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

October 2, 2001

37th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2001-Oct-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 2 October 2001 Mardi 2 octobre 2001

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER

FOR BEACHES-EAST YORK

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

PROSTATE CANCER

AWARENESS WEEK

ONTARIO ECONOMY

LAKESHORE HOSPITAL

TAXATION

SCHOOLTEACHERS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ONTARIO SECURITY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO ECONOMY AND SECURITY

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

BORDER SECURITY

TAXATION

ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY AND SECURITY

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

CANCER TREATMENT

INTERNATIONAL

WALK TO SCHOOL DAY

EDUCATION FUNDING

BORDER SECURITY

EDUCATION FUNDING

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE EQUIPMENT

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

PROTECTION OF MINORS

HOME CARE

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

PROTECTION OF MINORS

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES /

CENTRES D'ACCÈS AUX SOINS COMMUNAUTAIRES

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

PROTECTION OF MINORS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

AIR QUALITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE

FOR ROAD USERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION

DES SERVICES À LA CLIENTÈLE

OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

Tuesday 2 October 2001 Mardi 2 octobre 2001

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER

FOR BEACHES-EAST YORK

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the chief election officer and laid upon the table a

certificate of the by-election in the electoral district of Beaches-East York.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): I have a letter addressed to:

"Mr Claude DesRosiers

"Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

"Room 104

"Legislative Building

"Queen's Park

"Toronto, Ontario

"M7A 1A2."

It reads as follows.

"Dear Mr DesRosiers:

"A writ of election dated the 22nd day of August 2001 was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario and was addressed to Ivor

Vavasour, returning officer of the electoral district of Beaches-East York, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Beaches-East York in the Legislative Assembly of

this province in the room of Frances Lankin who since her election as representative of the said electoral district of Beaches-East York has resigned her seat. This is to certify that, a poll

having been granted and held in Beaches-East York on the 20th day of September 2001, Michael Prue has been returned as duly elected, as appears by the return of the said writ of election dated the

28th day of September 2001, which is now lodged of record in my office."

"John L. Hollins

"Chief election officer

"Toronto, September 28, 2001."

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and the House Michael Prue, member-elect for the electoral

district of Beaches-East York, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take his seat.

The Speaker: Let the honourable member take his seat.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): After unwisely and unjustifiably bringing into effect the closure of the 24-hour emergency department of

Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines and the removal of the oncology and kidney dialysis units, leaving Hotel Dieu as entirely a day surgery facility, the Harris government is beginning an attack

on the community care access centres around the province, including our own Access Niagara.

The closing of hospital beds means that patients are discharged quicker and sicker to nursing and seniors' homes and to personal residences. The CCAC was

established to provide home and long-term care services, but, through the service cuts and budget cuts, essential care is not available to many of our seniors and others.

The $2.2-billion tax cut for corporations and other tax cuts have left the Harris government with declining revenues. Patients in Ontario are paying the price of

these mindless tax gifts to the wealthiest and most powerful people in the province.

To add insult to injury, the Ontario government is once again embarking upon a government advertising campaign that can only be characterized as highly partisan,

in this case costing some $7 million. Patients in Niagara would appreciate that money being invested in health care instead of squandered on self-serving advertising for the Harris government.

PROSTATE CANCER

AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to support the cause of the Owen Sound Prostate Cancer Support Group, chaired

by Colin Campbell, in recognition of Prostate Cancer Awareness Week. These individuals volunteer countless hours of their time to help bring awareness of this growing epidemic.

Prostate cancer accounts for more than all other forms of cancer in men combined, and is the second killer of men after lung cancer. Prostate cancer will affect

close to 6,700 men in Ontario this year alone. Almost a quarter of those diagnosed will eventually die from this disease.

The Canadian Cancer Society recommends that men who are in high-risk groups, such as those with a history of disease and over the age of 50, should visit their

doctors for early detection.

It is the most painful of all forms of cancer in its advanced stages. It unfortunately does not present symptoms until it reaches the advanced stages, when it's

too late and becomes terminal. That is why early detection is needed. For these reasons, we need to educate people and make them aware of this disease.

The Owen Sound Prostate Cancer Support Group exists with hopes of increasing public awareness and lending support to those who are affected. They are a

much-needed group in our community, and we thank them for their hard work.

I congratulate all those involved during the week of September 16 to 23 for a successful Prostate Cancer Awareness Week. I salute your efforts to inform the

public and support those people who are living with prostate cancer.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): We watched yesterday as the Premier of Ontario released a six-minute video across the satellite instead of

addressing this House about a very significant issue; that is, the state of Ontario's economy. Let's talk about that for a moment. Prior to the terrorist attacks in New York on September 11, it was

very clear -- certainly very clear to the working families in my community -- that Ontario's economy was beginning to slow down. It was very clear that the Tory tax cuts, the Harris tax cuts,

weren't working.

In January of this year we had one major plant close down. The Minister of Labour laughs, but there are 6,000 families on temporary layoff at Chrysler Corp this

week alone. I don't think it's a laughing matter. I don't believe that three Ford Motor Co plants shut down in my community are a laughing matter. No government should laugh about that and no

government, in our view, ought to be proceeding in the fashion that they announced yesterday.

Their tax cut plan wasn't working. All they announced on the economic side yesterday was to speed up the tax cuts for corporations -- corporations that will not

be making money this year; corporations that won't benefit from it. It's unfortunate that this Premier and government are stuck in a period of time somewhere long ago. They squandered the greatest

prosperity in the history of this province, and now they threaten to drive our economy even further into the ground because of their lack of vision and lack of foresight.

LAKESHORE HOSPITAL

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I draw the Legislature's attention today to a huge success story in my riding: the construction launch of our new

Lakeshore hospital.

Last Friday the shovels went into the ground, the culmination of a massive planning and fundraising effort. While the province provided some $25 million to date

and will provide 70% of the construction costs, the community has risen to the challenge of covering the other 30%. In fact, we have exceeded the original target. To date, more than $21 million has

been raised in an catchment area of just over 50,000 people, truly an astounding feat.

The design of the new hospital is also the result of a co-operative effort. Staff and medical practitioners at the Northumberland Health Care Centre have had

tremendous input into the layout of the new facility. They are also committed to this project in that the staff fundraising drive also exceeded its goal of $1 million, a feat that surprised even

Navion, the fundraising consultants hired to oversee the campaign.

Many people deserve recognition for the excellent progress of this project: the NHCC board of trustees, staff of the Ministry of Health, the fundraising

committee, the NHCC staff and management team and the hospital auxiliaries. But most of all, the community is to be commended for the outstanding support they have given to this project.

I'm both humbled and filled with pride by this impressive show of community spirit. I thank all of those involved, and I look forward to a gala opening of the

new facility in mid-2003.

TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The question all Ontarians must ask is, "Why do we need corporate taxes 25% below our major

competitors in the US?" Premier Harris announced the start of that plan last night. It will result, according to the government documents, in $2.2 billion less revenue coming to Ontario. We in the

Liberal caucus are fully supportive of competitive taxes, but we do not understand the rationale of why we have to compete with the US with 25% lower taxes.

Jobs are going to be the key issue over the next few months. This does little, if anything, to protect jobs. Our US competitors are going to be in a far better

position as they invest in security, as they invest in their education system, and Premier Harris has chosen to compete on the basis of corporate taxes 25% below the US. I would say that our

automotive sector, which my colleague from Windsor just mentioned, our tourism sector, our exports sector and I think our retail sector are all going to face significant challenges. Right now they

are facing them and will in the months ahead.

But Premier Harris has decided that, rather than invest in the things that are going to help fix that, he's going to have corporate taxes 25% lower than the US.

This is a foolhardy policy by a foolhardy government.

SCHOOLTEACHERS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): A brief message to the Minister of Education: everyone knows that public confidence in our educational

system is floundering. Our schools are crumbling and our teachers are demoralized, and the public wants you to stop beating up on teachers. They do.

I want to read two examples of two people who have written to me, saying to you that we have a serious problem in our educational system.

One teacher from Kitchener, Mr Blair, says, "I wish to withdraw my membership from the Ontario College of Teachers. I will not teach in Ontario, to protest the

government's implementation of Bill 80." He continues, "As a teacher I was expected to develop a program geared to the individual needs of my students, but apparently this does not apply to the

government."

Another teacher from Kingston, a Miss Kathleen Jackson, says, "All my life, all I ever wanted to do was to be a teacher. Now I'm not so sure.

"My question for you, Mr Harris, is, what exactly do you expect from teachers in Ontario? I work 10-plus hours every day, five days a week. I work four-plus

hours on the weekend. I can't take the day off to play golf. I can't decide not to grade my students' papers. I can't roll over in the morning and decide not to go to work.... And in addition, I

will now be expected to complete courses, all of which will contain an assessment component. Where do you suggest I get the time to complete these courses? What about travel expenses.... I am sure

that making $1,800 a month, I will have little left over to pay for courses."

She says, "Maybe next time you implement a program to improve education in Ontario, you'll think about teachers like me and what we do every day."

Think about them, Minister.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Earlier this year I conducted a survey of my constituents in Waterloo-Wellington. The results were

tabulated over the summer and I have received strong and clear advice about health care. Here are the results:

"Is the Ontario government managing health care effectively?" Fifty-four per cent of the respondents said no.

