: We increased and supported the Rozanski report in education by $2 billion. Your Minister of Education now is causing hardship by

holding back the special education funding.

Let me ask you about the Ontario breast cancer screening program. Why have you cut funding for the breast cancer screening program by 10%? They want to

increase the number of women who receive the test, yet it's cut by 10%. Why?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We increased that funding by 10% over actual. Those are the facts.

The other thing the former minister may want to recall is that she spent $400 million on severance packages to fire nurses by the thousands, and then she spent

another $400 million trying to hire those same nurses back. We have a different approach. What we're doing is working together with the Minister of Health and the nursing community throughout the

province. Our commitment is to establish 8,000 new full-time nursing positions.

The end game here is to reduce waiting times in our hospitals. In addition to that, we are investing in health care outside of hospitals, whether in nursing

homes, whether through family health teams, whether through home care. That is what we are doing with this premium. We understand that it places an additional burden on Ontario families, but I can

tell you they are going to get value for their money. We won't be putting it into severance packages.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is also for the Premier. Last month you stunned Ontario taxpayers when you broke your promise

not to raise taxes. On budget day, you stood outside this place and said it wasn't a tax, but rather, it was a premium, and now your Minister of Finance's bill shows the real truth to this

trick.

I want to read the front page of this bill. It says, "The Income Tax Act is amended to impose a tax called the Ontario health premium." This is at complete

odds with everything you and your Minister of Finance said. Do you not owe it to the people of Ontario to be honest and admit that this is a black-and-white case where you are raising income taxes

on hard-working families in Ontario?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): If my colleague is looking for the black-and-white case to be made, then

this is that: They hid from the people of Ontario a $5.6-billion deficit. What we could have done is put up our feet for four years and proceeded to make more cuts to health care, to education, to

the Ministry of the Environment, and perhaps to cut welfare as well. Given that we bring a very different value set to the job at hand, we decided that it was important for us, instead of cutting,

to make absolutely essential investments in health care, education, the Ministry of the Environment, and yes, to give people on welfare an additional 3%, and yes, to give our seniors living in

nursing homes a paltry 3% increase in their comfort allowance so they might buy a bit of shampoo and possibly have enough money to buy a gift, from time to time, for a grandchild. We happen to

believe that those are the right things to do.

Mr Baird: Last week, 18 Liberal MPPs were absent from the first major vote on your budget. In fact, you only had 52, the absolute bare

majority to pass this bill. Your caucus is clearly feeling the heat. Member after member after member has spoken up about the outrageous content of your first budget.

We've heard your rhetoric about the democratic deficit. Now we read in your budget that you want to collect this tax in nine days, before your bill is even

debated and before it's law. Does that not put a sham to the electoral process? Does that not put a sham to the utility of this elected assembly, when we don't even get the opportunity to debate

and to vote on a new tax before you start to put your hands in working families' pockets? Isn't that outrageous, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: No, it's not. There is a parliamentary convention, a practice, that allows us to do this.

The member raised the notion that somehow some of our members were absent for the last vote. Well, many of his were absent for the last vote. Am I to make the

assumption that they support this bill by virtue of the fact that they were not here?

I can tell you that each and every one of the members of this government is very proud of this budget. In particular, they are proud of the fact that it's

going to deliver 36,000 more cardiac procedures, 2,300 more joint replacements, 9,000 more cataract surgeries, 8,000 more full-time nursing positions; close to 100,000 more Ontarian seniors are

going to be getting home care delivered to them in their homes. We are very proud of that budget and our ability to put that forward for the people of Ontario.

Mr Baird: If you're so proud of your budget, why don't you do exactly what you promised to do and allow the people of Ontario to have their

say in the referendum that you, with great fanfare, promised them? You're breaking your signature election campaign promise. You're breaking faith with hard-working middle-class families across the

province. Now, in the ultimate act of arrogance, a slap in the face to the democratic deficit, a slap in the face to all of the people and their elected representatives, you are going to dig your

hands into the pockets of hard-working taxpayers before their elected MPPs have the chance to vote.

Will you now stand in your place and will you acknowledge this tax, the lack of progressivity in it, and the underhanded way with which it has been introduced

in this place? It deserves to be delayed for three months. Allow public hearings to go on on this bill so the people of Ontario can have a genuine debate about this tax, where you're breaking faith

with your election campaign commitments. Will you do that, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: It is more than interesting to be lectured by a member of a previous government which arguably, for the first time in the

history of British parliamentary tradition, introduced a budget outside of this Legislative Assembly, at an auto parts assembly plant.

What we have done is very much in keeping with parliamentary tradition. We have introduced our legislation in this House. We've had lots of debate on second

reading and third reading. We had votes in this House. We've been very direct with the people of Ontario when it comes to the importance of moving ahead with these initiatives, not in our

short-term political interest but rather in the interest of Ontarians: reducing wait times for them and improving student achievement. We'll keep doing those kinds of things.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier.

Despite all the Liberal rhetoric about health care, it is now very clear that you will spend health care money on things that no one in this province considers

health care. Whether it's spending on sewer pipe or television ads, there is a $200-million health care credibility gap in this year's budget, and next year the gap will be $1 billion. That's $1

billion that should be spent on health care services that clearly isn't going there.

