This page contains selected debates on
health care issues in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. For more information,
please contact Karen Lee, Corporate
Information (OMA). The entire Hansard discussion is available at the
Ontario Legislative Assembly's Hansard Homepage at:
<URL: http://www.ontla.on.ca>
Nov 24 / Nov 25 / Nov
26 / Nov 27 /
|
[ Return
to Home Page | Internet Pathfinder]
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Like the fortified walls of ancient Troy, a strong national consensus has protected medicare from privatization. Efforts to bring American-style, two-tier health care to Ontario have proven fruitless; that is, until now.
Dalton McGuinty, the broken-promise Premier and his Fiberals have broken yet another one of their ironclad commitments. They have refused to close the medicare gates that the Conservatives opened and let the privatizers and their P3-hospital Trojan Horse inside.
Before the election, McGuinty promised to stand up for medicare. He said, "We will end the Harris-Eves agenda of creeping privatization." Friday, he broke that promise. P3 hospitals will go ahead in Brampton and Ottawa. The Toronto Star says, "P3 by Any Other Name," and they add, "The new Liberal government can split hairs if it chooses, but it has essentially signed on to the Tory plan to build two so-called `P3' hospitals." Even Conservatives, like the member from Nepean-Carleton agree. He says, "Looks pretty identical to our P3 deal. So we're thrilled."
He's thrilled, but New Democrats are not. We say to our broken-promise Premier on this, the first anniversary of the Romanow Commission: Listen to Mr Romanow. Slam the gates shut on private health care. De-Fiberal-ate our health care system. Build public hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa. Keep the P3 Trojan Horse out of Ontario.
ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the 2002-03 Annual Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.
COMMITMENT
TO THE FUTURE OF MEDICARE ACT, 2003
Mr Smitherman moved first reading of the following
bill:
Bill 8, An Act to establish the Ontario Health Quality Council, to enact new legislation concerning health service accessibility and repeal the Health Care Accessibility Act, to provide for accountability in the health service sector, and to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 8, Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de la qualité des services de santé, édictant une nouvelle loi relative à l'accessibilité aux services de santé et abrogeant la Loi sur l'accessibilité aux services de santé, prévoyant l'imputabilité du secteur des services de santé et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé.
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and
Long-Term Care): On that, Mr Speaker, I'll be making a ministerial
statement.
First reading of the bill is available at: http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/index.htm
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It is an honour to rise in this House today to speak about the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act.
Our government made a clear commitment to make universal, public medicare the law in Ontario. We're introducing this legislation to keep this commitment. If passed, it will make two-tier, pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care illegal in Ontario. This legislation enshrines into law what Ontarians believe deeply in their hearts: every member of our society has an equal right to quality health care based on need, not income.
In preparing his historic report, Roy Romanow challenged those who advocated user fees for medically necessary services, medical savings accounts and a parallel private system to prove that their ideas would improve access or deliver better care. They could not provide that evidence because that evidence does not exist. But their failure to make their case does not mean that they will give up on having their way.
This legislation is needed to make it clear to them that their way is not the Canadian way, it's not Ontario's way and it's not the way of the future. Our answer to those who advocate pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care is: no way.
Earlier today, I attended an Atkinson Foundation luncheon, honouring Mr Romanow on the first anniversary of his report. His thorough review came to an irrefutable conclusion: The pursuit of corporate profits weakens, not strengthens, health care by taking dollars and resources out of medicare.
I told Mr Romanow today, and I tell Ontarians now, that his report was a giant step forward. It's a giant step forward because it builds on our values, yes, but also because it's based on evidence, not ideology. It's based on facts, not myths. But even a giant step forward will not move Ontario forward unless we in this Legislature take the next steps. This legislation represents several significant steps forward.
The Canada Health Act does not include the principle of accountability. Our legislation would entrench it. There is no sure way now to know whether health care dollars are consistently being spent wisely, whether specific performance targets are being met, whether we are doing a better job of taking care of patients.
Our legislation would create an innovative way of doing just that: a new Ontario Health Quality Council. The new provincial council would keep track of factors such as waiting times, and issue an annual report on how the system is doing and, frankly, how the government is doing.
Our new government has been working hard to champion a National Health Council, something Mr Romanow recommended and the previous government did not support. I am pleased to report that this idea has gained momentum once again. I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Premier, who has led these efforts on our behalf. Our Ontario Health Quality Council can make a tremendous contribution to the national body and, more importantly, it can make a tremendous contribution to the people we are all privileged to serve.
It's not enough to tell Ontarians we have the best health care system in the world; we need to ensure we have the best health care system in the world. Like Mr Romanow, Ontario's patients want to see evidence, they want to see progress and they want to see real, positive change in health care, not more creeping privatization of health delivery.
That is why our new government has acted to ensure that new hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa are publicly owned, are publicly controlled and are publicly accountable.
That is why we will soon move to ensure that private MRI and CT scan clinics brought forward by that government are returned where they belong: to the public domain. That is why we will continue to take real, positive steps in the weeks, months and years ahead, so Mr Romanow's giant step forward turns into a march toward the health care we need.
We will, as Mr Romanow's report puts it, build on our values. We will build a health care system that is public, universal and accountable; health care that's second to none; health care that serves generations to come; health care that's the envy of the world.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'd like to respond to the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Health. I don't think anybody disputes the need to be accountable. In fact, the last eight years we've been doing everything we possibly could to ensure the accountability of the system, and I plan to demonstrate that.
We certainly don't object to the Ontario Health Quality Council. I think people in this province deserve the best possible health care with the shortest wait times possible. However, I will tell you, this doublespeak, this imaginary bogeyman of two-tier medicine that you have created, you know is not real.
Perhaps you've forgotten that it was your government under David Peterson and Health Minister Elinor Caplan that introduced the Independent Health Facilities Act on November 23, 1989. It was proclaimed April 23, 1990. Today, you are responsible for these independent health facilities' privatization. There are over 900 of them in the province today. Does that mean you're going to get rid of the mammograms, the X-rays, all of the surgical services, the treatment services, the diagnostic services, that are available to people today? Because that is two-tier, and you introduced it. You need to acknowledge that you introduced it.
You know as well that the deal that supposedly you made with the two hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa continue to be two-tier. They are still P3s. They are public-private partnerships. There was no change. In fact, it says here in Corcoran's article, "Health Minister Smitherman confirmed in an interview yesterday that the P3 deals for Brampton and Ottawa are essentially going ahead as the Tories planned." So I would advise you to put away the bogeyman.
But let me tell you about what our government did, because we made great strides. We provided accountability to the public. We recognized that we needed to provide the services that were needed and to spend the money well. As you know, we improved access to service. We provided more access to family physicians by setting up the family health networks. We were the very first province in Canada to do so. We hired 12,000 more nurses. We created the position of nurse practitioner. We were increasing access for international medical graduates to 650. We made a commitment and are building Ontario's first medical school in 30 years in Thunder Bay and Sudbury. We did make a tremendous amount of progress, and we were prepared to do much more.
As far as waiting lists are concerned, I would just remind you that we did slash the wait times for MRIs and CAT scans in Ontario. We tripled the number of these machines from 57 to 151 in eight years. I also want you to know that we had built a province-wide computerized cardiac care network that had reduced the wait for cardiac surgery by 50% since 1996. In fact, I got a call from a --
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): When the minister was making his statement, there was a hush and everyone could hear. Now the responses must have the same respect. I'd like to have the member deliver her response in the same manner. Thank you.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I was talking about the great strides that had been made in recent years, since 1996, with regard to reducing wait times for cardiac surgery. We had actually reduced them by 50% because of a new province-wide computerized cardiac care network. If you don't believe that, I had a patient call me yesterday, thanking me because they did get to the front of the line because of the seriousness of their condition.
We had already moved to put in place making sure there were acceptable treatment times for general surgery, cataract surgery, cancer treatment, hip and knee replacement and MRIs. So great strides had been made. I appreciate the announcement today by the minister and I'm glad you're building on our improvements and our increased funding.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent for five minutes for the third party to have its statement.
The Speaker: Unanimous consent? Agreed.
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure for me to respond on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Let me begin by saying that we are here on the first anniversary of the release of the Romanow Report. It's important to remember that the report was put together after extensive consultation and dialogue with Canadians about the shape of the health care system they wanted to see and what that system should provide to them. But let me make it clear as well that one of the key points Romanow made was that despite all of the invitations to come forward, the private sector could not prove that private sector delivery of health care was more efficient, more effective, had better patient outcomes or was cheaper than the public system. In fact, he made it clear that there was no proof that private health care delivery was cheaper than delivery in the public system.