"Is the province spending enough on health care?" Forty-six per cent said no and only 30% said yes.

On a more positive note, my constituents reported favourable personal experiences with the health care system in Waterloo-Wellington, indicating a satisfaction

rating of 54%.

The responses indicated strong support for my private member's resolution, which called for a restoration of the federal government's cuts to health care, at

79%, and 81% supported my demand for an escalator clause that would increase federal funding to keep pace with our rising costs.

Recently, concerns about home care funding in Ontario were brought to my attention at meetings with representatives of the Community Care Access Centre of

Waterloo Region. As part of a province-wide measure, the provincial home care budget has been frozen at last year's level, while demands for services increase steadily and funding inadequacies mean

that home care services in some individual instances have been reduced.

Some patients are receiving less care and some aren't receiving the care they need because they're on a waiting list. With the budget for home care frozen across

the province, more patients will need hospital or long-term-care beds, the very expensive and sometimes unavailable options that home care was designed to replace, where appropriate.

It is time for the provincial government to take the steps necessary to address these problems by making sure that home care services are available to all who

need them, that provincial home care funding is equitably distributed across the province, and that unnecessary administration costs don't eat into home care services that people need.

ONTARIO SECURITY

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): The cloistered video stunt announcement of Commissioner Norman Inkster and Major General Lewis MacKenzie as

Ontario's security czars did not do justice to either of these highly respected Canadians or to the people of Ontario. There's a public thirst for political leadership that requires security in

Ontarian's day-to-day lives. The Premier's bizarre video failed that test of leadership.

Incredibly, according to published reports, Major General MacKenzie has not yet been briefed on what role he will play. Regardless, the Premier has not briefed

the public on what role he and Commissioner Inkster will play. What is their mandate? Are their recommendations confined to provincial matters, or is this a marshalling of a public relations

campaign against Ottawa? Perhaps most importantly, are they working with the federal government to come up with a coordinated attack on terrorism, or is Ontario going at it alone?

Is the Attorney General fulfilling his role as legal czar and constitutional watchdog? Will the scandalized Red Tape Commission, which currently oversees all

matters, oversee the work of these security advisors in getting access to sensitive intelligence information? Will the commissioner and major general be releasing a report to the public, or will a

secret playbook for the cabinet never see the light of day?

To whom will they report? To the Premier, a standing committee, the Legislature or the cabinet? How will their well-intentioned efforts be held accountable to

the people of Ontario? Imagine a royal commission on terrorism being announced by a government without stating its mandate or stating any reportage, any timelines or other details. That's what Mike

Harris did yesterday.

When it comes to restoring Ontarians' security, the Harris government has been slow off the mark and now cannot say where it's headed.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I had the pleasure of attending the annual general meeting of the Muskoka Heritage Foundation last

Saturday in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. In the meeting, the importance of volunteers and the stewardship activities in the riding was recognized.

This was a great opportunity to honour the local volunteers and to become inspired by their example during the International Year of the Volunteer. The Muskoka

Heritage Foundation recognizes the importance of the environment in our riding and the importance of the natural areas and the built heritage areas that define the unique identity of Muskoka.

At the meeting, I congratulated a local constituent, Maureen Hunt, on receiving the first ever Robert J. Boyer Award. This is a new award created by the

foundation's built heritage committee to recognize individuals in the community who throughout their lives have made significant contributions to the unique cultural heritage of Muskoka.

Naming the award after Mr Boyer reflects on his lifelong commitment to the well-being of Muskoka, to its culture and to the preservation of its history. He has

been a newspaper publisher, politician, historian and tireless promoter of Muskoka to the outside world. From 1955 to 1971, Mr Boyer served as a Progressive Conservative representative for the

Muskoka riding.

Maureen Hunt has been a dedicated and enthusiastic volunteer in the heritage community in Muskoka for over 30 years. She is very deserving of the first-ever

Robert J. Boyer Award.

I'd like to congratulate all members of the Muskoka Heritage Foundation for giving their time, expertise and resources in order to make a difference in Parry

Sound-Muskoka.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In view of the special time that we are experiencing in this world's

history, I ask for unanimous consent for all parties to make brief statements honouring Mahatma Gandhi on October 2, today, the anniversary of his birthdate.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? I'm sorry; that was confusing; I'll ask again. Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid

I heard some noes.

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a favourable report from the Commissioners of Estate Bills

with respect to Bill Pr 15,

An Act to establish the Sioux Lookout Meno-Ya-Win Health Centre. Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 86(e), the bill and report stand referred to the standing

committee on regulations and private bills.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO ECONOMY AND SECURITY

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Last night I spoke directly to the people of Ontario to reassure them about their families' safety, about

their jobs and about the security of Ontario. Today I'm here to inform the House about the actions that we have taken.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: Ontario's strength is in its people, in our diversity and in our reputation for tolerance. Our province --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. I say to the members in the opposition there complaining that the Premier never makes statements

in here, he didn't get out one minute and all you're doing is shouting and screaming like you did last week too. The same thing last week: he got up and it was almost impossible to control you. You

screamed for the entire time. Not just one or two, with good-natured heckling, but the entire opposition benches.

Sorry for the interruption, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Our province is also strong because we care about our families and our children's future. Because we have taken action, Ontario will continue to be a very safe

place to live.

Yesterday I announced the appointment of two new security advisors to the provincial government: Norman Inkster, retired commissioner of the RCMP, and retired

Major General Lewis MacKenzie. They will be working to improve how Ontario deals with terrorist threats. Their suggestions will lead to greater co-operation with other governments and law

enforcement agencies, locally and globally.

While Ontarians handled last month's tragedy well, I want to improve our ability to react to large-scale emergencies. That's why I've asked for a comprehensive

review of Ontario's capacity to handle emergencies, including: identifying risks, then eliminating or minimizing them; improving emergency plans and training; ensuring that our communication and

notification networks are up to date; and drafting recovery and assistance plans for communities affected by emergencies.

We will require all municipalities to maintain emergency response plans and to train their employees. As well, we will work with the owners and operators of

large buildings and public facilities to develop appropriate emergency response plans.

If the terrorists hoped to cripple our economy, to undermine our confidence and to destroy our will, we will prove them wrong. We will show them that our

society and our economy are strong, are resilient, and that we will prevail.

We must also ensure, along with our neighbours to the south, that the events of September 11 do not have a long-term impact on our economy or on the well-being

of our families. Our economy and our quality of life rely heavily on our close relationship with the United States. Improving cross-border trade has always been a strong priority. Now it is even

more important.

In June, Governor Pataki and I hosted the New York-Ontario economic summit, and I believe we must meet again to discuss how we can take action on the

recommendations that will be coming forward as a result of that summit's working groups. I've also requested a new meeting with the Great Lakes governors and business leaders to discuss steps we

can take to increase trade.

Ours is the longest undefended border in the world. To ensure the free flow of law-abiding people, of legitimate goods and services, Canada must coordinate

customs procedures to create a common North American security perimeter. We will either be inside or we will be outside the perimeter. I believe we should be inside. If we aren't, the terrorists

win by impairing the cross-border access that is, and will be, so vital to our economic health, and I believe it is equally important to the security of our citizens.

North America's economy is in a cycle of slower growth compared to the last five years; however, Ontario is in a better position now than it ever has been to

weather the economic turmoil. Low taxes, reduced red tape and the removal of barriers to business all position Ontario well for future growth, and we have been prudent in our fiscal planning to

ensure people can continue to create jobs, which power the economic growth.

We can do more, and we will. On January 1, 2002, we had planned to implement a number of additional tax cuts, including cuts to personal income taxes, capital

taxes and corporate income taxes. There are some who have always opposed our tax cuts. Those same people say that we should not proceed with these already announced and planned tax cuts in light of

recent events. Once again, they are wrong.

The members on this side of the House believe tax cuts are more important now than ever before. That's why yesterday I announced that we would introduce

legislation that would, if passed, cut personal income taxes immediately and help stimulate our economy. These tax cuts will put more money into the pockets of Ontarians.

Take a typical two-earner Ontario family with one parent earning $35,000 and the other parent earning $25,000 a year. Ontario's personal tax cuts to date,

together with a full implementation of the 2001 budget, including these accelerated tax cuts, will deliver total income tax savings of $2,345 to that hard-working family. That's money they can use

to buy hockey equipment for the kids, put toward home renovations or help pay for that vacation that they weren't sure they could afford.

We will introduce legislation to accelerate our planned capital and corporate income tax cuts, including cutting the small business income tax rate to 6%,

effective October 1. We are proposing to accelerate these tax cuts because we have enormous confidence in the people of this province. We are confident that their entrepreneurial spirit, that their

proven productivity will take us through the short term to long-term gains in jobs and in quality of life.

Today I am announcing some additional steps we will take to protect jobs as well as the safety and security of Ontario families.

The Minister of Consumer and Business Services will quickly introduce legislation to increase security province-wide for documents such as birth and death

certificates, keeping safe information that could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

There are many people in Ontario illegally. Some are criminal offenders. We need to locate these individuals. So Ontario will establish a special police unit

to assist federal officers in tracking down these criminal offenders and aggressively seeking their deportation. I have asked the justice ministers to work on the details of this proposal and

report back.