Will you finally admit to the people of Ontario that first you decided to take $2 billion from the pockets of working families and then, after the fact, you

decided to call it a health care premium so that, you hoped, they would swallow it a little easier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: This is a matter of obsessive interest to the leader of the third party. I'll be pleased to respond once again. Every single

penny that is going to be generated by this new health care premium will be invested in new health care services for the people of Ontario. It's a very simple matter.

This year we're going to raise $1.6 million. The Ministry of Health expenditures are going up by $2.2 billion. Next year, the premium will generate $2.4

billion. The Ministry of Health expenditures will be going up by $2.8 billion. Every single penny generated by the new premium will be invested in health care for Ontarians.

Mr Hampton: I invite you to look at your own budget. Here's the Liberal reality: Despite your promise not to cut health services, you're

cutting the health services of chiropractors and optometrists. Despite your statement that you would never impose a regressive and unfair health premium, that's exactly what you're doing. But when

you add up the numbers, your increases in health care investments, next year over this year, are actually going to be less than the increases in health care investments under the Conservatives.

That's what your rhetoric about health care boils down to. Admit it. What you did is, you decided you were going to take $2 billion from the pockets of modest-

and middle-income families. Then you thought, "Gee, this will be hard for them to swallow, but if we call it a health care premium, they might swallow it a little easier." That's what you did.

Admit it.

Hon Mr McGuinty: The leader of the third party is bringing a very antiquated approach to managing our health care system and, in particular,

our health care expenditures. When I got here 14 years ago, about one third of the budget was consumed by health care expenditures. Today, just under 50 per cent of the budget is being consumed by

health care expenditures.

We can no longer afford to measure our success simply by virtue of how much money we're putting into the system when it comes to health care in Ontario. Yes,

we are putting more money into the system -- obviously not as much money as the member opposite would like. But for the first time, what we're focused on is results. They tell me that 10 per cent

of the people in our hospitals shouldn't be there. What we are doing is investing in family health teams, home care, long-term care and public health. We're moving upstream so that we can do more

by way of prevention. That's the intelligent, responsible approach to managing health care at the beginning of the 21st century.

Mr Hampton: Premier, no matter how you try to cut the numbers, here's the reality: Between fiscal 2001-02 and fiscal 2002-03, the

Conservatives actually increased health care investments by $1.9 billion. Then, between 2002-03 and 2003-04 they increased it by $2.1 billion. I remember that when you were over here, you used to

castigate the Conservatives for not investing enough in health care. But next year, as compared to this year, you're only going to increase investments by $600 million.

Why don't you give up all the rhetoric about this being a health care budget and admit this is a regressive and unfair tax and you're simply using the title

"health care" to cover it up and hide the fact that this is just a regressive tax grab from the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The honourable member remains stuck in some kind of time warp where he believes the only thing we can do at any time to

improve health care is pour all kinds more money into it. We are making substantial new investments, but, in addition to that, we are determined to get more results. If you talk to the people of

Ontario, and particularly families right now who are waiting to access health care, for them it's not about money; it's about the time it's taking them to get health care.

By virtue of these intelligent, strategic investments, we are going to reduce wait times -- we're talking specifically about cardiac care, chemotherapy,

radiation, hip replacements, knee replacements, cataracts and many other areas. Our investments are designed to do more than just put more money into the system; they're designed to reduce waiting

times and make a real difference in the lives of Ontario families.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. Your government's second budget bill today is proof you're still not

listening to the people of Ontario. The people don't like your tax grab. They don't like that modest- and middle-income people are paying too much, and they don't like the fact that people making

more than $100,000 are not paying their fair share. You have had an opportunity to listen over these last many weeks, but you have failed to do so.

My question to you is simple: Why didn't you scrap this unfair tax measure, and why have you reintroduced something that is no more progressive at all

today?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We, of course, remain very much committed to our plan to improve health care and our plan to levy the additional funds from

the people of Ontario, keeping in mind that 48% of Ontario seniors will pay nothing, 43% of Ontario tax filers will pay nothing and 37% of Ontario families will pay nothing by virtue of this new

premium.

Contrast our approach with the approach brought by the NDP through their years in government. They brought in a new tax so that if you earned $20,000, your

taxes went up by $160. Under our budget, your taxes go up by nothing if you're earning $20,000. They raised student tuition by 50%. We have frozen student tuition for at least two years. They

raised gas taxes by 30%. We haven't raised them by a penny. What we have done instead is that we are taking $312 million of the revenue we're receiving and transferring that to our municipal

partners for them to invest in better public transit. That's the difference between their approach and our approach.

Mr Prue: Mr Premier, you should have spent the last couple of weeks listening to the people of this province and perhaps to some of the

members opposite. If you had, you would have realized that large corporations are not paying their fair share. You know, the dedicated health tax which the Peterson Liberals brought in, you have

now scrapped. The problem with that dedicated health tax is that there's a loophole: Corporations are not paying $700 million that they should be paying. If you were really listening to the people,

you would have closed that loophole. My question to you again is simple: Why aren't you listening to the people of Ontario? Why didn't you close the employer health tax loophole and save yourself

$700 million?