So how come the Liberals haven't learned from that lesson? Because here we stand today, and this Liberal government has not cancelled the for-profit, private MRI-CAT scan clinics in Ontario, this despite a very clear election promise to do so. This government can provide no evidence that there will not be queue-jumping in these private clinics, and the government can provide no evidence that paying your way to the front of the line can be stopped in these private clinics. If the government truly believed in publicly funded, publicly administered health care, the government would have been in here today, on the anniversary of the Romanow Report, cancelling the for-profit clinics and making it clear that new MRIs and CAT scans are going into publicly funded, publicly administered hospitals. Where is your action on this important promise?
The second point that I want to make has to do with the P3 hospitals, because if the government was listening to Romanow, the government would end the private financing of the P3 hospitals. With respect to these hospitals, there is absolutely no difference between the Conservative lease and the Liberal mortgage with respect to the hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa. The government has not cancelled the private financing of these hospitals. The private sector is going to continue to do the construction. What does that mean for patients and for taxpayers? It means that it will be much more costly to build hospitals that should be build with public money. Why? Because it will cost the private consortium more money to borrow money, much less than what it would cost the government to borrow that same money.
And the private sector is going to want a profit for its work, a tidy profit of 15% to 20% that's going to be added to the mortgage payment. That is money that should be used for patient care, not for profit for the private consortium. There is absolutely no difference between the deal that was arrived at by the Conservatives and the deal that was announced by the Liberals last week. Get the private sector out of the financing of these hospitals. Do what has traditionally been done in this province: Publicly fund the construction of publicly owned, publicly administered hospitals and make sure that we do have money for patient care and make sure that money that should be going to patient care is not being diverted into the profits of the private consortiums.
If the government was listening to Romanow, the government would have been here today ending the competitive bidding in the home care sector, because again, we know that when the private sector is involved in home care, money that should be going to home care services ends up in the pockets of the for-profit home care providers. Today, on the anniversary of the Romanow Report, the government has nothing to say about competitive bidding in home care and public money that should be going to patient care instead going into profits for these companies.
You know what? I think the first order of business for the new health council should be for that health council to review the P3 hospital deals in Ottawa and Brampton to expose just how similar the Conservative deal is to the Liberal deal that was announced last week. I think that should be the first order of business for the health council.
What the government should be doing today, if they truly want to improve health care for Ontarians, if they truly want to ensure that people in Ontario can get the health care they deserve, is to immediately be dealing with the promises they made: the hiring of 8,000 new nurses, the establishment of 150 new family health teams, the new ways they were going to bring in to attract, recruit and retain specialists and doctors, the ending of the fee increases for seniors who live in long-term-care facilities, the increased investment in home care. Where are you on these promises, which would truly improve health care for all Ontarians?
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My question is to return to an issue that is of great importance to the people of Ontario and it is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.
Minister, my constituents, as do most Ontarians, believe in universal and accessible public health care. Ray Romanow, in his report on health care, found a near-universal belief in public health care across this country. Over the past eight years, my constituents have been very concerned about the evidence of a creeping privatization in our public health care in this province. What will you clearly do to protect public health care and ensure universal and equitable access for all Ontarians?
Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Earlier today, I had the honour of presenting a bill, Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, which I recommend to all members of this House. I recommend it because it entrenches our values. I believe that medicare is the very best expression of Canadian values and that we need to build on it.
We'll build on it by entrenching the principle of accountability with those other principles that have long been in the Canada Health Act.
Lastly, this bill will ensure that this government and any future government cannot do what that government did. When that government brought in seven private MRI and CT scan clinics, not only did they give them to the private sector to operate, they also allowed insured Ontarians, Ontarians who have OHIP coverage, to buy their way to the front of the line. We'll make that practice illegal.
Ms Mossop: But there is also the issue of accountability. Whether public or private, the health care system must be accountable to the patients, their families, to the taxpayers, the community and health care workers. It's vital that we restore an atmosphere of trust in this province, especially in the area of health care. What will you do to ensure accountability?
Hon Mr Smitherman: On the issue of accountability, I have, in the five weeks since I was named health minister, worked within the health sector to usher in a new era of accountability. We've demonstrated that in our very transparent handling of the challenges with respect to sterilization in our hospitals.
A significant component of the piece of legislation that I introduced today is to create the Ontario Health Quality Council. That council will be an important tool to ensure that Ontarians get an annual report that gives them a very clear sense of what's going on in their health care system.
I'm very pleased that this government has made a commitment, which is to extend the powers of the Provincial Auditor to give the Provincial Auditor more opportunity to take a look at how we're spending money in our health care system.
These things combined will provide Ontarians with much greater accountability with respect to this most cherished service, the provision of health care.
HOSPITALS
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): The Minister of Health makes a lot of noise about things being different, but at the end of the day they broke their promise to cancel the P3 hospitals. We're glad, because we knew that those P3 hospitals would make hospital services accessible more quickly to the people in Ontario.
You said yesterday, in response to the member from Brampton Centre, that the hospital in Brampton would be "a public hospital, unlike your deal," referring to our deal, "that it is publicly controlled and it will be a hospital that is publicly accountable." I would suggest to you that on September 28 of this year, the Royal Ottawa Hospital put out an announcement that said that the board approved the redevelopment model. They voted on principles that would stipulate the delivery of all health care would remain in the public sector, where it belongs, now and into the future. So what's different? What's the shell game?
Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm pleased that after this many days, the party actually gave this member an opportunity to stand and ask that question. Here's what I'll tell you. To the member opposite, our commitment during the election was that we would bring these hospitals back into the public realm. What does that mean to the honourable member, who doesn't seem to get it so far? It means that these hospitals, unlike your deal, will be owned by the public hospital boards.
What else does it mean? It means that we forced language to be inserted into these contracts that makes absolutely certain of who's in charge: The public hospital board is in charge. Under your deals, the tail wagged the dog. We have made an assurance to the people that we will make these contracts public, because we believe in the fundamental principle of accountability and equality. These are deals that have restored public ownership, public control and public accountability, and that makes them a great measure better than the deals you offered.
Mrs Witmer: This is a lot of hot air and you know it. You know these deals are basically no different. You've inserted the word "mortgage," as opposed to "lease," but at the end of the day the private sector is still involved. In fact, I would suggest to you, and I'll read again from the Royal Ottawa Hospital: "This hospital will remain a public hospital. Recent comments made by those opposed to the redevelopment were deliberately deceiving the public by describing it as two-tiered medicine." To this day, you continue to deceive the public by referring to it as two-tiered. Let us see a copy of --
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. This might be about the third time for the week that I've warned members about using such language. Member, would you mind withdrawing?
Mrs Witmer: Yes, I'll withdraw from this quote.
Hon Mr Smitherman: I found it a rather precious word from a Minister of Health who, from 1997, for four years, ushered in $800 million in unfunded liability in the form of operating deficits of hospitals that are now on their books in the form of working capital deficits, with no capacity to service them. And you're going to lecture me?
You say no big deal, your deal to ours? Let me tell you the big deal. This is an e-mail that I received on the afternoon after I left Brampton, from a woman who had long been involved with the Chinguacousy hospital board that had made the land available in the first place in Brampton. She said, "As a past chairman of the Chinguacousy health services board, I was very disappointed to learn the land and the funds for which we had been trustees for many years and given to the hospital" was to be transferred to private ownership.
We have made certain, in Brampton and in Ottawa, that those lands and those buildings will now and will forever be in the public domain.
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier, and my question is this: Premier, you said during the election, "We will end the Harris-Eves agenda of creeping privatization of health care." On Friday, you broke that promise. You okayed P3 hospitals in Brampton and Ottawa. The Toronto Star captured it very accurately.
On this, the first anniversary of the ground-breaking Romanow commission, Premier, will you explain to Ontarians why you are breaking your medicare promise and promoting P3 hospitals?
Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the leader of the third party, I was very pleased earlier today to be accompanied by my Minister of Health and to meet with Roy Romanow and celebrate the anniversary of his very, very important report. I want to assure the member that our new legislation breathes life into our very important commitment made to the people of Ontario that we're going to stand up for universal public medicare on behalf of our families in Ontario.
It's very clear. What we've done to these two hospitals in particular is ensured that they now fall under public ownership. They will be publicly controlled and they will be accountable to the public. That's what's important to the people of Ontario, and that's what we've done.
Mr Hampton: Premier, you're not fooling anyone. Once again it was accurately captured: "P3 by Any Other Name." It doesn't matter if you're talking about a Conservative lease or a Liberal mortgage, the reality is this: These hospitals are privately financed, which will cost more. The private financing and the private operator will want to make profits on top of the increased borrowing costs. That means that money of the health budget that would have gone to patient care now goes to the corporate profit line, now goes to the corporate interest line. It means that many of the services in the hospitals are going to be privatized, again with additional cost.
You announced the new health council today. Would you ensure that the first task of that health council is to investigate these P3 deals and within 60 days report on how much health care funding is going toward private corporate profits, private contracts and private interest costs?