Many people who are awaiting immigration hearings in Ontario are currently detained in various facilities across the province, including provincial detention

centres. Today I am offering to work with the federal government to ensure those individuals who require high security are detained in a maximum-security institution. I have asked the Minister of

Correctional Services to work on this initiative and to report back with details.

We will continue to take the strong action necessary to keep Ontario safe and prosperous. As I said in my statement on September 24, our justice ministers and

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation will provide further details relating to these and other initiatives in the coming days and weeks.

As you know, the Minister of Finance will be providing an update on the province's fiscal situation shortly with the annual fall statement.

I want to emphasize the important message that I delivered to all Ontarians last night. Ontario will remain strong. Ontario will succeed. The people of Ontario

have our commitment that we will do everything possible to protect their jobs, to protect our economy, to protect our province and to protect our citizens. Thank you very much.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to begin by briefly addressing that part of this announcement regarding immigration. Of

course -- and I want to make it perfectly clear -- we obviously oppose illegal immigration and we support the measures to stop illegal immigration, just as we oppose, and will oppose, anything

whatsoever that resembles a witch hunt aimed at all of our immigrants. That is in keeping with the resolution on terrorism that we all unanimously supported just last week.

Now let me turn to yesterday's announcement. The world did change on September 11. The world changed, but sadly, the government has not. It has responded to

the most tragic and devastating event in years in the same old way, with the same old approach: top down. Instead of showing leadership by reaching out to the people of Ontario, the Premier

yesterday delivered his message from the top down, from on high, via satellite, cloistered in his office, apart from the people and outside of this Legislature, and he responded with the same old

tired ideology instead of something innovative and intelligent.

The government's response is to do what it has always done in the same way that it has always done it: reward the government's corporate friends and give

working families a couple of bucks. Under the government's so-called economic recovery plan, one which is designed to inspire confidence, presumably, in consumers, this government will give the

average Ontario family a dollar a week. At the same time, the government is speeding up a tax cut for corporations that will amount to $2.2 billion. Remember, this is a tax on profits. So the

biggest prize goes to the companies with the biggest profits, not companies that are struggling to stay afloat and to hang on to their employees.

Families are worried about their jobs. Families are worried about their savings. The government's response? A buck a week for families and more than $2 billion

for profitable corporations. Premier, we know that you believe in rewarding your friends. We on this side of the House believe in working on behalf of working families.

The world changed on September 11, and it's regrettable that the Premier and the government have not. This government responds with the same old, same old --

the same old slogans, the same old tired ideology, even the same aggravating and tiresome style.

Premier, here is what you should do:

(1) Stop hiding the books from the people of Ontario. Provide us with an updated economic outlook and a fiscal plan. Then we'll know exactly how much money we

have to work with so that we can act responsibly and intelligently without risking either a deficit or devastating cuts to health care and education.

(2) Once we all know what's affordable, we can develop some innovative ideas instead of the same old, same old. You can start reaching out to business and

labour by holding an economic summit.

(3) Introduce a package of innovative ideas, because there are so many to choose from. We could, for example, accelerate spending on capital projects,

particularly near the border. A better bridge or an improved road can create construction jobs and facilitate trade, and we need both. We can invest in repairing and improving our hospitals and

schools and universities and our colleges. This sort of capital spending will create jobs and secure what should be our long-term competitive advantages: quality health care and education. We could

target tax relief as well at the industries that are hurting the most today, where jobs are on the chopping block.

That's what you could have done, Premier. You could have looked at all of these things with business and labour, after opening up the books so we'd know what

we can afford and what we can't afford. You could have responded to an unprecedented crisis with responsibility, intelligence and innovation. You could have acted to protect jobs instead of

profitable corporations. You could have helped working families instead of your friends. Instead, it's the same old, same old. The world changed on September 11, to be sure; unfortunately, this

government has not.

The Speaker: Further responses?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A week ago members of this Legislature addressed the tragedy of September 11 in a very non-partisan

way. We spoke in a very non-partisan way about the issues that needed to be dealt with, about people's fears, about people's anxieties. It appears that that was last week; now the Premier wants to

play upon people's fears, play upon people's anxieties, without offering anything real for people.

People across Ontario need to know that in terms of the border controls, in terms of customs and immigration, in terms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in

terms of the Canadian intelligence and security agency, none of these things are within the province's control. For the Premier to stand and to try to put across to people that somehow these things

are going to be influenced by his television cameo appearance last night or his statement here today is simply playing upon people's anxieties and people's fears.

The Premier talks about a North American security perimeter and he talks about harmonization with the United States. Well, I think the Premier had better

explain to the people of Ontario what he means. Does he mean the kind of wall the United States has tried to throw up at the Mexican border, where over the past 20 years the United States has spent

billions of dollars, where they have, I am told, in excess of 9,000 border guards and border patrol officers, and yet a million illegal immigrants enter from Mexico every year, and the estimate now

is that there are over 11 million illegal immigrants from Mexico? Is that what the Premier means by an American-style security blanket?

The Premier should know, as security experts know, that it is not possible to build a wall around Canada, a wall around the United States or a wall around

North America. That is what I find really reprehensible about this: to pretend that this is even an option, when the historical experience in the United States along the Mexican border over the

last 20 years suggests that it is not possible, that it is a very wasteful effort and that in fact it's been totally unsuccessful

I think what the Premier really means is this: we've known for some time that the Premier really does believe in more privatized health care, he really does

believe in adopting an American-style system of health care. We know that the Premier really doesn't support public education, that he'd rather have more American-style private education. We know

that in general the Premier, in terms of his statements and his views, would really rather that Ontario were something akin to the 51st state. I have to tell you, Premier, there are lots in this

province, and New Democrats are among them, who do not believe that Ontario needs to become akin to the 51st state.

Most of all, Premier, don't play upon people's fears and insecurities and offer them some hope of a security blanket which has been proven not to work

everywhere that it's been tried, whether in North America or in Europe.

Then we come to the issue of the thousands of people across Ontario who are worried about losing their jobs, of the communities across Ontario who are worried

about losing their industry. What does the Premier offer up? The Premier offers up corporate tax cuts for profitable corporations and nothing for those companies that do not have a profit and

therefore will not benefit from tax cuts. People across Ontario need to know that the six big banks in Ontario last year had a profit of $10 billion, and they will be the overwhelming recipients of

the Premier's corporate tax cut scheme.

Meanwhile, corporations like Algoma Steel -- 70,000 jobs at risk; over two dozen sawmills in northern Ontario which will not make a profit this year -- nothing

from this; a depressed steel industry generally -- nothing from this; A.G. Simpson in the automotive industry, which is in troubled economic times, at least 2,000 jobs at stake -- nothing from

this.

Premier, both your personal tax cut and your corporate tax cut are not going to do anything to stimulate the economy or save jobs. It's merely another gift to

your corporate friends, while people in industries who need help are going to be ignored once again by your government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My questions today are for the Premier. We are pleased to see that you have adopted some of our

ideas that we put forth during the course of the past week, in particular requiring municipalities to have emergency plans and to meet with the governors of the border states.

I want to assure you of our full support with those particular initiatives, but I cannot and will not support your reckless corporate tax cuts. Your plan to

stimulate the economy and to inspire confidence in consumers results in giving the average working family in Ontario $1 a week. You've got $1 a week for Ontario's working families. But on the other

hand, you've been able to come up with over $2 billion in tax cuts for profitable corporations.

Premier, why are you doing practically nothing for our working families at the same time that you continue to reward your corporate friends?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I actually am quite surprised that the leader of a party that voted against every penny of tax cuts for

working families in the province that we've brought in in the last six years somehow or other now is calling for more tax cuts for working families. You can't have it both ways.

It's close to $2,500 now, every penny of those tax cuts. They're cumulative. Some of them were small and some of them were larger. The cumulative effect of

those is now close to $2,400 to hard-working Ontario families.

You and your party stood up in this Legislature and voted against every single one of those tax cuts. So where do you get off now talking -- are you in favour

of tax cuts? Do you want more tax cuts? If so, why did you vote against every one that has been brought in in the last six years?

Mr McGuinty: Premier, we know where your tax cut agenda has brought us. We've got the slowest economic growth in the country this year, and

next year we are forecast to have the slowest economic growth in the country. We've got the slowest growth in employment in the country. That is what your tax cut strategy has delivered to us.

What I am asking you today is, how can you possibly proceed with a corporate tax cut to the tune of in excess of $2 billion while at the same time telling our

working families, "All we have for you is $1 a week"? Do you honestly believe that to give a working family today in Ontario an additional $1 every week is somehow going to inspire them with

confidence and act to send them on to some kind of buying spree? Why is it that you're able to find $2.2 billion for your corporate pals, those already profitable corporations, but when it comes to

people who are worried about the future and their jobs and their savings, you found $1 a week?

Hon Mr Harris: As I said, I am shocked that last June, when we put these very same tax proposals before the Legislature, you voted against

them. You voted against tax cuts for working families. However modest they were, cumulatively we know they've had a dramatic effect. You voted against them. I tell you, the last time I heard such

doom and gloom from a Liberal leader I think was Dr Stuart Smith, who became known as Dr Negative, and campaigned with results that were negative too.