Hon Mr McGuinty: It's hard to figure out from one day to the next where the NDP stand when it comes to corporate taxation in the province of

Ontario, because we gave them the opportunity to vote in keeping with their principal position. We rolled back corporate taxes to the tune of some $2 billion at least this year. When the NDP were

presented with the opportunity to support that legislation, they voted against that bill. So it seems to me that this party has no credibility when it comes to talking about corporate taxes in

Ontario.

Mr Prue: When it comes to no credibility, Mr Premier, I think you have the market cornered. You had a chance to listen, but you chose not to.

You had a chance to scrap the tax grab for modest- and middle-income people, and you chose not to. You were demanding revenue measures, but you should be demanding revenue measures based on the

ability to pay. You should have admitted that your budget, from the outset, was a non-starter. You didn't listen. You didn't change. Therefore, this budget is not based on transparency and

fairness. My question is -- and I want an answer: Why do you persist going down a road that you cannot possibly win?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I guess the implication in that question is that we're not going to win political popularity by virtue of this budget. I've

said this before, and I'm delighted to say it again: This is not about our short-term political popularity; it's about doing what is right for the people of Ontario. Right now, it's time for us to

shorten their waiting lists. Right now, it's time for us to reduce class sizes in the early years. Right now, it's time for us to improve student achievement. It's time for us to have more MRIs,

more CTs, more surgeries when it comes to cataracts, hip replacements, knee replacements, radiation, chemotherapy and the like. Those are the right things to do for the people of Ontario.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Minister of Education, and it is about promises made, promises broken. Promise number

13, to the Minister of Education, will make sure schools are safe so students can concentrate on learning, and number 22 is to ensure that school boards provide strong local accountability and

decision-making. This is about accountability to parents in the public school system.

There's a situation in Barrie where a suspended teacher, according to the Globe and Mail, who the children's aid society warned shouldn't be allowed to work

with children and had put her on the child abuse register, is volunteering in the schools. Would you agree, Minister, that it is unacceptable for a suspended teacher who, according to the Globe,

has been placed by the CAS on the child abuse register to be volunteering in the public schools of Ontario?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): It is the outlook of this government that everyone who comes in contact with children should be

screened and should be subject to some kind of sanction or at least oversight by the responsible parties. As a member of the opposition, I put this as an amendment three times in committee to this

past government and asked them, indeed, to include volunteers as a formal requirement. Every single time, the government members opposite refused.

I will tell you that in our guidelines to boards there is an initiative in Ontario for voluntary enlistment of these kinds of individuals to use that. I would

say that we are in discussions with all the boards around how we can rectify the mistake made by the previous government.

Mr Flaherty: Minister, you are the minister now, and you're responsible for these schools in Ontario. This person was suspended by the Ontario

College of Teachers. She was suspended because she wrote something like 64 intimate letters to a 13-year-old boy. She is back volunteering in our public school system. The parents are writing to

me, the parents are writing to the newspapers, and they're writing to the school board, saying this is unacceptable. What they get back from the superintendent in the Simcoe County District School

Board is that volunteering in schools is a privilege, and that's it. But how is it that this person can be in this school, can be in the Johnson Street Public School in the county of Simcoe, given

the facts of this case? Do something about it. Be accountable to parents in Barrie.

Hon Mr Kennedy: Again, Justice Robins did a report in this province around a very serious issue, and that was the small exposure -- the risk

that exists in our schools for persons of trust. When it was put to the previous government, when that bill came to this Legislature, they refused to do it. We stand in this House today in a

circumstance that the previous government purports to have an interest in but refused and declined to give us the power to exercise.

The member opposite would stand outside his legislative responsibilities and condemn an individual or a circumstance. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that we will

do everything we can with the powers we do have to ensure that all children are safe in this province and that there are guidelines that are followed. I will tell you this, and will serve notice in

this House, that we will take the first opportunity we have to make legislative remedy to the job they didn't finish, if they really had that concern in the first place.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Premier. Your delisting of eye tests, physiotherapy and chiropractic services

is punishing and shameful to the many Ontarians who depend on these services. It has also been a fatal blow to your credibility as a defender of health care. You have the gall to claim that you're

raising taxes to pay for health care services when you're actually spending lots of the money on other things. And your delisting means that not only are people paying much more; they're getting

much less.

You've scheduled an emergency cabinet meeting for this afternoon, I hear. Will you use that meeting to cancel the delisting so people get at least some of

those vital services back? Will you do that?

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

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I always find it interesting when the honourable member finds a $2.161-billion

increase in funding for the Ministry of Health to be associated with much less. This from a member of a party that, for two or three successive years when in government, what did they do? They

froze increases to the Ontario drug benefit, while our budget brings in a full quarter of a billion dollars in new funding for drugs that our seniors are depending on. That is their legacy.

On the matter of physio and optometry, it seems that the honourable member refuses to understand that on the issue of physiotherapy, there is no change in

2004-05, but we will be working to make sure those precious resources that we have for physiotherapy are deployed in an equitable fashion, which is not the case now. Northern Ontario, as an

example, is decidedly disadvantaged by the fact that there are but two

schedule 5 clinics and both of those are in Sault Ste Marie. There will be changes to physiotherapy, and they will ensure that

the most vulnerable --

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

Ms Churley: Back to the Premier. Your credibility has hit rock bottom, and the answer from your health minister just now did not help you any.