Hon Mr McGuinty: Let me just say that I
am very proud of these two new hospitals that are going to meet the interests
of these communities. I'm proud of the work this minister has done in changing
what were going to be private hospitals into public hospitals. The member
may think this distinction is somehow academic or esoteric, but I can tell
you, and to the families of Ontario, we have stood up for them and on their
behalf we have delivered public hospitals, publicly controlled and accountable
to the people of Ontario.
ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRICITY PRICING), 2003 [Excerpts: OMA mentioned]
Resuming the debate adjourned on November 26, 2003, on the motion for Second Reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, with respect to electricity pricing / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario à l'égard de l'établissement du coût de l'électricité.
[...]
Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I'm very pleased to rise tonight and speak with regard to this bill, which will bring forward safe, clean, affordable and stable energy for our children and our children's children. Our government's plan is taking a responsible approach to electricity pricing that better reflects the true cost of electricity and will encourage conservation. Conservation, in turn, will help us meet a commitment which is very important to my community of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and that is to phase out coal-fired generation by 2007. This is ultimately crucial to the community of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, which is near the Lakeview generating facility, which spews dirty air over my community.
One of the organizations which I have been involved with over the past is a group called Good Air, Safe Power, which is precisely undertaking and has worked hard over the years to ensure that our coal-fired generating plants are closed down. Shutting down these plants will lower Ontario's emissions of the four worst air pollutants by 20%.
Our government believes that we can do something to have cleaner, better air in our province, and it is crucial. We must do that because the Ontario Medical Association has proven that each and every year in Ontario, smog causes 1,900 premature deaths in this province, 13,000 additional emergency room visits and $1.1 billion in health care costs and lost workdays.
I can tell you, when I participated in the smog summit in Toronto last year, I was devastated to learn of the long-term health consequences that smog has on our children. New research is demonstrating that, in fact, DNA is changed for life when children breathe in dirty air. So I commend the minister on this great work and I look forward to seeing coal-fired generating plants closed.
[...]
Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I rise to respond to some of the comments in respect to our legislation. The former government had many months from the time the cap was imposed to make some proposals in regard to how they were going to manage the system, and frankly I didn't hear of any of those.
[...]
Ms Wynne: We said that; we said it wasn't sustainable. The size of the deficit has accelerated our time frame. So we're acting in a prudent and responsible manner, and that's what Ontarians expect of us. The Premier has talked about the deficit as a factor that in some ways will cause a slower pace of change. In this case, the deficit will cause us to move faster on our agenda, but it is still our agenda. The fiscal reality will shorten that time frame in which we'll bring responsible change. Our government has responded to the reality of the Tory deficit instead of ignoring it, as the previous government did.
Here's what works about our solution.
Our plan is fiscally responsible. It will immediately save $2 million a day.
It promotes conservation by making the price of electricity more reflective of reality and by introducing graduated pricing, in which people pay more for high usage.
It makes energy pricing non-political, putting the arm's-length OEB in charge of energy pricing for Ontario. It establishes the Ontario Energy Board as the independent regulator for electricity pricing in Ontario. It directs the Ontario Energy Board to develop a clear, transparent, independent mechanism for setting electricity prices, to be implemented as soon as possible and not later than May 1, 2005. As the price regulator, the Ontario Energy Board would also protect and renew Ontario's electricity grid by ensuring reasonable charges for the delivery of electricity.
The plan implements an interim pricing structure that better reflects the true price of electricity. That can't be a bad thing, that people actually understand what the real price of electricity is. That has got to be a good thing, and I think we can all agree on that. Under the interim plan, the first 750 kilowatt hours consumed in any month by an individual would be priced at 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour. Consumption above that level would be priced at a higher rate of 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour. That makes sense because average households consume less than 1,000 kilowatt hours in a month. So our pricing structure reflects the reality and is much truer to what the real cost of electricity is. If the revenue from the interim price plan exceeds the cost of the plan, all eligible consumers would receive a credit for the difference after the OEB implements its pricing mechanism.
This plan will produce an environment in which local distribution companies will be able to create additional capacity in the distribution system. We're not just talking about an academic exercise here; we're actually talking about generating more supply and encouraging local distribution companies. So beginning March 1, 2004, local distribution companies would be allowed to recoup some of the costs the previous government had put on hold, which has put a tremendous financial burden on the local distribution companies.
This approach that we've taken is a responsible, principled one. Our plan replaces the Tory panic response with a principled and responsible approach to electricity pricing. The price of electricity will better reflect the true cost of electricity. How does it possibly serve us as a society to pretend that electricity is cheaper than it is? Of course, it doesn't serve us at all.
For decades, as long as I can remember, conservation has been talked about, it has been held up as a good thing for society, it has been held up as a goal toward which we should strive, and yet all we've done is increase consumption. It's time to face the reality that electricity is not an infinite resource, and in the long run Ontario will be better off if we learn that lesson and help our children to live differently than we have.
The price will be regulated in order to avoid the chaos and price fights that residential and low-volume consumers saw in 2002. We recognize that consumers need that protection. The price will be stable and predictable so families, small businesses and other low-volume consumers can better manage their energy costs. People can deal with known entities. Surprises are anathema.
The price will be regulated by an independent body and not manipulated by politicians. Finally, the price will be regulated on the basis of what's in the public interest and not on political interests. The electricity supply should not be a political tool or a political weapon.
Responsibility is at the core of this plan. More than anything else, this legislation is about behaving responsibly in the face of a ridiculous situation, one that we did not create but one that we will address.
One of my constituents from Don Valley West, Steve Dunn, sent me an e-mail, and what he said was, "I would like to commend you for your sensible decision that the 4.3 cent hydro rate is unsustainable." He goes on to say, "The implementation of this rate by the previous government was unfortunate, and it sent the wrong message to consumers -- waste all the electricity you want and your fellow taxpayers will pick up the tab for you." Steve Dunn does understand what we're doing. He and others will have questions along the way -- of course there will be questions as we implement this legislation -- but he understands the fundamental soundness of our decision.
First, in difficult financial times we can't afford this rate freeze. It's unsustainable. Second, it isn't the government's business to subsidize consumption. The numbers are astounding, so I'm going to recap them once more. We're talking about a $5.6-billion deficit. That's a far cry from the balanced-budget fantasy perpetuated by the former Premier during the campaign. The previous government was spending $2 million a day. We can't go on doing that.
Clearly, what they were doing was buying time until their inevitable election loss. When Ontarians relieved the Tories of the burden of government that was obviously beyond them, Ontarians were mercifully relieved of their eight-year-long nightmare of having a government that pretended to address their problems while offering cynical Band-Aid approaches that solved nothing and created the financial mess we now find ourselves in. What we're doing is responsible, sustainable, and it gets to the root of the problem.
Here's what some other groups are saying about removing the price cap. These groups, many of them, signed on to a letter. It's a short letter. I'm just going to read what they said:
"We would like to offer our congratulations on your decision to remove the electricity rate cap for residential and small business consumers.
"The elimination of this artificially low electricity price will facilitate investments in cleaner and renewable, non-nuclear electricity generators. This in turn will help to replace the generation capacity needed for your coal phase-out and result in the reduction of significant amounts of air pollution."
"It is also an essential prerequisite for Ontario to attain and even exceed your 5% renewable electricity generation target by 2007 and your 10% target for 2010.
"We fully support your proposal that the price cap removal be implemented in such a way as to minimize the impact on lower-income Ontarians and we look forward to the significant clean air benefits that will result from this and related electricity sector initiatives."
That's the Ontario Medical Association, Sierra Club of Canada, Ontario Public Health Association, the Clean Air Partnership, the Toronto Environmental Alliance, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Greenpeace Canada, Muskoka Lakes Association, and the Georgian Bay Association.
It seems to me that in terms of a healthier society we are not on the wrong track if these are the folks who are backing us and who are supporting our actions.
In terms of conservation, I think it's really important that we be honest about the initiatives we must step up to. I'm 50 years old and I can't remember a time that people haven't talked about the importance of conservation.
There have been exceptions. The Minister of Energy in the previous government, for example, once said that conservation programs "may have made the odd person feel good, but they had absolutely no effect." We beg to differ. We take a completely different view.
I believe, along with my colleague from Etobicoke Centre, that in fact we all know that we must do more to conserve. We must use the best knowledge and experience from all quarters to find the initiatives, build on what previous governments before the last one did to conserve energy, and we need to build on those initiatives and find new ones.
I'm proud that this legislation contains two major provisions that will encourage energy conservation, and in turn more sustainable living for Ontarians. First, it brings the price of electricity much closer to actual cost. Second, it charges higher rates for consumption above 750 kilowatt hours a month. Both of these pieces will encourage conservation, along with an education campaign that has to be put in place to help our youngsters understand what they need to do and help them to educate us.
The reality is that many of our young people know
more about what needs to be done in terms of conserving energy than we
do. I have a daughter who is in university -- second year, environmental
studies -- and she keeps me on the straight and narrow. She can tell us
what we should be doing. We need to tap into the knowledge of the young
people who are in university and help the younger people to change our
habits, because old dogs learn new tricks with difficulty, right?