All this doom and gloom from you is not helping the economy, and it's not true. This province is better positioned now to grow and to prosper into the future

than it has ever been, thanks to the tax cuts we brought in and you voted against.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, how would you know what working families are experiencing when you deliver your stone tablets from the top of the

mountain rather than come inside this Legislature and debate things in a responsible and intelligent way? How would you know?

Let me bring you up to date in terms of what's happening in our economy. We've got the slowest growth in the country this year. That's what your tax cut

strategy brought us. We are forecast to have the slowest growth in the country next year. We lost 17,000 jobs this summer alone. That's what your economic agenda has delivered to Ontario's working

families.

They expected that in these exceptional circumstances you would do something intelligent and innovative. But instead, we get the same old one-trick tax cut

pony, which is trotted out time after time. It has got us into the state that we find ourselves in today. It will continue to do the same into the future. Once again, you have left Ontario families

in the lurch.

I ask you one more time. You found $2.2 billion for profitable corporations, and all you came up with is $1 a week for working families. How do you think you

can possibly justify that?

Hon Mr Harris: There is, as a result of the announcement last night, an acceleration of $150 million in tax cuts for businesses large and

small to create jobs, to keep people on the payroll, to stay afloat, to help keep the economy going. But again I am surprised that now, with the cumulative effect of $2,345 for a typical two-member

working family here in Ontario -- they now have $2,345 more in their pocket -- you voted against each and every one of those tax reductions. You had no care, you had no concern for the hard-working

families in this province when we brought in those tax cuts, and now somehow or other you stand up and feign that you actually care about them or that you're interested in them.

We will continue, as we have, to represent hard-working, taxpaying families. I have not talked to one Ontarian -- not one Ontarian -- who agrees with your

assessment.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): New question.

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Premier. Again, let's put this in some perspective, that for every dollar you found for working families,

you found two for corporate tax reductions. Your objective here with the corporate tax reductions, as stated in your budget document, is to reduce corporate taxes in Ontario to the extent that they

are 25% less than they are for our American counterparts.

The question I have for you, Premier, is: do you really feel that it is appropriate, now that New York state, for example, is on its knees, for you to

accelerate your corporate income tax cut so that we can lure more investment from New York at this point in time? Do you really think that's appropriate, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the

preamble to your question is an insult to the governor, to Mayor Giuliani and to the people of New York, who have

stated very clearly that they will be stronger after the events of September 11 than ever before.

For you to suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense, and let me tell you this: the governor of New York supports 100% the policies of this government toward tax

reduction and competitiveness that we articulated in previous budgets -- 100%. We are of one mind on this; we in this Great Lakes milieu are of one mind on this. For you to insult the people of New

York at this time is an absolute disgrace.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I think it's --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. The member for Ottawa West-Nepean, this is your last warning. Last warning for you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I don't care. You've been yelling. When I say, "Order," the last person gets caught. You're it. Last warning for you.

Sorry for the interruption. The leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, don't be afraid to stare it in the face. In your own budget document on page 88, you make it clear that your intention

is to undercut your neighbouring states to the tune of 25% through your corporate tax cuts. That's what you said your stated objective is here. All I'm asking you, Premier, is whether or not you

feel it is appropriate. It's one thing to say you've got the corporate tax cuts on the books and they'll come into effect at the beginning of next year, but it is another thing to accelerate those

tax cuts. The fact of the matter is that we are in competition with New York state. We are in competition with investment. We'd rather have the investment here than over there.

What I'm asking you, Premier, is whether you think it is appropriate at this point in time --

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): It's about getting jobs.

The Speaker: This is the last warning for the Minister of Education and House leader. Now that you're House leader, you're sitting a lot

closer to me, and I can hear you very clearly. This is your last warning.

I apologize again for the interruption to the leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, if the neighbour's barn burns down, you're supposed to roll up your sleeves and offer to help get them back on their

feet. What you want to do, Premier, is sell your crops at a rate that's going to undercut the neighbouring farmer. I think that's inappropriate and I think it's offensive. I'm asking you, Premier,

to tell me how you consider this aspect of it and how you think it's appropriate to attack the competitiveness of New York state at this particular point in time.

Hon Mr Harris: I can assure you that Governor Pataki, the people of New York and the government of New York understand this: a strong Ontario

is good for New York, just as I understand that a strong New York is good for Ontario. We both agree. That is why we were the first to get off the mark and to offer assistance, to offer help, do

anything we could do for the people of New York. That's also why we continue to work co-operatively toward jobs in Ontario, jobs in New York, why we continue to work co-operatively to improve

access across our borders. We know that every new job created in Ontario helps New York. We know that every new job created in New York helps Ontario.

I am pleased to see that for the first time in six years, you seem to understand that we have to be competitive with other jurisdictions if we're going to have

our share of jobs in Ontario. This is a very good admission for you to make.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I'd ask you to focus on the questions I keep putting to you on this particular aspect. There's no issue here. We all

understand how important it is for us to be competitive. You and I differ in terms of how we should be competitive. You think the only way for us to be competitive is to undercut our neighbours to

the tune of 25% on corporate tax cuts. I'd rather that we be competitive on the corporate tax cut front and at the same time have adequately supported health care and education, and protections for

our environment. We think it's important to bring a balanced approach to the definition of competitiveness, one that is suited to the 21st century, one that is suited to us as a society that's

trying to develop a highly competitive, knowledge-based economy. So we understand all of those things, which you do not.

What I am asking you here today is something about the ethics, whether you think it is appropriate to accelerate a corporate tax cut which was already on the

books, and that is one thing. But for us to do this now, to try to lure investment away from New York state, I think is inappropriate, and I want you to comment on that.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say this: it is only through tax cuts in a competitive economy that we've been able to have the balanced approach and do

both. We've been able to put $6 billion more into health care; we've been able to put more money into education. Had we followed the economic policies that you and the NDP followed, we would not

have been able to make up the massive cuts that the Liberals in Ottawa put on us: on our social programs, on our children's programs, on our health programs, on our education programs. So perhaps,

with your revelation that we need to be competitive, you will begin to understand that you can't just mouth being balanced; you have to actually demonstrate being balanced by being tax-competitive,

by creating jobs, by making sure we can compete with other jurisdictions, and then also by massively increasing health care spending and education spending. So we have demonstrated balance, not

mouthed it and then flip-flopped and then voted against it and then talked about it. So I suggest --

The Speaker: Order. The Premier's time is up.

New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday you finally admitted that Ontario's economy is in trouble

and that we are losing jobs. But your response, more corporate tax cuts for profitable corporations and more personal tax cuts for the well-off, is the wrong response and it won't work.

The six big banks had profits last year of $10 billion and, based upon your corporate tax cut, they will benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of

dollars. Meanwhile, Algoma Steel had no profit, so they will get nothing from your corporate tax cut. Meanwhile, 22 sawmills across northern Ontario, in a depressed sawmill and soft lumber market,

have no profits. They will get no benefit from this. A.G. Simpson, automaker, 2,000 jobs at stake, will get no benefit.

Premier, we know this will help the well-off, but please, tell us how this is going to help companies and jobs where they don't have a profit now and won't get

a tax cut.

Hon Mr Harris: Let me, rather than tell you in my own words, quote from those who actually create jobs in Ontario. Canadian Manufacturers and

Exporters news release: "Ian Howcroft, vice-president CME Ontario Division, said Premier Harris's announcement making the tax cuts effective immediately `is the best thing to do in order to help

boost business confidence and spur new investment.'" That's how you get jobs, in case you didn't know.

A Toronto Board of Trade news release said much similar. We know that the NDP and the Liberals have a different philosophy about tax competitiveness. We

understand that. We saw your demonstration of that for 10 years, and we saw the province go into virtual bankruptcy. So we might as well agree to disagree.

We think our economic policies will produce more prosperity, more jobs, more hope, more opportunity, more money for health care, more money for education, more

money to help people who need it, and we've demonstrated that over the last six years.

Mr Hampton: Premier, there are 70,000 jobs at stake at Algoma Steel. There are 50,000-plus jobs at stake in sawmills across northern Ontario;

A.G. Simpson, at least 2,000 jobs. None of those jobs will get anything from your corporate tax cut. Because those companies are not making enough money, they're not making a profit, they will not

get anything from the corporate tax cut. That's the point.

The very jobs that are at risk in this province, the very communities that are having a hard time, will get nothing from this. When you read a press release

from some of your corporate friends who are going to get a tax cut, yes, I'm sure they like it. But the problem is, Premier, and the issue is, what are you doing to help the very industries, the

very jobs that are in trouble? Your tax cut isn't going to do anything.

So tell us now: what is your strategy to help those jobs that are at risk, those communities that are having a hard time, those very industries that are facing

depressed markets? What's your strategy for them, Premier, because you don't have one so far?

Hon Mr Harris: I think you know very well. We are at the table talking about the city of Sault Ste Marie and about Algoma Steel and other

areas. I understand your strategy is to constantly put money into individual companies. It's a strategy, I guess, that you were talking about when you said a couple of days ago, talking about the

last recession, "said Hampton, his government took steps to ensure Ontario residents were protected from the most severe implications of that economic downturn. That is what is needed now, he

said." Howard Hampton said, "What's needed now is exactly what we did in the province of Ontario when we were in government."