It's so low that it's actually threatening to bring down a federal Liberal government that everyone thought was unbeatable a few short months ago.

It's going to take a lot more than cancelling the delisting to give people any kind of confidence in you. But let me tell you this: If you don't cancel the

delisting, it will show that you're not listening and you must be living on another planet. It will show that you won't even do the minimum for the people who need eye tests, suffer from back pain

or need therapy after major surgery.

I'm going to ask you again: Will you use your emergency cabinet meeting this afternoon to bring back those programs for people who need them? Will you do

that?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I'm pleased, in supplementary, to have the opportunity to inform the member, because she seems to be continually

misinformed, about the work we're doing with respect to optometry in this province. The challenge, of course, in the context of the precious resources we have, is to make sure we deploy them in the

most appropriate way. The changes we're making with respect to optometry in this province will mean that those most vulnerable, those who have diseases that affect eyes -- our youngest and our

oldest -- continue to have the benefit of these services.

These investments we're making, including $600 million for primary care, give us an opportunity to build on our plan, which is decidedly necessary, because

when they were the party in government, when they were the custodians of health care in this province, what did they do? They closed medical school spots. They prevented this province and

communities all across this province from having the advantage of something they considered pretty essential for health care: a doctor. That's your legacy, and it stands in sharp contrast --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Today marks the beginning of summer, and

in Ontario it's synonymous with the beginning of more smog days. We know the health concerns that arise every time there is a smog day advisory: premature deaths, hospital admissions, emergency

room visits and sick days. But I understand you made an announcement today at the smog summit that is aimed at addressing Ontario's chronic smog problem. Exactly what is your ministry doing to

ensure that we see a reduction in smog days here, as opposed to the steady increase that we've been seeing in the past decade?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very happy to have this opportunity to clarify for this House the five-point plan that

has been introduced by this government, by this Minister of the Environment today.

First, our government is announcing tough new limits on nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide. They are primary smog-causing agents. The second component is that

we are toughening the limits for nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide. The third action plan increases the number of industrial carcinogens and toxins now monitored. We've increased that to 29

elements that we are going to be monitoring. The fourth is that we are going to be using newer modelling. The modelling that's in place at the present time is 30 years old. With improvements in

technology, we are going to be using the latest in science to model emissions. And the final point is that we will be implementing new air standards and models, and we are going to implement --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr Berardinetti: Today's announcement is good news for those people who have been forced to stay inside due to asthma conditions, aggravated

heart conditions or other breathing problems. It also marks a turning point for Ontario's industries. Setting tough new standards means that industries will need to update their technology. My

question is, how will today's announcement affect industry and what is being done to ensure that this plan will not push companies out of business?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: The Ministry of the Environment has been working with our industrial partners on this initiative. I'm very happy to point

out today as well that Ontario's proposed new and updated air standards are comparable to other jurisdictions, including those in the United States and other provinces, such as Newfoundland,

Alberta and British Columbia.

Ontario's current regulatory framework is based on assessing local health and environmental impacts on our communities. Ontario's approach is comprehensive and

will require that all pollutants, even the most dangerous ones, will form part of our guideline. This is different than the United States' approach, which focuses on technology-based solutions for

specific pollutants.

We are working with our industries. There is flexibility built into our model, and we are confident that both our communities and our industrial sector will

benefit from our emissions plan.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and, once again, it

involves one of his comments to the media.

On Friday, in a column by the Toronto Sun's Christina Blizzard entitled "Chief Deserves Better," you said, "There is speculation in the media today about

whether Chief Fantino's contract is going to be renewed. That's not my decision. That's the mayor's and the council's decision. They are the ones who hired him. They are the ones who pay him. He is

responsible to them."

I'm shocked that you didn't know that the police services board is responsible for the chief's appointment, not the mayor or the council. With these comments,

you have offended Toronto police chief Julian Fantino, you have jeopardized his relationship with the Toronto Police Services Board and you have misled the public. In light of the damage you have

done --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I'd ask you to withdraw that. It is unparliamentary.

Mr Dunlop: I'll withdraw that he had misinformed the public.

Minister, in light of the damage you have caused, will you stand in the House right now and admit that your comments were ill advised and inaccurate?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): The only person I've offended is that member.

I should tell you that when I was asked the question, the question was that the chief walked out of a meeting at city hall and what was I going to do about it?

I said to him at the time, "I have no control over the chief, and when he walks out of a city hall meeting, that's up to the city hall people to discuss, not me, because they're the ones who have

responsibility for the chief, for the Toronto Police Services." I would suggest to you, given the incidents that are happening in this community around my ministry, that you would find this the

question to ask is really deplorable and really does not even deserve the kind of respect that you should be looking for.

Mr Dunlop: I'm surprised, Minister, that you're taking this question so lightly.

On Friday you received two letters that clearly spell out how your comments were perceived by Julian Fantino and by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of

Police. They were signed June 18. I have copies of them here, if you want a copy of them. In the first letter, Jerome Wiley, counsel to Chief Fantino, requests that you "publicly and immediately

clarify your comments to reflect the legal status of the chief vis-à-vis the mayor and city council."

In the second letter, William Malpass, executive director of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, asks you "to immediately clarify publicly your views

on the role of the police chiefs and to apologize to our member, Chief Julian Fantino, and to police leaders across the province."