[...]
Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Mr Speaker, I gather that there may be unanimous consent to allow all parties present in the House to make a statement with respect to National AIDS Awareness Week for five minutes.
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do I have unanimous consent for AIDS week? Agreed.
Hon Mr Smitherman: I stand here before the House to draw your attention to National AIDS Awareness Week, which concludes on December 1 with World AIDS Day. This Canada-wide week of awareness and the concluding international day of recognition have become annual events. Their continuing existence highlights the tragic reality that AIDS is all too much a presence in the lives of so many people, here at our Legislature, across our province, across our country and around the world.
Worldwide, five people lose their lives to AIDS every minute of every day. In the next half-hour, the same number of people who hold seats in this Legislature will die from AIDS, and by the end of today three more people in Ontario will be diagnosed with HIV and five more people will become infected.
HIV has hit every part of the globe, infecting 34 million to 46 million women, children and men, five million of them last year alone. Right now in Ontario, there are more than 21,000 people living with HIV.
I want to pay tribute to all who have struggled with the challenges of HIV, both those who are living with HIV or AIDS and those countless people -- men, women and children -- who have lost their lives to this devastating disease, and that includes the more than 7,000 people in Ontario who have died from AIDS-related causes.
AIDS Awareness Week and World AIDS Day give us the opportunity to affirm our support for people living with HIV and AIDS, their families and their communities. These events also give us an opportunity to thank service providers who have responded to HIV and AIDS with such skill and compassion. The AIDS community in Ontario has worked tirelessly to develop treatments that put the patient at the centre of his or her care.
I commend those who are living with HIV and AIDS for their courage in battling this devastating disease, I commend their caregivers, I commend those who volunteer their time in the cause of AIDS and I commend our front-line health care workers and researchers. I commend all of those who work so hard to improve the quality of life for people living with AIDS, who work so hard to find new treatments and who also work so hard to find new responses to prevention challenges.
People need to know the facts. People need to get the message about AIDS. We can't allow a false sense of security to lull people into thinking that AIDS has been overcome.
In Ontario, HIV continues to be an illness that affects most, if not all, communities. We will work to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS and to preserve the lives of those living with HIV and AIDS.
All of us know that while medications have extended the lives of people living with HIV and AIDS, we must confront the reality that the side-effects are debilitating and that the drugs are far from a cure. The only cure we can depend on is prevention.
In the fight against HIV, we are facing new battles, rising rates of infection and ongoing discrimination and judgments. That's why we need to develop long-term strategies that acknowledge the broad social context of HIV.
The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care will spend almost $50 million in 2003-04 for HIV/AIDS-related programs across our province. As health minister, I'm committed to making sure these programs build on Ontario's leadership established in the 1980s and continued ever since.
The numbers in the world demonstrate that AIDS is a growing pandemic, and Ontario is part of that struggle. As legislators, we can take pride in the work we've done over the years, but we need to recommit; we need to support the kind of education that makes society understand that while treatment has improved, AIDS is still a tremendous risk.
HIV transmission is a reminder of society's failures. We can measure ourselves by how we choose to respond. One hundred years from now, I want the history books to show that Ontario responded to the needs of its citizens and communities with the vigour necessary to stop the world's worst pandemic.
I'm proud of the strong and effective continuing response to HIV and AIDS in Ontario, as well as the many partnerships between government and a diverse range of communities and stakeholders.
We will continue to work with the more than 60 community-based AIDS services and the 37 boards of health to help people with this disease and to make sure that people are aware of how to keep themselves safe from HIV and AIDS.
I'm working with the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS and receiving its advice. The community has been tireless in its efforts to ensure effective responses to the challenges posed by HIV and AIDS here in Ontario. I'd like to thank the two co-chairs, Dr Don Kilby and Mr John Plater, for their leadership and commitment.
I'm proud of the outstanding achievements of the Ontario HIV community. Many of these people are my friends. They are people living with HIV and AIDS. They are health providers, researchers, clinicians and community workers throughout this province.
By continuing to work together, we can put people living with HIV at the centre of their own care and treatment and further improve the quality of their lives. By working together, we can eliminate the stigma and discrimination that is still part of this global pandemic. By continuing to work together, we can look forward to a future where AIDS Awareness Week and World AIDS Day are no longer necessary.
The Speaker: The minister had requested a five-minute response to these, but he also said all parties, and I hope he included everyone within the House.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I rise today to recognize on behalf of our party HIV/AIDS Awareness Week, which the minister has said concludes with World AIDS Day. This year the week is entitled Stigma and Discrimination.
More than 40 million people are living with AIDS/HIV worldwide. As we know, this number unfortunately continues to escalate. The disease knows no boundaries. In fact, there are approximately 50,000 Canadians currently who are living with HIV/AIDS and there are 15,000 Canadians who are totally unaware that they are infected. This is going to increase, with about 4,200 new infections each year. That's why it is so very important that we recognize World AIDS Day and HIV/AIDS Awareness Week. It is our opportunity to express our affirmation and our support for people who live with HIV. It is also an important opportunity for us to demonstrate our support for the doctors, nurses and all the other health care providers throughout Ontario who respond to HIV/AIDS with skill, compassion and dedication. It is also an opportunity to enhance tolerance and understanding, while communicating prevention information about this epidemic.
Throughout past years, governments have demonstrated and tried to do what they could to focus on health promotion and disease prevention. This needs to continue to be at the top of any government's health care plan. There needs to be collaboration with the 37 boards of health, as there has been. There needs to be collaboration with school boards throughout Ontario in order to provide students information and education about HIV/AIDS. We've seen that happening. We've seen that Ontario HIV diagnostic testing ensures that a very high standard of testing is maintained.
However, if we take a look at all that has happened thus far, I think we also recognize there's so much more that still needs to be done. We must be unrelenting in our fight to stop this disease from spreading. We must continue to encourage people to join the battle, taking responsibility not only for their own health but the health of their relatives, the health of their family and the health of their friends.
I want to at this time express my appreciation, and the appreciation of those of us on this side of the House, for all those people throughout Ontario who work tirelessly every day to educate, to treat and to support those people who are living with HIV/AIDS. Certainly, on behalf of all Ontarians we do owe them a great deal. I want to particularly acknowledge the work of the individuals who are involved with the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS. As a former Minister of Health, I know how I relied on their advice to move us forward. Again, I also want to thank Dr Don Kilby and Mr John Plater. I want to thank all the individuals, all the volunteers throughout the province of Ontario who are working so hard in their individual communities to try to educate and try to support those with HIV/AIDS. We really do appreciate the many hours of hard work and dedication that they put into this cause.
As a society we must be ever vigilant in our efforts as we continue to work to eliminate the AIDS epidemic. We must continue to fight prejudice whether we see it in our workplace or in the schoolyard. We must continue to educate our families and our neighbours about the devastating effect this disease can have. We must continue to offer our personal assistance and our support to our fellow Ontarians who are suffering. I believe that if we continue to work together, whether we are young or old, we can hope someday to eliminate the barriers that stand between us and a cure for AIDS.
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I rise today to speak on behalf of the NDP caucus, not with any pleasure but out of grim reality, because on this day in particular -- and frankly, every day in general -- we need to be sure that we are responding effectively, appropriately and in a timely fashion to HIV/AIDS. UN AIDS, the United Nations agency that is charged with combating the spread of AIDS, reports that there are 42 million HIV-positive people worldwide. There will be five million new infections around the world this year, and 800,000 of them will be children. Some 3.1 million people will die.
Here in Canada, every day another six people under the age of 25 are infected, and despite increased public awareness, HIV/AIDS infection rates have remained steady.
Today there are about 50,000 Canadians who are living with HIV or AIDS. HIV/AIDS has touched all of us in all our communities, and for many of us it has touched our families and our friends. Communities across the province have rallied, they've marched, they've campaigned to increase awareness and build support for government funding around HIV/AIDS prevention programs.
On an international level, people like Stephen Lewis are very publicly raising the plight of AIDS sufferers in developing countries and they are bringing pressure to bear on developed countries to provide the necessary medication without the exorbitant costs involved.
I do want to speak today about two barriers that people living with HIV/AIDS are facing here in Ontario, and I encourage the current government to respond to these specific challenges. The first has to do with medication, because there have been and continue to be very unacceptable delays in reimbursements for those who are trying to get those costs covered through government programs. Second, there has been a refusal to add new medications to the Ontario drug formulary, and that has worked against HIV/AIDS sufferers.
Last year, there was an action alert that was released by the Canadian Treatment Action Council. It was called "Ontario Formulary Coverage at Risk." It said the following: "Many Ontarians with HIV/AIDS depend on public reimbursement to cover the cost of their medications through programs like Trillium and the ... (ODSP). Only medications that have been approved for the Ontario formulary are reimbursed for these programs. There are increasingly unacceptable delays and a refusal to add ... new medications, formulations and vaccines for children to the provincial formulary. Also, section 8 requests for exemptions to the formulary rules are either being denied or languishing in the system without reply." The alert went on to focus on one of those in particular on the section 8 list.