Seventy-five percent of Ontarians disagree with you and continue to disagree with you at the polls. You were an unmitigated disaster. What about the six

million people in the jobs, who are working right now? Don't you care about any of the jobs in the province of Ontario? Why are you trying to recycle the failed policies that you and the Liberals

brought to this province that led to the unmitigated disaster of record unemployment, 1.3 million on welfare? Why do you continue to perpetuate a myth that those policies somehow worked?

Mr Hampton: Premier, you might want to go up the de Havilland, and you might want to talk to the workers there. Their company is still in

existence because a government in 1992 and 1993 had the confidence to invest in them at the very time you said they should go down the drain. You might want to go to the four or five pulp and paper

mills that are still working and the sawmills that are still working and all of those industries that had government help to get through tough times.

That's the point, Premier. Your personal tax cut amounts to $16 between now and Christmas. It won't even buy a CD. Your corporate tax cut is going to all the

wrong people. It's going to the people who already have the bulging pockets, the people who already have the money. And you don't have a strategy to help those industries, those factories, those

plants, those mills, those workers who are either already laid off or who are very worried that they're about to be laid off and lose their jobs. That's the point, Premier.

Maybe I'll give you one more chance. Please tell us -- please tell us -- how putting more money in the pockets of corporations who already have a lot of money

is going to help those companies, those jobs, who don't have a profit and won't benefit from your corporate tax cut.

Hon Mr Harris: The reduction of capital tax affects every business in the province, every company, including Algoma. This is a tax that you

seem to think should be increased and tax even those who are not making a profit.

If you look at property taxes, the lowest that they've ever been and the lowest they've been increased -- or they've been frozen or gone down -- is under the

five years of our government. The record property tax increase was under your government. These are taxes that every company pays, whether they make a profit or whether they don't. The record

payroll taxes that we reduced for all companies: these are taxes that are a tax on jobs.

I don't know why you continue to perpetuate a myth that your policies that destroyed jobs, that destroyed investment, that put people on the welfare lines,

that drove them to the food banks, are the ones that we should follow now. Nothing could be further from the truth.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, today you used the term "Canada must coordinate ... to create a common North American

security perimeter." I want to ask you, exactly what do you mean by that? Do you mean that we should coordinate and simply adopt American immigration policies? Should we adopt American customs

policies? Should we adopt American policing policies? Should we simply sign over our sovereignty and say that whatever the United States sets as policy is good enough for us?

You owe people across Ontario a explanation. What exactly do you mean by creating "a common North American security perimeter"?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): What I mean is we should get our heads out of the sand and start talking to other countries. We can learn

things from other countries that have faced these kinds of terrorist threats before. We can learn from Britain and Northern Ireland. We can learn from Germany. We can learn from the Basque region

of Spain. We can learn from India and Pakistan and other countries. The terrorism they have lived with is the kind of life we do not want in Ontario, we do not want in Canada and we do not want in

North America.

I think what we should be doing is talking with other countries and learning the best practices. I think we should be talking to the Americans about their

practices. I think they should be talking to us about our practices, because I tell you this: if we are not going to have a common perimeter, we are going to threaten Ontario lives and jobs and the

economy of this province. If we can work in a practical, co-operative way, get out heads out of the sand and come up with policies that work, we will be safer --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Premier's time is up.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it was you who used the words "create a common North American security perimeter." I just want to ask you. We have seen

what the Americans have tried to do on the Mexican border: billions of dollars spent over the last 20 years, thousands upon thousands of border patrol officers and customs officers, and yet the

estimation is that a million illegal immigrants come into the United States every year.

Is that what you mean? Is that what you're offering up to people? Is that what you're saying to people while you're playing on their fears? Because if it is,

the evidence is everywhere that it doesn't work. The evidence is that if Canada were simply to adopt a common policy -- we know what the United States is asking -- we adopt their immigration

policy, we adopt their customs procedures, we adopt their rules on gun control, we adopt their view of how immigration and all of those issues are supposed to work.

If that's what you mean, then I think you owe it to Ontario citizens to stand up --

The Speaker: The member's time is up.

Hon Mr Harris: Thanks for the advice.

TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. Governments across North America will be looking at how they're

going to respond to the economic challenges. Last night you announced that the most major response by you, I think, over the next few months will be that you have decided that we have to have

corporate taxes 25% below our competitors.

Our competitors are going to respond in different ways, some investing in education and other things, but you've decided that the way we will compete, the way

we will deal with this crisis, is to have corporate income taxes 25% below our competitors. My question to you is this: why have we decided that we in Ontario, in order to compete in this difficult

economy, need to have corporate taxes 25% lower than our competitors in the United States?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I have not said that. I've said that we have to be competitive in our tax rates with the states that we deal

with, the countries that we deal with. We have to be tax competitive. We have to be tax competitive for our professionals, our entrepreneurs and our investors. We have to be tax competitive

corporately as well. There are many different taxes. Certainly one of the tremendous advantages, for example, that we have that people point out -- and I do on a regular basis -- is that we don't

have the massive payroll taxes for health care that they have in the United States. It is not any one tax; it is the whole collection of taxes and of costs of doing business.

When we took office in 1995, after a decade of Liberal and NDP tax increases, corporations and businesses told us, "If we have to choose between the United

States and Ontario to make a buck, to make a profit, to invest, to hire people, we are not choosing Ontario." Now they are saying we are getting competitive, and we intend to keep it that way.

Mr Phillips: You said in your budget and the budget documents, "We are going to have corporate taxes 25% below the US," not competitive, "25%

below the US." If you look at the economies that are best able to compete, it is those that have competitive taxes and ensure that they've got an environment that also is friendly for business and

offers the best labour force.

Again, Premier, you've said something in the House which isn't consistent with your budget. You said, no, you want competitive taxes here, but your budget says

that you are implementing a program for corporate taxes 25% below the US. I say to the people of Ontario, who are facing challenges with jobs, facing challenges with their financial stability: how

is that we, in order to compete for the future, have decided that we are going to make our most major investment in getting corporate taxes 25% lower than the US? That's not competitive.

Why did you not say that you want a policy of competitive taxes with the US and we will make sure our fiscal house is in order? Why do we want our corporate

taxes 25% below the US?

Hon Mr Harris: There are different tax rates in different states. There are some states quite frankly we will never get our tax rates as low

as, because we do not have the massive oil revenues, for example, of Texas. We will probably never have lower tax rates than Alberta as long as oil is at the price that it is. We don't have those

massive revenues as well. But we do want to be competitive.

It is kind of a moot point, though, as far as your party goes. You opposed every tax decrease that we brought in. You were happy to have the highest taxes. It

is really a moot point. If you want to be the highest tax jurisdiction in the world, vote Liberal. If you want to be competitive, vote Conservative. It's that simple.

ANTI-CRIME LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Attorney General. Three weeks ago today, we witnessed unspeakable acts of

horror. The chilling aftermath has reminded Ontarians never to take our freedom and safety for granted again. I know that families are still concerned about their safety in the wake of the events

of September 11. In fact, recently Premier Harris promised to look at ways that provincial legislation could be used to prevent terrorist acts. Could you please explain, Minister, to Ontarians how

the government's organized crime legislation could be used to combat terrorism?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for what is both an important and a very

timely question. The primary intent of Bill 30 is to assist victims of organized crime and assist them particularly in relation to activities of criminals who are financially motivated and who are

intent upon victimizing the people of this province. The proposed legislation would allow the courts to seize, freeze and forfeit, in some circumstances, to the crown proceeds of unlawful activity

in order to assist victims. Bill 30, as it is currently drafted, would give us one more tool, an important tool, to go after unlawful profits including those made by terrorists.

If the bill is passed, our government would use Bill 30, where it is warranted, to protect victims and prevent further victimization. To the extent that

terrorist groups engage in unlawful activity to make profit, Bill 30 would give us the means to seize, freeze and ultimately forfeit the proceeds of that unlawful activity.

Ms Mushinski: Thank you for that explanation, Minister. I know that the government of Ontario shows that it really cares about victims. We've

created a permanent Office for Victims of Crime to advise the government on ways that it can help victims, and we've also taken a leadership role in supporting victims through all stages of the

justice system by introducing new programs and expanding support services for victims.

Minister, I wonder if you could explain to this House and to all Ontarians what the government of Ontario has done to assist victims since the September 11

attacks.

Hon Mr Young: I thank the member for her question and her supplemental. On the day of this great tragedy, on September 11, our Premier stepped

forward and immediately offered the services of the chief coroner to help in the state of New York. An emergency plan was put in place and we also shortly thereafter came forward to provide a

program that offered up the $3 million to help Ontario families whose loved ones were victims.

Later, a victim response team was established and is drawing on the skills and the expertise -- and they are considerable -- of the Office for Victims of

Crime, and they are coordinating our assistance efforts.

I would like to say as well that we will be working with families, families of those directly affected by this great tragedy, to help them in settling victims'

estates. Finally, the victim response team has set up a toll-free hotline. It's available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and the number is 1-866-406-HELP.

ONTARIO ECONOMY AND SECURITY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, for two weeks you and the Minister of Finance have told us not to worry, be happy, the

economy is strong, and then last night you panicked. Without an economic and fiscal update, you sped up your $2.2-billion corporate tax cut giveaway. That's like being in a car, proceeding down an

incline cautiously at night without lights, and then you press on the accelerator. I mean, it's very important for us to know something about the lay of the land, about where it is that we are

going, Premier.