Minister, will you make this apology right now in this House?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I would suggest that if the member wants to get a clarification, he should call the chief. He should call Chief Fantino. I

have spoken to him. He has no problem whatsoever with what has been said.

If you would only do your research and understand what the role of the police chief is, instead, as I say -- I want to repeat again: There are very serious

issues evolving around what is happening in Ontario regarding my ministry. For you to spend your time on that kind of question is beyond you, beyond your caucus, and really is something that you

should take a very close look at to see whether or not you're acting responsibly.

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Ontario Power Generation says it has given your Minister of Energy its

recommendation to restart unit 1 of the Pickering A nuclear plant. Last December, your own review panel said the cost of rebuilding Pickering A has ballooned from $800 million to $3 billion -- in

other words, by three and a half times. Now, most reasonable people would say there is something wrong when the cost of a project goes up three and a half times. It's now six months later, Premier.

Will you share with us the latest OPG estimate of the cost of bringing back Pickering A before you make any decision?

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

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The Ontario Clean Air Alliance was provided with all the spreadsheets that

were used to do those calculations. Those documents have been available to the public for some time now.

Mr Hampton: Well, when OPG was asked to make all of those numbers public, they refused. You're the government that said you believe in

complete transparency and public openness in terms of OPG.

I'm simply asking you, before you throw more money down the drain at Pickering, will you make public to the people of Ontario the latest cost estimates by OPG

of what it will cost to bring back unit A? It's a simple question. You say the estimates are available. Well, will you tell us right now? What is the latest estimate from OPG on what it will cost

to bring back unit A of Pickering?

Hon Mr Duncan: We did provide the information that was used by the Manley commission in estimating the cost. We have been provided with a

number of recommendations. We have the recommendation of the Manley commission and we have the recommendation of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. We've had the advice of a number of others.

The information will be going to cabinet for a decision. When cabinet has had an opportunity to review all of the information, a decision will be taken with

respect to Pickering A, unit 1. At that point in time, of course we will make the information available to the public.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Domestic violence is the scourge of our nation,

and it must be eliminated. The tragic facts are that Ontario has the highest incidence of spousal homicide in Canada. Only 27% of spousal assaults perpetrated against women are reported to the

police. These horrific statistics also state that children witness 37% of spousal assaults. Those children who witness violence in a home are more likely to grow up to be perpetrators or victims of

violence themselves.

It is a known fact that many youth who suffer from violence and drug-related problems have come from broken homes. On this premise, what is being done to break

this vicious cycle and help the most vulnerable members of our community escape such torment and murderous abuse?

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I very much appreciate the question

from the member. Let me say that this past budget, I was very pleased to see that this ministry was able to secure funding to itemize a very specific public education campaign that deals with

breaking the cycle of abuse in a family. As the member rightly mentions in this House, of those children who have been in a home where there has been abuse -- if it is male violence -- young boys

will be more likely to be abusers, and young girls will be more likely to be abused themselves.

This is the kind of cycle that we must address, that we must break. A $5-million campaign -- over the mandate of this government -- in public education will

focus on very high-risk communities such as the aboriginal community and the francophone community. We are going to deal with young children in teaching them about healthy relationships. I'm

pleased to see that this item was included in this budget.

Mr Sergio: An average of 28 spousal homicides occur in Ontario each year. In my riding of York West, on Saturday, June 12, a pregnant woman

was shot at by her partner. She was driving to a police station seeking help in an effort to escape an abusive situation. Bullets shattered the windows of the vehicle she was driving.

Here again, this was not the first incident. This woman had endured domestic violence for some time. What is being done by your ministry to help provide

immediate shelter and adequate counselling in these horrendous situations?

Hon Ms Pupatello: Unfortunately, what the member is telling us in this House today is true. Most women who do finally flee abuse from their

homes have witnessed or suffered violence at least five times before they choose to leave. What we need to do as a government is play our role to see that there is support in communities, so that

when they choose to leave, they know they can bring their children with them, and they know they'll get help getting back on their feet.

I am pleased to say that our recent budget has addressed this, providing $3 million more to support the shelters themselves, which help when women do finally

choose to leave these homes. We're also addressing it through $8 million worth of capital that in this fiscal year will go to build more shelter beds where we don't have enough.

Again, we mentioned the prevention campaign, but more importantly, for the first time in a very long time, the Ontario government is getting back in the

business of second-stage housing. To women who are fleeing, this is a vital service to get women back on their feet.

TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is for the Minister of Culture. Last Thursday, in your absence, I asked the Premier why

your government cut $5.5 million from the Trillium Foundation's budget for this year. The Premier seemed unaware of the cutback and referred it to the finance minister. The finance minister said

that the cutback was justified so he could spend more in education and health.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Mr Alvin Curling): Order.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I suggest members read Hansard for verification.

When I went back and looked at your budget, in fact you got more money this year than you did last year for granting, but for different purposes. Minister, why

have you increased funding to the Ontario Arts Council by $15 million while slashing grants to charities and community projects through the Ontario Trillium Foundation?

Hon Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Indeed my ministry had to look for some money, and

we have taken money out of Trillium because the Ontario Trillium Foundation already had money in reserve. This year, the Trillium Foundation and Trillium recipients will not sustain any reductions

in their grants.