I say to this government, and I am sure the government is aware, these are serious medication issues and they have to be addressed. HIV/AIDS sufferers can't afford to pay for some of these medications out of their pocket. Many are living on a fixed income. Secondly, they shouldn't have to wait forever in terms of being reimbursed, especially through the government's own Trillium drug program.
The second barrier goes back many years. I remember when Frances Lankin was the NDP health critic in 1999 and raised the issue regarding nutritional supplements because, regrettably, the former government made a decision to refuse funding for nutritional supplements unless they were a person's sole source of nutrition. This policy was never intended to apply to people who have a medical need for nutritional supplements. Regrettably, because of that decision many people who are affected by HIV/AIDS have not been able to purchase the supplements. They just can't afford it and they can't get coverage for it.
I say to the current government, this is a policy that must be reversed. This is a barrier to those who are living with HIV/AIDS. It is not acceptable that many people who are already paying for high drug costs also can't afford to purchase nutritional supplements that assist in their healthy living. We need to do something about that as well.
We must be very vigilant in dealing with AIDS and HIV; that has been said by all speakers. But also today I encourage the government to look very seriously at those two particular barriers -- I am sure there are many others -- which can be responded to. I say they must be dealt with now. They are very serious questions of justice and financial equality that remain with these two problems. I encourage the minister to do those things, to make those changes now.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is again to the Minister of Finance. Over the years, Ontario taxpayers have paid the freight when there were wildfires in British Columbia, when cattle farmers in Alberta were in trouble, when prairie farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba had a problem with grains and oilseeds, or in the fishery on the east coast. But we had our own disaster in Ontario this past year with SARS. The people of the province of Ontario and their government have every right to expect to receive the full 90% that taxpayers and health care workers in this province are entitled to. Our government rejected as inadequate and insufficient and an insult the lousy $150 million offered by the federal government. Would you stand in your place and tell us how you could sell out the taxpayers and health care workers of this province by accepting less than a third of the billion dollars that the people of the province are entitled to? How could you sell us out?
Hon Gregory S. Sorbara (Minister of Finance): My friend talks about sell-out. Look at their economic policies. Their economic policies are about sell-offs and --
Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): And rip-offs.
Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend adds the other word, "rip-offs."
We negotiated a deal with the national government that was fair and reasonable. I tell my friend that what is more important is that we have established a new era of co-operation with the government in Ottawa. Federal-provincial relations for eight years, under that previous administration, were characterized mostly by political grandstanding and puffery, and that's going to come to an end.
Mr Baird: This government certainly has established a new era of federal-provincial relations. Ontario is now the lapdog in the federation. How you could go to Ottawa and accept 30 cents on the dollar for our health care workers, for our hospitals, for our doctors and for those who suffered because of the tragedy of SARS is despicable.
My question is to the minister. Would you stand in your place and admit that you've made a mistake and would you go back to the table and deliver for Ontario taxpayers? If you're not prepared to do that, would you step aside and let someone else go forward who will fight for Ontario taxpayers?
Hon Mr Sorbara: I tell my friend from Nepean-Carleton that I'll consider his recommendation.
I see my friend from Toronto-Danforth is inviting me over there. I don't think I'm going to take that offer.
The crisis of SARS really shook this province very badly. I'm not for a minute going to take political advantage of it. The management of that crisis by the previous government I think was reasonable and I think those in charge did a relatively good job, under the circumstances, of dealing with that crisis.
After the fact, my friend from Nepean-Carleton wants to grandstand on federal-provincial relations, when he knows, because I know now, that the figures that that government was giving to the federal government were grossly inflated.
HOSPITALS [William Osler Health Centre and Brampton]
Mrs Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.
Minister, on November 21, you made a welcome announcement in Brampton to the people in my riding who are concerned about the future of their hospital. They want the William Osler Health Centre to be built in a timely way.
There is no support for two-tier health care in Brampton.
I've spoken to you about the urgent need to build the William Osler Health Centre. Our community is growing quickly and our existing hospital simply can't keep up with the demand.
I know you've announced changes in the way the hospital will be constructed, but can I get your assurance today that the William Osler Health Centre will be built according to the original schedule?
Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the member from Brampton Centre and the other members from Brampton who are doing such an effective job of representing their communities. Last Friday I had the opportunity to be in Brampton at Peel Memorial Hospital, where I announced that the agreement we've made ensures that Brampton will have a new hospital. It will be a public hospital that is publicly owned. It will be a public hospital, unlike your deal, that is publicly controlled and it will be a hospital that is publicly accountable. I'm very pleased to say --
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. The Minister of Health.
Hon Mr Smitherman: I'm also pleased to say that the people of Brampton will have a public hospital of which they can be proud and which will open as planned in 2006.
Mrs Jeffrey: The people of my riding will be happy to hear that. But as I said, they are not supporters of two-tier health care.
There have been suggestions that the hospital will be private and the thin edge of the wedge before private health care.
The principles of medical health care are important to me and my constituents. My understanding --
Mrs Jeffrey: Minister, my understanding was that the previous government would allow the private sector to own these hospitals and that the government would lease them back. The title would indeed belong to the private sector. That sounds like a private hospital to me.
Under your new deal, will these hospitals belong to the private sector or will they belong to the people of Ontario? Will they be public hospitals or private hospitals?
Hon Mr Smitherman: I'd like to thank the member fpr Brampton Centre for the question. Incredibly --
The Speaker: Member for Whitby-Ajax, come to order, please.
Hon Mr Smitherman: Incredibly, under the deal that that party signed when they were in government, title and deed was to be transferred to the private sector; under our deal, it will not. Incredibly, under the deal that that party signed, control of that hospital would have been transferred to a private corporation; under our deal, it will not. Incredibly, under that government's deal, the deal was never to be made public, but under our arrangements, it will.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like a copy of the deal that the Minister of Health referred to.
The Speaker: Order. That's not a point
of order. The minister may make it available to you or not; that's his
option.
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Congratulations on your appointment, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance. Congratulations as well, Minister.
I'd like you to know that smokers, corner store owners, tobacco farmers and the tobacco economy are reeling after being hit by this Liberal government twice in as many days.
First you introduce legislation that will see the price of cigarettes skyrocket, while store owners, farmers and their communities watch their market dwindle past the point of sustainability. This money grab was announced the day after the phony deficit announcement as an orchestrated tax to supposedly balance the books -- no mention of tobacco tax dollars for health care.
Then your government introduced an electricity bill lifting the rate cap, a bill that will see small business and families hit again.
Your leader's television promise, "I won't cut your taxes, but I won't raise them either": Is this increase, this tobacco tax hike, a broken promise?
Hon Gregory S. Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I had an opportunity last night to listen to some of the debate on Bill 2, which is the bill we introduced in this Legislature to put into effect the commitments that we made in respect of taxation during the campaign. For the life of me, the approach by the official opposition, accusing us of misrepresentation, accusing us of taking measures that we never referred to in the campaign -- it was all there in black and white, including our commitment to raise tobacco taxes in a measured way over a certain period of time, up to the national average, which, if we did it in one fell swoop, would need an increase of $10 per carton.
Mr Barrett: People in my riding are under the impression that your leader would not raise taxes. In addition, Minister, there is anxiety in tobacco country -- in Brant, Oxford, Norfolk, as our Minister of Agriculture would know, and Elgin and Middlesex as well. Your leader promised that tobacco farmers would receive compensation in the wake of these increases. We've seen no mention of reparations, no mention of a buyout, no mention of a buy-in to assist other commodities threatened by the tens of thousands of acres coming on to the open market, no mention of a buy-in to foster other agribusiness and economic activity -- nothing mentioned.
As finance minister, when will compensation, when will reparations, for these communities be announced?
Hon Mr Sorbara: Perhaps, given the nature of the question, I'll refer the supplementary to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food.
Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It's very interesting to hear the member opposite speak right now. On June 18, 2002, the previous government raised tobacco taxes by $5 a carton. Yet, did we hear anything from him at that time? No, we did not.
You claim that you're standing up for your tobacco farmers, Mr Member. I can assure the member that a portion of these dollars are going to be allocated to a transition fund. We have met regularly with the tobacco board to make them aware that this transition fund exists, because we're prepared to help growers. We're going to work with the federal roundtable to work with growers.
It's very interesting, right now, for the member
to stand up and not recognize that this is one of the most serious health
issues that this province faces. Our government was straight-up. When we
campaigned, we said "$10 a carton." Unlike the honourable member on the
other side, who was out fear-mongering, talking about $15-a-carton tax
increases, we're taking a responsible approach. I just wish the member
had spoken up against his own government when you implemented $5 in June
2002.