How is it that you can proceed with this additional acceleration in tax cuts without having presented to this House, without having a good grip on, an update

when it comes to what the economy is doing and what the fiscal outlook is doing?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As you know, there will be a fiscal update. There always is in the third quarter. We'll give you the update

after all the second quarter finances and the numbers are in. I can tell you, and the minister has assured you as well, that we have budgeted cautiously and prudently. We have made provisions for

growth that could be less than what was predicted in the budget and it certainly appears that's going to be the case for this year. So as soon as the second quarter finances, those numbers, are in,

we will have a statement to make.

I can assure you of this: there is the capacity within the finances of the province this year to maintain our spending program, not to exceed it, but to

maintain our spending program within the budget and cover approximately $170 million that it will cost for the accelerated tax cuts. So that gives you a general idea, but the specifics we'll be

pleased to share as soon as all those numbers are in.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you will understand, because I've raised this time and time again in this Legislature, that I think the appropriate and

responsible thing to do is to produce forthwith an update when it comes to our economic and fiscal outlook. That's the right thing to do.

You will understand, of course, that the economy was experiencing a downturn prior to September 11. You budgeted for 2.2% in growth. We've now discovered that

we are closer to 0.8%, which makes us the slowest-growing economy in the country. Revenues are slowing in terms of the rate they're coming in at, and September 11 acted to further slow the economy.

As people are losing jobs, our expenses are going up.

You tell us, Premier, that you've found an additional $170 million for your accelerated tax cut plan. What I'm wondering now is, given that you've enlisted

Messrs Inkster and MacKenzie to come up with recommendations for security measures, how much have you budgeted for those anticipated security measures which we are going to want to implement, of

course, at the earliest possible opportunity? How much have you budgeted for those security measures?

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, we have just engaged the two individuals. We cannot prepare a budget until we know what they are going to

recommend. We are planning to get started with them, hopefully, later this week. We will be asking them to review our measures. We'll be talking with the federal government. We'll encourage

dialogue as well with other governments. But, unlike Liberals and NDP, who just run deficits, we do plan in our budgets for contingencies. Thank goodness we did, because we have a contingency that

needs taking care of now. For the security and safety of Ontarians, we think it was important that we allowed for that contingency; as well for competitiveness and jobs and our businesses and our

working people. We think it's important, and thank goodness we budgeted for that in our recent budget as well.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This being the fourth annual

Ontario agriculture week, it is only appropriate that we take a few moments to review this government's policies and activities in this important industry. Please tell the House what our ministry

has accomplished since you took over the portfolio last winter.

Hon Brian Coburn (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): Before I begin, I'd like to recognize the contribution and the hard work

that the member from Perth-Middlesex has done to recognize agriculture in Ontario.

Our government has accomplished many things since I became involved in this portfolio, and certainly sales tax exemption is one of the things. For farm

building materials we have made a permanent point-of-sale exemption. Also, we were very quick to recognize the fact of wet weather and depressed prices last year, and the Premier and this

government saw fit to provide $90 million to help our farmers this past spring. That, of course, triggered $120 million from the feds as well.

We are also continuing to work with our farm and commodity leaders to develop made-in-Ontario solutions so that there can be some sustainability and a future

to one of the largest economic --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Thank you, Minister.

Mr Johnson: Minister, since you took over this portfolio last winter, my experience is that you've been very accessible to people in the

agri-food industry.

I have also been told that you are eager and that you listen to people's concerns. This summer I was honoured to have you visit my riding of Perth-Middlesex to

meet over 30 local, municipal and agricultural leaders. Please tell us what kind of response you received from the agricultural community to our government's policies.

Hon Mr Coburn: One of the things that is really outstanding in the agricultural community is a willingness of the stakeholders and those who

participate in agriculture and agribusiness to work with us in partnership in developing solutions for the many challenges that agriculture faces in today's economy.

As a result of the consultations that we're undertaking now, I'm very pleased and honoured to tell you that they've worked shoulder to shoulder with me in

helping to develop a made-in-Ontario solution. We have many challenges in terms of risk management, food safety and nutrient management. There's a general willingness throughout the agricultural

community to work with us to meet some of those challenges and turn them into opportunities that expand our ability to sell our first-rate products here in Ontario and around the world.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member for Beaches-East York.

Applause.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope to get that every time I stand up.

Mr Premier, the question is for you. Yesterday you gave a response to the events of September 11. We were surprised to see that you are not reviewing Bill 65,

which allows you to privatize Ministry of Transportation driver examination and licensing. Many people are concluding that September 11 shows how much we actually need government to protect people

and act in their interests, yet you are putting sensitive private documentation into the hands of private companies. You are putting driver examinations in the hands of small private operators. You

are increasing the risk to Canadians, to Ontarians, to the people who do not need to have their private lives exposed. Mr Premier, will you reconsider Bill 65 in light of the events of September

11?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let me congratulate the member on his very successful election and offer my personal

congratulations as well. I wish the member very well representing his constituents and as part of the caucus that he has now joined. I thought the member was going to thank me as well for calling

the by-election when I did, but nonetheless, I'm sure he may want to chat with me privately afterwards.

With regard to providing services, as you know, we are huge supporters of our public sector in the province of Ontario. We've continued to reward them for

initiatives with bonuses. We celebrate their successes with the Amethyst Awards, for example, and other awards. We are now being studied by other jurisdictions for how productive our civil service

is.

But by the same token, we are also --

The Speaker: I'm afraid the Premier's time is up.

Mr Prue: Mr Premier, let me give you an example. MTO's licensing and control branch holds vast amounts of very personal information on each

driver in the province, things like whether they're being treated for depression or what other health concerns they may have that may affect their driving. We're told that this road to

privatization may breach this confidentiality. The consequences of this kind of information falling into the wrong hands are more serious now after September 11. Isn't it time to put ideology aside

and keep driver exams and licensing public and secure, like the province has done for the last 40 years?

Hon Mr Harris: On the other hand, we are also a government that is committed, at the same time as we protect security, to improving services.

For example, when we took office we had to deal with auditor's reports that said things like this -- this is the annual report of the Provincial Auditor in 1989 -- "An individual may change his or

her legal name for $100 and then apply for a driver's licence as if he or she had never been licensed. The driver system has no way to detect such a fraudulent application." Drunk drivers could get

another licence while suspended. "We concluded that an individual had three (valid) licence numbers."

So you see, when we took office we had to deal with these things that the auditor had pointed out in the public system that was there. I suggest to you it is

not so much whether it is a job performed by the public sector or the private sector, it is the policies of the government. So we are committed to improving service and we are committed to ensuring

privacy of information.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): -- years now that cancer patients are waiting unacceptably long times for radiation treatment. This

summer we learned that the waits for cancer surgery are equally unacceptable: 50% of cancer patients are waiting more than five weeks for surgery, 20% wait more than two months. You responded to

this incredibly shocking information with the assurance that you were going to solve the problem with your plan to merge cancer centres with hospitals. In fact, Minister, your plan to gut our

cancer centres will make waits longer.

That's exactly what you were told last week by Graham Scott, the man you appointed to head Cancer Care Ontario on an interim basis. He said that if you go

ahead with your merger plan, waiting times for radiation treatment and cancer surgery will grow and access to treatment will be unequal across this province. Minister, will you now abandon your

plan to gut Cancer Care Ontario and let our cancer centres continue to manage the care of cancer patients?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member is incorrect in her characterization. But I would be remiss if

I didn't share with this House the good news on the cancer care front. On June 1 of this year, for instance, Cancer Care Ontario was able to announce that breast and prostate cancer patients would

no longer be sent to the United States for radiation treatment, and indeed yesterday Cancer Care Ontario announced that patients would no longer be referred to northern Ontario for treatment,

because of the success of their efforts to treat patients closer to home in a much more humane way. So those have been successes of cancer care here in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: -- dealing with cancer patients who need radiation therapy when you know full well how far you have to go to meet the goal of

treating 90% with radiation therapy within the stated time of four weeks, which is acceptable.

Today's question, however, is about cancer surgery waits. When that study came out, with its shocking information about how long people are waiting for cancer

surgery, you tried to blame it again on somebody else. You said, "It's not a lack of money. That's not the problem. The problem is an inefficient cancer system."

The problem is a lack of money, a lack of hospital beds, a lack of operating room nurses, and a lack of diagnostic equipment. Your plan for so-called

integration of cancer centres with hospitals is really just a way of burying the fact that cancer patients have to wait for treatment, because if Cancer Care Ontario is no longer coordinating

patient care, is no longer setting standards for care, we won't know how long patients are waiting for treatment. Cancer patients will know.

I ask if you will today acknowledge that the waits for cancer surgery are a direct result of the underfunding of hospitals, and will you target funds for

cancer surgery so patients can get the care they need when they need it?