Mr Sterling: I suggest that the minister go and talk to the people at the Trillium Foundation.

Minister, if you look at the Web site of the Ontario Arts Council, you will see that the largest proportion of recipients is in the city of Toronto. On the

other hand, the Ontario Trillium Foundation distributes grants equally to communities across our province based on population. Trillium is an especially important supporter of projects in smaller,

less densely populated areas of the province. In my riding of Lanark-Carleton it has supported programs for people with Alzheimer's, cleaning up the Carp River and the establishment of a breakfast

program. Why are you taking $5 million out of the Trillium Foundation to give the Ontario Arts Council a huge 60% increase in their granting budget?

Hon Mrs Meilleur: I recognize that the Ontario Trillium Foundation is a very important foundation. As I explained, we are not going to take

any money this year from organizations that are in need. But we all recognize that the Ontario Arts Council is an incubator for our artists and it's very important to invest money. We are going to

continue to invest, recognizing that both organizations are very important.

Even if the member from the opposition is saying that most of the money goes to Toronto, that's not exactly right. Each of you will receive a report on what

your riding has received with regard to the Ontario Trillium Foundation and the Ontario Arts Council.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock.

I'd like to hear the member from Trinity-Spadina with a new question.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Premier. All over Ontario, drivers are hoping --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. The Premier is not here; maybe the Acting Premier. Go ahead.

Mr Marchese: All over Ontario, drivers opening their renewal notices are getting whacked with double-digit rate increases, this despite your

promise to lower rates by, they say, between 10% and 20%. Here's how your promise is working: Aviva insurance was granted a 10% reduction, but they still hit Harve Sokoloff with a 30% renewal

increase. He drives a 1999 Honda Civic CX, has a good driving record and has a policy renewal date of June 23. Premier or others, what do you say to the millions of Ontarians like Mr Sokoloff, who

are expecting a 10%, 20% reduction in their premiums but are getting hit with double-digit increases instead?

The Speaker: The Acting Premier.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I'll refer that question to the minister, who has done a lot to reduce

insurance premiums.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I would say it adds to the quality of question period when the NDP allows the member from

Trinity-Spadina to once in a while ask a question. We love to hear from him. Unfortunately, in this question he's simply on the wrong track. My friend should know that as a result of the

initiatives we took -- and it was the first step after we were sworn into government -- to freeze auto insurance premiums, we brought forth measures through regulation and through the bill that

have resulted in an average reduction, including Aviva insurance, of 10%.

My friend knows that you simply can't take one example of one driver who may have had, and may not have told his MPP of, several traffic tickets, who may have

had an accident, who may have had problems with his driving record. On average, rates are going down by 10%, and our next series of initiatives is going to have an even further dampening effect on

the cost of auto insurance in this province.

Mr Marchese: Minister, your 10%, 20% rate reduction promise, in my humble view, is a sham. Few, if any, Ontario drivers are seeing actual rate

reductions, and it's not at all clear that they ever will. Meanwhile, provinces with public auto insurance have seen single-digit rate increases at the same time that Ontario has seen rates go up

20% to 30% annually. Please, Minister, explain to Mr Sokoloff how your 10%, 20% rate reduction has become a double-digit rate hike. Please explain it to him.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Without any disrespect to my friend from Trinity-Spadina, I would prefer to refer to and rely on the research and analysis on

the trend in auto insurance premiums that come in objectively to my ministry. Over the course of the past couple of months, insurance company after insurance company has filed new rates. On

average, the decrease is 10.15%. I should tell him that the provinces he referred to -- the trend we are seeing is the reduction in accident benefits, so that notwithstanding that they are public

auto insurance, they are reducing benefits going to individuals having accidents, and this is the only mechanism that is dampening increases in those provinces. Here we have a system that provides

both sufficient benefits and lower insurance premiums.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): My question is for the Minister of Culture and minister responsible for francophone affairs.

A few days ago you moved second reading of Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act. I know that passage of the bill would ensure the preservation of

Ontario's irreplaceable heritage for present and future generations, but unfortunately not everyone seems to agree.

Just a few days ago a developer destroyed a 160-year-old pioneer farmhouse in the riding of Mississauga West, which I represent. This is a farmhouse I used to

drive by every day on my drive into work. This type of destruction is happening far too often in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Will you allow the member to ask his question?

Proceed.

Mr Delaney: How does the ministry prevent the destruction of historical buildings in Ontario?

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur (ministre de la Culture, ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones): Je voudrais remercier le

député de Mississauga-Ouest pour cette question.

Yes, it is sad but true that many heritage buildings continue to fall victim to the wrecker's ball. If passed, the proposed amendment to the Ontario Heritage

Act would accomplish several goals. Perhaps the most important one is that it would give the province and municipalities the tools they need to stop the demolition of heritage properties. When I

was a city councillor in Ottawa, I witnessed too many times the destruction of several heritage sites in my ward and elsewhere in the city. If these amendments are passed, the loss of valuable

properties will stop in Ottawa, in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier and elsewhere across the province.

Mr Delaney: Again a question to the Minister of Culture: In Mississauga West, people talk about this type of problem very often. I've had many

discussions about the destruction of local heritage buildings with both our mayor and our city councillor. This particular farmhouse was one that stood for many months and that the local citizens

petitioned our mayor and our council to try to save. Unfortunately, it wasn't possible to save this particular building; however, it would have been through the Ontario Heritage Act, had it been

passed.