HOSPITALS [Winchester District Memorial Hospital]
Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. As you are aware, my community has been struggling with the Harris-Eves government's careless mismanagement of health care institutions. The Winchester District Memorial Hospital faces critical requirements. The building is dated and inhibits efficiency, we are losing much-needed doctors and nurses, and extensive changes and reinvestment in the hospital are required.
The previous government ignored our concerns. Minister, will you hear our needs by meeting with community representatives and myself to discuss our hospital situation?
Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh for his question. I know that he works hard on behalf of his constituents on matters related to health care.
I'm very happy to tell him that I'd be very pleased to meet, even while the House is in session, if it could take place here in Toronto, or certainly to get to his community no later than the month of January to have the opportunity to hear first-hand about the health needs of the people of his constituency.
Mr Brownell: Thank you for your assurances and attention to this matter. The people of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh are happy to hear that this government has brought health care to the forefront of our governance.
Minister, since Winchester District Memorial Hospital is in such close proximity to Ottawa, and in fact serves as an affiliate hospital to this area, can you please tell me more about the new hospital being built in Ottawa, which will also benefit the people in my riding and in eastern Ontario?
Hon Mr Smitherman: I also heard from members opposite strong support for the project at Winchester, so I'm looking forward to learning more about it.
I'm also pleased to be able to report that we've
delivered a public hospital to the people of Ottawa as well, a hospital
that the people of Ottawa will be proud of because it's a hospital that
will be publicly owned, it's a hospital that will be publicly controlled,
and it will be a hospital that has public accountability, unlike the deal
that this government recommended to the people of the province of Ontario.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003
Mr Sorbara moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 2, An Act respecting fiscal responsibility / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant la gestion responsable des finances.
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Yesterday, I think the member from Northumberland had completed his statements and comments. But now we're into comments and questions.
[...]
Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant):
I wish also to address government Bill 2, affectionately known on this
side of the House as the Largest Tax Hike in Ontario History bill. Over
the past eight and a half years, people and businesses in Ontario have
learned what it means to have more money in their pockets to spend, more
money to save, and certainly more money to invest. Usually, this money
is invested in their home communities. Over the past eight and a half years,
the Conservative government introduced over 220 tax cuts across the province
of Ontario. The result: Ontario became the leader in economic growth among
all G8 countries; over one million net new jobs were created; well over
600,000 people were taken off the welfare rolls; and record investments
were made in health, education and in our environment. The evidence clearly
shows that cutting taxes creates a strong economy. Tax cuts, very simply,
create jobs.
[...]
I'd like to examine some of the tax initiatives the Liberals are proposing. First of all, and we heard this earlier this afternoon, smokers, corner store owners, farmers and other business people will see a phony attempt to balance the books with this increase in the tax rate on cigarettes up to 74%. Clearly, this is nothing more than a Liberal tax grab. It will be borne on the backs of tobacco farmers who have worked all their lives producing a legal product, a legal product serving probably as one of the biggest contributors to local agribusiness economies in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, as well as other communities: certainly in Elgin and Middlesex, as our Minister of Agriculture well knows, and in Oxford, as represented by our agricultural critic.
Tobacco supports jobs. It supports 14,000 full- and part-time jobs in Norfolk, Brant county, Elgin, Middlesex and Oxford, and it generates $500 million in economic activity. Any significant or very sudden decline in our tobacco industry will have a very significant and tremendous impact on the economic viability of those counties I just mentioned.
I'm proud to be an MPP for a tobacco county. I'm proud to represent the farmers who mean so much to our communities. I have always opposed federal and provincial tobacco tax hikes. They take us down the road to smuggling, they take us down the road to theft and unregulated, underground use that was oh so common in the early 1990s. Despite efforts by the antis and the zealots, there presently remain roughly seven million people in Canada who choose to use tobacco products. Tax increases will not force consumption to dissipate. More and more of it will go the illegal route: offshore tobacco and smuggling. If Canadians continue to smoke, I feel it's incumbent on our government to ensure at minimum that they continue to smoke Canadian tobacco.
Read any newspaper or watch television, and smokers are being interviewed with regard to Mr McGuinty's most recent tax hike. People are telling reporters that if they want to smoke, they very clearly will find a way. For years, governments have used tobacco tax policies in an attempt to accomplish two things: (1) to reduce tobacco consumption, and (2) to meet fiscal objectives.
It was nearly 10 years ago that tobacco taxes reached a peak, and were subsequently lowered again due to the increase in tobacco smuggling and non-taxed sales. We know that consumers are responsive and they will most definitely look to alternate sources for supply.
Again I ask the question, can't Mr McGuinty and his Liberal government see that tax hikes are a no-win situation not only for the tobacco producers but also for Ontario communities? It's a no-win situation for this government as well. I pose the question, would Ralph Klein deep-six his Alberta oil and gas industry, for example, the way Dalton McGuinty is attacking his own homegrown tobacco market in the province of Ontario?
If Mr McGuinty and the Liberals truly believe that tax increases will decrease consumption, I ask them to consider a country with no domestic tobacco industry. In the event that a tobacco industry in Ontario ceases to exist -- and the way we're heading, there is a clear and present danger of that happening -- domestic production will be replaced by imported foreign product and, obviously, exported jobs.
If people in this Legislature are concerned about the health of Ontarians, imported tobacco will only accelerate health-related problems associated with the use of that product. Just take a look at what is being sprayed on the crop in Asia and South America and ask yourselves why floor sweepings in Third World countries belong in the hands of Canadian smokers.
I don't believe for a second that government is taxing smokers because it cares about the health impacts of tobacco. Tobacco tax increases are essentially a tax grab. It's a money grab, taking money out of taxpayers' hands and from those farmers, their employees and their families who toil in the fields to produce this particular crop.
When this government thinks it needs more money, allegedly to deal with next year's phony deficit, what's the answer? Obviously, in the last several days the number one answer has been to jack up taxes. The number two answer is to jack up taxes again, and third is to blame it on a bogus projected deficit, a deficit projected for next year, March 31. Later on -- and we heard this today -- it's to tell people you are concerned about smoking. I suppose in the final analysis, the assumption is that our government will sit back and count the money as it rolls in. Be surprised if millions of dollars in revenue do not show up in your projections. There will be a revenue shortfall as people behave in what many smokers would consider a rational economic behaviour: They will make decisions to avoid these taxes.
Mr McGuinty has not thought this through very carefully. Instead, he has caved in to people like Garfield Mahood, for example. The Premier's name is McGuinty; it's not Mahood. Just whose hand or how many hands are on the tiller of this present government?
As I mentioned at the top, lower taxes create more jobs, and in turn they mean more money for priority services like health care and education. Higher taxes in relation to tobacco stifle the economies of those small farm communities that depend on them. They establish the grounds for smuggling, contraband smokes and imported tobacco, tobacco in which we would have no control over the content.
Information currently available confirms that the sale of contraband cigarettes and tobacco products is growing. Further, there are indications that the demand for tobacco products is far greater than the current supply. I'll say it again: Contraband products pose a serious threat to producers, to legitimate wholesalers and retailers, all of whom are law-abiding citizens. These people pay taxes.
I do suggest, with all respect, that Mr McGuinty
go back to the books to do his homework on tobacco taxation. This Fiscal
Responsibility Act, 2003, does propose amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act,
jacking up taxes on tobacco from 67% to 74%, something that normally you
would see done in a budget. However, they snuck this one in early. Their
goal: Put our tobacco tax up with Alberta's, put it up to the level of
Manitoba's and BC's. Just bear in mind: Alberta, Manitoba, the province
of British Columbia don't grow tobacco there. They don't process tobacco
in those provinces. They don't suffer the kind of job losses we would see
in Ontario.
VENDING MACHINES IN SCHOOLS
Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I would like to take a moment, if I may, to talk about junk food in our schools.
There has been a rising obesity problem among children in this province for some time now. In fact, childhood obesity doubled between 1981 and 1997.
Children spend an average of 28 hours a week in front of the TV, and 26 hours a week sitting in a classroom. By taking junk food out of vending machines in elementary schools, we will be setting a strong example for our children.
We can't promote healthy lifestyles when school boards are encouraged to offer junk food to their students. We should help our children to make healthy choices at a young age, encouraging a new generation to make healthy choices throughout adulthood.
Not only will keeping people healthy save us billions
of dollars in health care; it will improve people's quality of life.
Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure
Renewal): I move government notice of motion number 9, standing in
the name of Mr Duncan.
[...]
Mr O'Toole: Well, I believe all your tax strategies will kill job creation, kill your revenue side and you will have a problem. I believe quite succinctly you're going about the whole challenge improperly. In fact, I think we'll see some signals by Paul Martin when he becomes Prime Minister.
[...]