Hon Mr Clement: We have and we will. The fact of the matter is that on September 17 -- granted our focus was on some other things at that time

-- I was able to announce that $20 million this year is going to Cancer Care Ontario for additional medical equipment, another $10 million to Princess Margaret. I can tell the honourable member and

this House that since January 1999 there have been 168 new radiation therapists who have been appointed, 50 new medical physicists, 23 radiation oncologists. Princess Margaret Hospital alone has

exceeded their target for a 10% increase in treatments, treating more than 12.6% more patients this year, and they will be on track again next year.

That's the good news in Cancer Care Ontario because of the policies of this government. We are concerned about the very issues that the member raises, and yet

she draws the wrong conclusions.

INTERNATIONAL

WALK TO SCHOOL DAY

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As we are aware, today is

International Walk to School Day. Thousands of students in my riding are making a special effort on this day to walk or bike to school. Walking and biking to school are healthy alternatives to

driving. In fact, Mahatma Gandhi, whose birthday the world is celebrating today, walked everywhere, and through peaceful and non-violent means was able to win independence for the largest democracy

in the world. Minister, please tell us what we are doing to promote International Walk to School Day.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of the Environment): The member has highlighted the fact that today is International Walk to School Day. It is

an initiative that is sponsored by a non-profit group known as Greenest City. I've had the opportunity to support the Greenest City group in their efforts to encourage children to walk to school.

In fact, this group has undertaken efforts to educate not just children but also parents about making good alternative choices.

We know that transportation is the single largest source of smog-causing pollution in the province. So today children and families are encouraged to get out of

their cars and to walk to school. Parents are also encouraged to reduce the idling of their motors when they drop or pick up their children at school.

Mr Gill: Minister, York University has conducted a study that shows that less than half of Canadian children walk to school and would be

happier and healthier if they could walk or ride a bike.

I should also note that the increased traffic around schools poses a risk, as traffic fatalities are the leading cause of death for Canadian children over the

age of one. Could you please comment on these statistics and suggest any actions we could take to address them?

Hon Mrs Witmer: There was a study that was undertaken by York University. Personally, I was very glad to see that three quarters of the

students who were interviewed indicated that they would prefer to walk to school as opposed to riding to school. Certainly as a former Minister of Health, I recognize the tremendous impact of

allowing children the opportunity to walk to school. Not only is it healthier because of the exercise but also, if we could take off the streets some of those cars that are driving children to

school, it would reduce the amount of air pollution. We will continue to support initiatives whereby children are encouraged to walk to school and continue to support initiatives where parents are

encouraged not to idle in front of the school when they park, because we know that even 10 seconds of idling starts to have a very negative impact.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Minister of Education. I want to talk about the effects of your lack of

defence and promotion of education within your cabinet, where you've allowed corporate tax cuts to divert resources away from students.

In particular, Minister, you may be aware that there is a new report today, the Secondary School Tracking Report, and in it is something very disturbing. It

suggests that 65% of our high schools are not able to have textbooks for the new curriculum. That's 65%, two thirds of students, going without. Two thirds of students are sharing texts, and 92% are

having to make do with old and worn textbooks because the priority of this province under this government is not the basic learning chances for students.

Madam Minister, I want to ask you today, in light of this report, will you stand up and fight for students and argue in front of us in this House for resources

to make sure they get a fair chance to learn?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, through you to the honourable member, maybe he has to argue in

his caucus for more money for education, but in this government we have indeed put more dollars in public education, increased the investment in public education and in classrooms, because we

believe it is so important. And those kinds of investments will continue into our public education system: this year alone, over 300 million new dollars -- $360 million -- for education.

I know the honourable member is trying to sort of blow up the figures, but I think we should note that 16% of high schools responded to this survey, so he's

talking about a percentage of the 16% that actually responded. I congratulate the parents for the work they have done. We review this information, as we do with information from school boards and

all of our partners, at this time of year to set our priorities for funding next year; we will certainly do it with this. But I think he should be accurate in terms of how he casts this

picture.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, denigrating the parents who put this survey together does you no credit, because you have no figures to show otherwise.

Your own figures on funding show that last year you provided $30 million for textbooks, and this year you're providing 50% less, $15 million. That's the kind of fighting you're doing for students.

Minister, your own brief to your caucus says that parents see there is a lack of textbooks and classroom supplies. So you admit it to these people in private; you won't tell the people of Ontario

about it here today.

social science, for history, for a whole range of things. Knowing that 65% of students are going without books, will you be the Minister of Education? Will you stand up today and say you're going

to go back to your cabinet and fight for the resources to make sure that every kid in this province gets a chance to learn because they have their textbooks in hand?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There's a whole textbook industry out there that's going to be really interested to hear the Liberal critic say they're only

providing books for certain subjects. School boards get more money for textbooks and learning resources. They have the ability to use that money flexibly. They get it through the foundation grant,

they get it through special grants, they get it through other programs targeted to particular programs. So there are resources there for textbooks.

Do we need more resources for textbooks? Of course we do. Where has the honourable critic been? This is news to him, that with the new curriculum we need new

learning materials? Of course we do, and that is why we have indeed been putting specially targeted money for learning resources for our students.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. Since the acts of terrorism in the United States on September

11, there's been ongoing discussion both in Canada and the United States on the matter of border security and refugees. The federal government has been criticized, with federal Liberal Immigration

Minister Elinor Caplan saying there might be changes or there may not be changes to immigration policy.

Minister, Ontario is home to most of Canada's immigrants. What assurances can you offer them in light of these reports?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): As all members of the House know, the federal government is

the level of government that sets immigration levels and admissions into our country and the current Bill C-11 is before the Senate. But there is considerable time left in order for us to

participate in discussions on this new legislation. Processing refugees to determine genuine claimants is a sensitive and complex issue. I shall be requesting that the federal Minister of

Immigration sit down with representatives from our province so that we can raise some of the concerns that have been raised by Ontario residents.

Unfortunately, some people have been linking immigration to this issue, and that can be somewhat misguided. Canada is a nation built on immigration. We live in

a nation, and a province in particular, that promises peace, harmony and a chance for prosperity in a democracy that discriminates against no one. We have welcomed one million new Canadians to this

province who have found jobs, tolerance with their churches and their schools. We will --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

Mr Maves: The question of border controls and refugees is not the only one that has arisen as a result of the terrorism in the United States.

There have also been occurrences of threats, harassment and intolerance toward some cultural groups. I understand that you have been meeting with leaders of various groups as a result of these

reports. Would you update the House on those activities?

Hon Mr Jackson: Although we have a threat from terrorism, we also have a threat that we must also deal with, and that is attacks on tolerance

in our province. So far we've been fortunate not to have too many experiences of this -- but I know that we all continue to work hard. I know many of the members of our caucus have met with members

of the cultural community, in particular the Muslim community, and reached out to them to give them the reassurances and to let them know that they have the total support of this government, that

we will not tolerate racially motivated crimes against our citizens. The Ontario Human Rights Code is one of the strongest in North America and is there for the protection of our citizens. With the

Premier, with his statements and the leadership that's provided, this government plans to introduce measures to provide our citizens with added security.

Members of all faiths --

The Speaker: I thank the member.

The member for Trinity-Spadina.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. Today, People for Education at Oakwood Collegiate revealed

the sorry state of our secondary schools. You obviously know that 65% of the respondents don't have enough textbooks for the new curriculum and half of Ontario's schools have fewer teachers but

more pupils. You've refused to meet with People for Education for two years. Why is it that you're so afraid, or at least reluctant, to meet with this, in my view, very important group and discuss

the concerns that they're tracking?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education, Government House Leader): Yes, I have stood in this House before and welcomed reports by parents of

whatever group in terms of input they believe this government needs to have as we make the funding priority decisions for next year. In this case, 16% of high schools did respond to their survey on

this. We are indeed looking at the priorities for funding next year, as we do every year. The honourable member is very familiar with that.

I should point out that this government also this year invested $163 million in the secondary panel to help with more teachers, to help with the workload.

School boards had the flexibility -- because they needed it and they wanted it -- on how they allocated those resources for extra teachers. Some have used it in different ways. Some have used it

for compensation. It is within their purview to do that. We do appreciate that every time one states a fact in here, the honourable members across the way love to turn it into some attack on

something.

Mr Marchese: I asked you: why are you so afraid and/or reluctant to meet with this group? That's what I asked you. Two years. It is an

important group. You can't find some time to meet and discuss their concerns?

You know that our schools are crumbling while your government gives away $175 million in tax cuts. Our schools and children desperately need that investment.

You're giving it away; it's going down the drain to someone else. You know that you spent, yes, $30 million -- in the first two years of our secondary schools -- in the reform of the curriculum.

But for the next year you've only allocated $15 million. It's a serious concern, and you know that. With $75 million alone, you could buy a new textbook for every Ontario student who needs one.

Your seedy tax cut won't help parents who are paying $150 per student in classroom materials alone. We need textbooks, not tax breaks. Will you commit to funding textbooks for Ontario's schools and

students?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I have met and will continue to meet with parent groups. As a matter of fact, we believe it is important to get the input of

parents. That's why we're going to be launching a province-wide survey for all parents to have input into their education priorities.

We have indeed increased money for textbooks this year again. They get money, as you know, through various ways, as I said earlier. For you to stand up and

pretend that's the only money school boards have for textbooks, with all due respect, that's not an accurate picture.