Minister, could you please tell me what the reaction to the proposed amendments is and what happens next?

Hon Mrs Meilleur: Since we introduced it for the first reading in April, we have seen a groundswell of public support across the province. For

example, Pamela Minns, an influential member of several heritage groups in the Niagara region, is one of those supporters. She agrees that the existing act is weak and outdated and that the

proposed amendments would "strengthen our hands at the grassroots where we work to save Ontario's heritage."

The support is not limited to heritage organizations. Sandy Smallwood, a prominent developer in Ottawa, is very much in support. As president of Andrex Holding

Ltd, his company specializes in restoring historic buildings. He says, "The package of proposed amendments are a bold initiative that represents a giant step forward in the preservation of

Ontario's heritage." We hope that members of this assembly will support this amendment. I hope it will be passed very quickly.

DISTANCE EDUCATION

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): This is a question to the Minister of Education. There's a young student who contacted my office in Jordan, in

Niagara, who's enrolled in a distance education program through the Avon Maitland District School Board. Previously, students like him who were enrolled in this distance education simply paid a $50

deposit that was refundable upon completion of the course. Now he is being whacked with an $850 fee. The only reason is because he's enrolled at Heritage Christian School, an independent school in

Niagara. Minister, will you please investigate this situation and help to correct this inequity?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I want to thank the member opposite for bringing it to our attention. He may well be aware that

under his previous government, distance education was moved to TVO, away from the Ministry of Education.

I would still undertake, because it involves a school board under our jurisdiction, which he has connected the course to, and there are courses offered by

school boards in conjunction with a more provincial program through the distance education office, to look into any changes and how they may impact on the student he has talked about and, he's

inferring, on perhaps even a group of students. I would undertake to get back to him as a member, and if he or the family involved wants to contact our office, we'll look into that.

I would just give him that notice and advice. It could involve TVO and my colleague the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, depending on exactly

what course is taken and when.

Mr Hudak: I appreciate the minister's endeavour to get back to us. He'll be receiving a letter from us immediately, copied to the Minister of

Training, Colleges and Universities.

I think the point is very clear that a student enrolled in the public system whose parents paid into the local school board would not face an $850 fee. It

would be paid by the host board or by the Avon Maitland board,

whereas students of parents who still pay their taxes to the local school board, but simply choose to send their children to an

independent school, face this additional fee. I hope the minister will get back to us shortly to make sure we can address this situation in a fair and equitable manner. I appreciate his endeavour

in responding to my request.

Hon Mr Kennedy: All I can say more generally is simply that we're trying to be better at the availability of distance education. We have made

a commitment to rural schools in this province through our good schools open policy. We want to make sure that the only barrier there for people in our rural areas to get access to a good,

high-quality, publicly funded education is because of issues that can't be overcome, because there hasn't been a fulsome rural education policy in this province for some time now.

We are working very hard to make sure that that choice is there and available to each and every resident of rural areas. We've put forward $31 million, thanks

to the Minister of Finance and the Premier, in this most recent budget. We'll address what too many governments have taken for granted, which is that everyone in this province should have equal

right to a same-quality, high-quality public education.

We make that commitment to the people in rural Ontario. There are many schools that have been under pressures -- many, as the member knows, in his own riding.

One of the best schools in the province, with one of the highest scores, was shut down by his previous government. I was there at the time and there were tumbleweeds literally going through there.

Recreational facilities can't be used by his community. I'll tell you, our endeavour will be a complete policy of rural education. Distance credits will be there, and so will all of the services

that every rural --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mr Minister, yesterday there was a huge

referendum in the province of Quebec. The Liberal government of that province has allowed democratic referenda on forced mergers -- the de-amalgamation of many cities. Eighty-nine former

municipalities and the people who live in them participated; 15 alone in Montreal voted to return to their former cities and towns.

In Ontario, you have denied that same opportunity to the people of Flamborough, Dundas and Aldershot, and you have refused to respect the vote of the people of

Kawartha Lakes.

My question to you is a simple one: When will you grant the same rights to Ontario citizens that people in Quebec enjoy? When are you going to grant the right

of those people to control their own destinies?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I thank the member opposite for the

question. As he well knows, we're looking at the Quebec situation with some interest, but our primary responsibility is to make sure that all municipalities are fiscally and financially sustainable

and accountable in the province of Ontario. That's our primary responsibility. As we have always said, the prime interests of this government that was elected last October 2 are health care and

education issues, to make sure that we improve health care and education in this province. We'll be taking a very close look at the Quebec situation and we will deal with the situation

accordingly.

ANNUAL REPORT,

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the 2003-04 annual report of the Ombudsman.

The member for Leeds-Grenville had a point of order.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier today there was a request for unanimous consent for second and third

reading for the medical review, Bill 104. I'd like to ask for unanimous consent for both Bill 86 and Bill 104 to receive second and third reading today.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We are prepared to discuss those things at

the House leaders' meeting. The opposition cancelled today's House leaders' meeting. We've rescheduled it for tomorrow. We'd be pleased to talk about it tomorrow.