The real stinger here -- and it's hard to debate this -- is the last one in this first tax bill, Bill 2. It's the Tobacco Tax Act. I live in a riding that's primarily agricultural. It's a rapidly growing urban area. It's a wonderful riding, Durham. It includes the northern parts of Oshawa, Clarington -- which is Newcastle -- Newtonville, right next to you, actually. It's about 50% rural and 50% urban, and rapidly growing with new homes. A good portion of my agricultural area was designated for tobacco at one time. I don't see any strategy for helping farmers, both in the previous bill I mentioned, the amendments to the tax credits for manufacturing and farming -- that section is worth reading. I looked it up earlier today and it does affect them. Supply-managed farmers are going to get hit with a tax increase. Dairy, chicken and other supply-managed farmers are consumers of electricity, so there's the second whack for agriculture.
So Mr Peters had better stand up and clarify, because I have two calls in; I have people who are directors on those commodity boards. I listen to them; I have respect for them. In this one here, there's no strategy to help them exit from tobacco products, to encourage them to get into greenhouse or other produce sorts of production.
But also, I don't see anything in here that commits the revenue, the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue -- and I'm not supporting the tobacco thing, but what about the commitment to cancer, asthma or respiratory problems? Why wouldn't they include that? I could understand it if it was really to clarify the air and the people that have breathing or respiratory problems.
There's a lot in Bill 2, mostly tax increases, and really it's the outgrowth of the first throne speech, which in my view is summarized as, "Promises made for real change are promises failed," and that's no change when it comes to the Liberal strategy.
But I think I want to go back a little bit, just to make sure members have it clear that I'm not just being cruel to the government. I'm trying to start this, as Thoreau said, on a solid foundation, as was quoted in the throne speech by the Speaker. I refer members to page 1440 of Hansard yesterday. I think Mr Hampton from Kenora-Rainy River summed it up very succinctly.
I have the greatest respect for Mr Phillips; in fact I'm his critic in Management Board, and it's a privilege. He's a terrific guy, he has a good grasp of numbers. In fact, I sat in that estimates meeting that day where he summarized what he thought to be the frailties in the public accounts. In fact, he said it here in the House, right in this House. I'm still looking for the Hansard citation there, but what he said was we had about $2 billion of sales; we had our own-purpose-spending savings; you lumped in the $700 million, which was part of the energy issue of trying to find a mitigation fund. Your electricity bill only looks at today, it doesn't look over four years, which is what our plan was, a four-year plan.
But this whole thing on the deficit -- you knew going into the election that there was a deficit and you never mentioned it. You made 231 promises and I think those 231 promises should be emblazoned on my constituents' minds for the next four years. My strategy is, there are about 200-and-some working days per year. I intend to spend every one of those, maybe 231 or 331, every single day, talking about your promises. There's a scorecard and it's not just the newspaper writers who have got the scorecard.
You're writing your legacy. Bill 2 is a very poor foundation for the beginning, as you will be forgiven until your first budget. After that, the $5.6 billion -- you had a half a fiscal year to deal with that deficit. Even in your own budget documents you had sales of assets and that came up from Mr Jackson today, what potentially could be on the table there. I think the best thing -- I'm just looking at the remarks made by Mr Hampton.
I'm looking around if anyone else is interested in making a few comments here; otherwise, I'll just keep going. What he said here is quite good, actually.
[...]
Mr O'Toole: They borrow it from the pension funds, Borealis or something. Did they loan it to you for nothing? No, they make a profit for their pensioners, for their shareholders, their unit shareholders. So anybody who tries to sell this as repatriating health care to the public sector is absolutely misguided, because the funding of the capital of the hospitals was technically the only thing that we were doing in the case of Ottawa and Brampton. That's clear. We said that all of the people who do things in the hospital -- nurses, radiologists, doctors, surgeons, whatever -- would all be regulated health professionals under the Regulated Health Professions Act. We said that's what would happen.
What they've done is, they've sort of said, "No, we're not going to talk about it any more." But they're still funding those hospitals. The people of Ontario should know that they've been duped again. Those hospitals are being funded the same way that we were doing it; they're just using different words. All they're doing is using different words.
Barb Wahl I'm sure will have more to say about that, because there wasn't one word in the budget or the throne speech -- the budget document you introduced -- that talked about hiring the 8,000 nurses -- not one. In fact, Doris Grinspun, who has a PhD in nursing, a wonderful lady, said right after the throne speech that she was disappointed, that it was time to move ahead.
I put to you that the P3 hospital debate is not over. The demands for more resources and more money are going to stick with you, and there will never be enough money to fulfill all 231 promises unless of course your plan is just to keep increasing taxes, as Bill 2 did.
I expect each bill, including what bill today? Was it Bill 4, the electricity bill? It's really a tax grab too.
[...]
[...]
The P3 thing: I just want to go off on to that one a bit. The private thing in hospitals is really good. I did read the Kirby report and I did read, and had full briefings on, the Romanow report, because I was PA to health. There was a lot of good material in both. I kind of believe in the national council on health care. The reason is that the biggest persons to advocate their responsibilities in health care has been the federal government. It was Paul Martin, if you want to know the truth. Look at your history. Health care was a 50-50 deal. We all know that. The member for Sudbury is old enough to know. At that point in time -- what are the numbers? Fourteen cents, is that their share, or 17 or 25 cents? It still isn't 50-50. The biggest abdicator in health care is, in my clue, the federal government. In fact, Romanow said it. He said they should move up their funding, let's say, to 30%, and they got the first down payment.
I put to them that health care today in this entire country is 50% private. No one is talking about it but it is. Today it's 50% private, nothing to do with us. If you go to the dentist, that's oral health, it's all insurance money. If you go to an optometrist and get your glasses, get your eyes tested, it's all insurance companies through your employer or through some other coverage that you have as a legislator, a teacher or a nurse, whatever. You have insurance coverage. Your employer has compensation insurance. It's insurance against injury. If you fall in the workplace, who pays for it? The insurance company. WSIB pays for the broken arm. That's true.
Mr Kormos: They're public, though.
Mr O'Toole: No. It's private. Mr Kormos, if you think about it, I've covered compensation, oral health -- actually, almost all health to do with what is a non-medically necessary procedure is insurance or you pay personally. In most cases, if you want to get a mole removed, you pay.
[...]
Mr O'Toole: That's a whole other debate. I'm just saying that half of health care today, anyone who is telling the truth, is private. I don't agree with it, essentially. That's not what I said. Who's going to own up to it, though?
Now let's get into the MRI clinics and all that. I'm going to refer to two very successful, very highly respected clinics in my riding. One is the Port Perry medical clinic and the other is the Oshawa clinic, one of the largest in Durham region. It certainly is the largest in Durham. There's another one in Courtice. It's new.
These clinics are private. They pay for the financing, the mortgage, the operating and every other thing that occurs in that building through insurance, basically OHIP, because most of the procedures or tests that they do are paid for by the government. They use that money to pay for the building, to get it cleaned, to keep the windows clean, to fix and maintain the building. They're private. The doctors themselves have private businesses. The more business that goes through the door, the more they make and the larger share of that building they can own. So it's private. I didn't say it was good, bad or indifferent; I'm just saying that's the truth.
Now, if you're going to cancel these new MRI clinics -- the biggest thing the new interns want is an office ready to go when they graduate. That's what they want. We're recruiting doctors, as most people are. I'm a supporter of foreign-trained physicians and making sure there's fast-tracked licensing. I've supported them since 1995. I have one in my riding, a wonderful lady. She's a graduate from Hong Kong but she did pediatrics in London, England. If you spoke to her on the phone, she speaks four languages -- not like me, one and a half -- and she should be fast-tracked. I have no question about it all. Making sure that she's a qualified physician, that's what we need to do.
But in these cases here, the doctors, when they graduate -- if you practise in an underserviced area today, because of our policies, your tuition is paid. Did you know that?
Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children's Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Not all of it.
Mr O'Toole: It's $20,000 paid. When they graduate, if they go to an underserviced area they get up to four years paid, plus the community gets, I think, $15,000 for recruiting and a few things like that.
The point I'm trying to make here is that what they want is a key-start operation. They want a building. Now, if there are other doctors who are prepared to invest their money, take a mortgage, put an expansion on the clinic, build the offices and rent it to them for so much per month, then I think that's OK, I personally think it's OK. Let's do anything we can to give them a place to do what they do best, which is to practise medicine. Let's remove the barriers. I'll support you on some of this stuff. I'm saying that publicly here on the record. Doing the right thing isn't going to be hard for any of us.
I'm just looking at the clock here. I've pretty well done a good job. I've got seven minutes on that clock and I've got one minute on this clock, so why give up now? I appreciate the fact that the viewers at home have listened and that many of the members here in the House have listened and that we have had time to debate whether or not we should debate the throne speech. There will be another day to debate the throne speech.
Mr Kormos: When, though? When?
[...]
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO [Physician Resources]
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): It is both a pleasure and privilege for me to stand before the Legislature today and speak about our government's commitment of keeping the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario's pediatric services open. During the election campaign our Premier, Dalton McGuinty, vowed to keep the unit in Ottawa and he has kept that commitment. In the wake of the Tory government's decision last year to consider moving the cardiac surgery program to Toronto, several well-known cardiologists left, based on this threat over CHEO's future. Now I am pleased to see the hiring of 15 additional doctors, a new group of pediatric experts, at CHEO. I wish to commend CHEO's chief of staff and everyone responsible for recruiting highly qualified physicians once again at CHEO.
Je suis fier de la communauté de l'est de l'Ontario qui s'est ralliée en faveur de CHEO. L'appui aux services de chirurgie cardiaque de l'Hôpital pour enfants de l'est de l'Ontario et les imposantes manifestations en sa faveur furent des preuves tangibles de l'attachement de la population envers son hôpital pour enfants.
I was touched by the support at the CHEO rally
that we had in Casselman last year. Its success was reflected by the presence
of a well-known strong supporter for our children, Max Keeping from CJOH.
http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/index.htm
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003
Mr Sorbara moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 2, An Act respecting fiscal responsibility / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant la gestion responsable des finances.
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
Call in the members. This is a 5-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1353 to 1358.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time.
The Speaker: All those who oppose, please rise.
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 28.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Mr Sorbara?
Hon Gregory S. Sorbara (Minister of Finance): It's an honour to introduce our government's second piece of legislation, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2003. It's an important step toward keeping our core commitment to get the province's financial house back in order. We made that commitment because it's the foundation of everything else that Ontarians want us to do. That includes excellence in public education, improving our health care system, strengthening our communities and, obviously, creating a more prosperous economy.
Bill 2 speaks to what is the most important job of our government: strengthening the foundation for change. It is a significant piece of legislation and a large step toward fiscal responsibility in this province.
ANAPHYLACTIC
STUDENTS PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /
LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION
DES ÉLÈVES ANAPHYLACTIQUES
[for more info see http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliament/Session1/index.htm]
Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 3, An Act to protect anaphylactic students / Loi visant à protéger les élèves anaphylactiques.
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
I think the ayes have got it. Call in the members; a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1404 to 1409.
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): All those who are in favour of this bill, please rise.
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 91; the nays are 0.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the House's confidence in this bill. The bill requires that every school principal establish a school anaphylactic plan. The plan would, among other things, develop and maintain strategies to reduce the risk of exposure that could result in anaphylactic shock at the school, communicate information about life-threatening allergies, arrange for training, develop emergency procedures for each anaphylactic student, and maintain current information on file. With consent, school staff could administer or supervise the administration of medication that is required to be taken during the school day to save a life. In the event of an emergency involving an anaphylactic student, school staff would be permitted to administer medication without consent. No action for damages resulting from administering medication would be permitted unless the damages were as a result of gross negligence.
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of privilege arising from today's proceedings, Mr Speaker: Last week we heard some lofty words in the throne speech respecting the dangers of second-hand smoke and cigarette smoking. We have heard other comments today with respect to the increase in the tobacco tax to 74%. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to look into an incident that occurred in the official opposition lobby today when a member of the executive council --
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Name the member.
Mr Runciman: -- the member for Don Valley East, I believe -- came into the opposition lobby smoking, was asked by members of staff to leave the premises and refused to do so. I think that is an affront to all of us and certainly a contradiction of the very lofty statements made by the government. Let's hope they're not hollow words.
The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you very much for raising the point. I hope the members have heard that and adhere to the policy of the Legislature.
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I implore you to be firm with members about their flagrant violation of the rules around this place. I'm sure I speak for many people who are in recovery and have quit that filthy habit and find the presence of smokers and their smoke to be dangerous, not only to my own health but to the health of --
The Speaker: Thank you very much. I'm sure
the member will adhere to the caution raised by the previous member.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I rise to make a statement about Strengthening the Foundation for Change. That's the title of the throne speech that was delivered by His Honour in this House, and that is what we intend to do. But as this is my first opportunity to speak in this session, I want to acknowledge a few groups and one individual.
[...]
In health care, we plan to introduce more accountability for health care dollars. We're going to take steps to give the medical officer of health greater independence, and we will move to curb tobacco use among our youth. We will introduce legislation that shows our rock-solid commitment to universal medicare. Our legislation will, if passed, stop the previous government's creeping privatization of health care by making two-tier, pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care illegal in the province of Ontario.
[...]
Mr Ernie Eves (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey):
Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker
of this Legislative Assembly. I think it marks a very significant day in
the history of this province.
[...]
It looks like P3 hospitals still live in the province of Ontario, despite the fact that the Premier and his party campaigned against them. The only difference is that these P3 hospitals are going to cost more than the other hospitals were going to cost.
They talk about the Canada Health Act, that they're going to introduce some bogus, phony piece of legislation that's going to try to indicate that they're protecting the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario always have been protected by the Canada Health Act. Nothing this government does or doesn't do is going to change that. But I look forward to seeing what they're going to do with respect to their principles around X-ray clinics, kidney dialysis clinics, MRIs and other services that have been delivered by the private sector under the envelope of the Canada Health Act for many years and decades in the province of Ontario. I gather that, being true to their principles, they're going to turf all of those, and the people of Ontario will be in a great dilemma; or they're going to have to go back on their principles. Of course, that wouldn't be a big surprise, as we are seeing.
[...]
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I took great interest in the economic facts mentioned by the Premier in his statement. This is the Premier who looked taxpayers in the eye in all those television commercials and said, "I won't raise your taxes." Well, we read this book today, and he's raising taxes on our small businesses, the job-creation engine of the Ontario economy. He's raising taxes on senior citizens, when this former government wanted to make it easier for them to stay in their own homes. He's raising taxes on young working families, people who wanted to realize the dream of home ownership. But today, with the introduction of this bill, that dream is extinguished.
He's raising taxes on tobacco to 74%, and all that those of us on this side of the House can say is, if that was good to do today, why wasn't it good enough to talk about on election day? But we know there are two agendas: There is one agenda that they presented to get votes on election day and there's another agenda that they're presenting on the floor of the Legislature here at Queen's Park.
[...]
Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Finance. As you are aware, my community of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh borders the United States and is in close proximity to the Quebec border. In the early and mid-1990s our community struggled with increased and evident tobacco smuggling which endangered members of our community as well as enforcement personnel. This blatant disregard for law and order became so serious that the province's hand was forced to lower cigarette taxes in order to curb tobacco smuggling. With our government keeping its commitment to raise taxes to the national average, what are you going to do to ensure we do not find a resurgence of smugglers' alley?
Hon Gregory S. Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I want to begin by congratulating the new member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. He succeeds a great, now retired, member of this Parliament, John Cleary. We all remember him well. I want to wish you, sir, the very best of good luck as you take your seat in this House.
You raise a very important question. The fact is that today we introduced a bill that will raise in a significant way tobacco taxes. The balance in dealing with tobacco taxes is to make sure that the additional levy is not so high as to encourage, if I can use that word, an underground economy in tobacco. We think our moderate approach to moving toward the national average in cigarette taxes will do just that. We are going to be extremely vigilant so that we don't make the mistakes that were made in the past when the national government had to actually roll back cigarette taxes in order to dampen that underground economy. We're not going to let that happen.
Mr Brownell: Minister, it is good to hear that you take the smuggling issue seriously. We don't want to return to the problems of the past. I want to stress again that the serious issues of violence stemming from smuggling have turned some people off raising tobacco taxes. People want to see that there is a positive benefit to the policy beyond revenue. Can you tell me what the health impact of an increase in tobacco taxes would be? What is the benefit to the people of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh if there is an increase in the tobacco taxes?
Hon Mr Sorbara: I think it would be best to refer that supplementary to my colleague the Minister of Health.
Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I too would like to add my congratulations to the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh on his election, and say that smoking kills, that in the province of Ontario tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable illness and premature death, killing 16,000 citizens a year. Health care expenditures related to tobacco use cost Ontario taxpayers an estimated $1 billion a year, and diseases caused by tobacco cost the economy an estimated $2.6 billon each year in lost productivity, as reported by the Addiction Research Foundation. These are all good reasons for Ontarians to stop smoking, but far and away the greatest reason, and the reason that I recommend this piece of legislation to the member from Simcoe North, is because it can prevent young people in the province from taking up this habit which may reduce their life.
Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you've tried to express lately the sentiment that you're surprised that the province has a $5-billion-plus deficit. But I read the remarks of your then finance critic Gerry Phillips on June 3, six months ago, where he was talking to the then Finance Minister. He says you've got to find $2.2 billion in asset sales, $700 million in in-year savings, $620 million in lost revenue because the economy's not performing, $770 million in federal health care funding, which may not come, $800 million in SARS costs. Then he adds it up and says there's a risk of a $5-billion deficit.
Now I turn to Erik Peters's document, and Erik Peters says $2.2 billion in asset sales, $700 million