The Speaker: Do we have consent? There's no consent.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): As you know, the Liberals' disastrous budget was passed last Thursday at 9:30. Unfortunately, a lot

of people still don't agree with it. On Friday, I had over 1,000 petitions brought to my office and they are to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

physiotherapy services,

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

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

As I mentioned, over 1,000 signatures came in on Friday, and I've signed this.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Whereas in the interest of true democracy the Minister of Municipal Affairs put the following question to the voters of the city of Kawartha Lakes: `Are you

in favour of a return to the previous municipal model of government with an upper-tier and 16 lower-tier municipalities?'; and

"Whereas the voters, by a clear majority on a provincially mandated ballot, answered in the affirmative;

"The undersigned demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario act to respect the will of the people as expressed in a democratic vote, and restore the

former municipal structure as stated in the minister's question."

It is signed by about 60 people from the former cities and towns of Kawartha Lakes. I'm in complete agreement and add my signature thereto.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I've been asked to present this petition on behalf of about 80 of my constituents.

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario ...

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I'm going to table this petition.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

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

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I affix my name in full support.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

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

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government is cutting provincial funding for essential health care services like optometry, physiotherapy and chiropractic

care;

"Whereas this privatization of health care services will force Ontarians to pay out-of-pocket for essential health care;

"Whereas Ontarians already pay for health care through their taxes and will be forced to pay even more through the government's new regressive health tax;

"Whereas the Liberals promised during the election that they would not cut or privatize health care services in Ontario;

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

"We demand the McGuinty Liberal government keep its promises and guarantee adequate provincial funding for critical health services like eye, physiotherapy and

chiropractic care."

This is signed by hundreds of people who live in the riding of Nickel Belt. I agree with them, and I've affixed my signature to it.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition.

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I submit this on behalf of the constituents.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of Julia Munro, who's the member from York North. I extend to her my

respect. I hope she's in good health. On her behalf I am reading.

"To: Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

they need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign this and endorse it on behalf of my constituents and those of Julia Munro.

PHYSICAL EDUCATION

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

"Whereas North Americans (USA and Canada) have become continuously heavier, and overweight persons now make up over 65% of the population; and

"Whereas obesity among children has now been termed an epidemic; and

"Whereas diseases such as diabetes type 2, circulatory disease, knee replacements and some cancers are known to be associated with obesity; and

"Whereas such chronic diseases could be prevented by an active lifestyle and training,

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, request that physical education be reinstated in our schools as a mandatory subject, with an emphasis on training

toward lifelong productive skills."

I'll affix my name to it.

TAXATION

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I have literally thousands of signatures here on this petition. It reads as follows:

"Petition to force Premier McGuinty to obey the taxpayer protection law.

"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."

I'm pleased to sign this petition as well.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me by Alex Cullen, who is a councillor for the city of Ottawa, Bay

ward. It reads as follows:

"Whereas property reassessment occurs now on an annual basis; and

"Whereas higher housing markets increase assessment, leading to higher property taxes; and

"Whereas property values are not related to the cost of municipal services, nor to the ability of taxpayers to pay; and

"Whereas the assessment system is a provincial responsibility;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to initiate a review of Ontario's property assessment system that would lead to

reforms that will protect homeowners from excess increases in assessments due to hot housing markets."

I affix my signature to this.

ROUGE VALLEY CENTENARY

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition which I wish to present.

"To the Parliament and Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, MPP Mary Anne Chambers (Scarborough East):

"Whereas Rouge Valley Health System is a two-site hospital consisting of both the Ajax-Pickering hospital in Ajax, Ontario, and the Centenary Health Centre in

Scarborough, Ontario (hence known as RVC); and

"Whereas RVC is designated as the regional level 2+ paediatrics, neonatal intensive care unit and obstetrics unit since 1996, and carried official regional

status after amalgamation of the two sites in 1997, and achieved recognition from the Hospital for Sick Children and the Child Health Network and funding from companies such as BMO Bank of Montreal

and Glaxo Wellcome, who invest in technologies that make the regional centre a state-of-the-art facility; and

"Whereas potential threats to closure, downgrade of regional status or advanced level 2+ services or otherwise affecting 6,400 annual pregnant women, several

thousand babies, children and mothers, to the communities of east Scarborough and west Durham, and the unexplained delay of construction on a new wing of the RVC site for family-centred care

including the regional departments after extensive community fundraising efforts and the contribution of the provincial government; and

"Whereas the RVC catchment area has expressed full outrage over the delay in construction of the new wing that may result in potential legal action from donors

in the community and any threats to the hospital's regional paediatric, NICU, obstetrics centre will force women, mothers and children to travel outside the hospital catchment area to downtown

Toronto or Oshawa;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament and Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care"

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Thank you. I'm sorry I interrupted you. The member for Erie-Lincoln.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition signed by people across Niagara, including Sharon Kovacs of Port Colborne and

Mary Padolyak of Wainfleet, that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Dalton McGuinty Liberals promised a `health care system that gives us all the care we need, when we need it'; and

"Whereas chiropractors, optometrists and physiotherapists provide the necessary health care to the people of Ontario to maintain healthy and active

lifestyles;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their promise to invest in health care and restore funding to cover optometry, physiotherapy and chiropractic care

under OHIP."

In support, my signature.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

have and want to use;

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

"That the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Training, C