Do we need to continue to invest in the new curriculum? Of course we do. That's why every year we have increased money for textbooks, for learning resources,

the early reading initiative again this year, more money for learning resources, because we understand that we need to increase resources and investments in public education. But you don't have

that money to invest in public education without the jobs, without the prosperity, and that's what tax cuts get you, that kind of income, that kind of investment. The honourable member should

understand that by now --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The minister's time is up.

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE EQUIPMENT

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): This petition is now reaching into the thousands when it comes to the people who support it in a small community in the

county of Brant.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has direct responsibility for Hydro One and the equipment owned and operated by Hydro One;

"Whereas the electrical equipment in Brant county is in desperate need of repair, regularly causing disruptive blackouts to the residents and businesses of

Brant county; and

"Whereas this equipment was previously offered for sale to the municipality, during which time the municipality was conducting its own restructuring and was

forbidden to purchase the infrastructure by the provincial government; and

"Whereas the municipality of the county of Brant is now in a position to purchase the dilapidated structures owned by Hydro One;

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

"To allow the municipality of the county of Brant to commence negotiations with Hydro One to purchase the infrastructure that lies within the county's borders

to ensure that this equipment is properly maintained and to avoid further blackouts to our industry caused primarily by the neglect of Hydro One."

I sign my name and hand the petition over to Simon the page.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a petition which reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive clean and safe drinking water; and

"Whereas clean, safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and essential for the protection of public health; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive accurate and immediate information about the quality of water; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to protect the quality of drinking water in Ontario; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to provide the necessary financial resources to the Ministry of the Environment; and

"Whereas the policies of Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have endangered the environment and the health of the citizens of Ontario;

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

"

(1) Immediately restore adequate funding and staffing to the Ministry of the Environment;

"

(2) Immediately pass into law Bill 3, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2001."

I will affix my signature to this petition; I support it.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 1,024 people, some of the 23,000 people to date who have signed this petition:

"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments;

"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from

unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;

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

"To pass Bill 95, Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2000, as soon as possible."

HOME CARE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it says:

"Whereas the need for home care services is rapidly growing in Ontario due to the aging of the population and hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the prices paid by community care access centres to purchase home care services for their clients are rising due to factors beyond their control;

and

"Whereas the funding provided by the Ontario government through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is inadequate to meet the growing need for home care

services; and

"Whereas the funding shortfall, coupled with the implications of Bill 46, the Public Sector Accountability Act, currently before the Legislature are forcing

community care access centres to make deep cuts in home care services without any policy direction from the provincial government;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to take control of policy-setting for home care services through rational, population-based

health care planning rather than simply by underfunding the system; and

"That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to provide sufficient funding to community care access centres to support the home care

services that are the mandate of community care access centres in the volumes needed to meet their communities' rapidly growing needs; and

"That the Legislative Assembly make it necessary for the provincial government to notify the agencies it funds of the amount of funding they will be given by

the government in a fiscal year at least three months before the commencement of this fiscal year."

Of course, I affix my signature as I am in complete agreement with it.

PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from hometown Hamilton. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas individuals who are tenants or residents in facilities such as care homes, nursing homes or domiciliary hostels under certain acts are provided with a

personal needs allowance to meet incidental costs other than those provided by the facility; and

"Whereas the personal needs allowance has been fixed by the Ontario government at a rate of $112 for nearly a decade and has not kept pace with cost-of-living

increases, and furthermore is inadequate to meet incidental costs such as clothing, hygiene products and other essentials;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately review and amend provincial legislation to increase the personal

needs allowance from $112 a month to $160 a month for individuals living in care homes, nursing homes or other domiciliary hostels."

Again, I continue to add my support by signing this petition.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 976 people.

"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments;

"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from

unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;

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

"To pass Bill 95, Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2000, as soon as possible."

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I have a petition here that is of great interest to the residents of my community and it's

addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Sharon Reynolds, a seven-year-old young girl, died tragically; and

"Whereas the crown's case against Louise Reynolds was not proceeded with; and

"Whereas there are many unanswered questions relating to the circumstances surrounding the death of Sharon Reynolds,

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

"That the Premier of Ontario and his cabinet colleagues call upon the Lieutenant Governor in Council pursuant to

section 2 of the Public Inquiries Act to order

a full and independent inquiry into the death of Sharon Reynolds."

I agree with it. I've signed it and I'm handing it to Emma McGuire.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES /

CENTRES D'ACCÈS AUX SOINS COMMUNAUTAIRES

Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): "Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to institute patient-based budgeting for health care

services in the 1995 Common Sense Revolution;

« Attendu que les Centres d'accès aux soins communautaires doivent maintenant collectivement faire face à un manque à gagner de

175 $ millions en raison d'un gel de leur financement par le gouvernement provincial ;

"Whereas due to this funding shortfall, CCACs have cut back on home care services affecting many sick and elderly Ontarians;

« Attendu que ces réductions dans les services ont principalement été effectuées dans les services d'auxiliaires familiales, ce

qui oblige les Ontariens et Ontariennes à recourir à des établissements de soins de longue durée plus coûteux ou à retourner à l'hôpital ;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately institute real patient-based budgeting for health care services, including

home care, so as to ensure that working families in Ontario can access the health care services they need."

I gladly sign this petition.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 1,024 people.

"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments;

"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors, and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from

unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;

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

"To pass Bill 95, Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2000, as soon as possible."

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the November 2000 announcement of massive privatization of Ministry of Transportation services will have a significant detrimental effect on citizen

road safety, confidentiality of citizens' information and on the economy of Ontario; and

"Whereas the employees of the Ministry of Transportation are recognized in writing by the provincial government to have provided excellent service on the

government's behalf; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is taking away the livelihood and decreasing the standard of living of thousands of employees and families by its actions

both directly and indirectly through spinoff effects; and

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are entitled to safe roads, consistency in driver testing, and competent inspection of trucks, school buses and vehicles carrying

dangerous goods; and

"Whereas communities continue to need to retain decent-paying jobs if they are to maintain viability and vibrancy; and

"Whereas we taxpayers have entrusted the provincial government with the maintenance of public safety with an apolitical and efficient public service, a service

free of profiteering and protected from conflicts of interest; and

"Whereas privatization is an abdication of such public trust;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to place a moratorium on all further privatization and to restore and promote public service

as being of significant value in our society."

I too have signed this petition.

PROTECTION OF MINORS

Mr Bob Wood (London West): I have a petition signed by 1,008 people.

"Whereas children are being exposed to sexually explicit materials in many commercial establishments;

"Whereas many municipalities do not have bylaws in place to protect minors, and those that do vary from place to place and have failed to protect minors from

unwanted exposure to sexually explicit materials;

"Whereas uniform standards are needed in Ontario that would make it illegal to sell, rent, loan or display sexually explicit materials to minors;

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

"To pass Bill 95, Protection of Minors from Sexually Explicit Goods and Services Act, 2000, as soon as possible."

Petitions to this effect have now been presented to this Legislature signed by some 23,000 people.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to institute patient-based budgeting for health care services in the 1995 Common Sense Revolution; and

"Whereas community care access centres now face a collective shortfall of $175 million due to a funding rollback by the provincial government; and

"Whereas due to this funding rollback, CCACs have cut back on home care services affecting many sick and elderly Ontarians; and

"Whereas these cuts in services are mostly in homemaking services, forcing Ontarians into more expensive long-term-care facilities or back into hospital;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately lift the funding freeze for health care services so as to ensure the

community care access centres can provide the services that Ontario working families need."

I sign this in support of it and give it to Cynthia Tran from LaSalle to deliver it to the Clerk's desk.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised to institute patient-based budgeting for health care services in the 1995 Common Sense Revolution; and

"Whereas community care access centres now face a collective shortfall of $175 million due to a funding rollback by the provincial government;

"Whereas due to this funding rollback, community care access centres have cut back on home care services affecting many sick and elderly Ontarians; and

"Whereas these cuts in services are forcing Ontarians into more expensive long-term-care facilities or back into hospital;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately lift the funding freeze for home care services so as to ensure that community

care access centres can provide the services that Ontario's working families need."

I am happy to submit this on behalf of the people from Burritts Rapids --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Thank you very much.

AIR QUALITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): By the way, Mr Speaker, I must compliment Stratford on the wonderful season it's had this year despite

the difficulties. There has been a problem with tourism, but I know that Stratford has been very successful. Nonetheless, here we go with the petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Harris government's wholly owned Nanticoke generating station is North America's largest dirty coal-fired electricity-producing plant and

Ontario's largest producer of the chemicals and acid gases which contribute to deadly smog and acid rain; and

"Whereas the Nanticoke plant, which has more than doubled its dangerous emissions under the Harris government, is now the worst air polluter in all of Canada,

spewing out over five million kilograms of toxic chemicals each year, including many cancer-causing chemicals and mercury, a potent and dangerous neurotoxin; and

"Whereas at least 13 Ontario municipalities and seven northeastern US states have expressed concerns that Ontario Power Generation's proposed cleanup plan for

Nanticoke is inadequate in protecting the air quality and health and safety of their residents; and

"Whereas the Ontario Medical Association has stated that 1,900 Ontarians die prematurely each year and we pay $1 billion annually in health-related costs as a

result of air pollution; and

"Whereas, because the Harris government has now lifted the moratorium on the sale of coal-fired power plants and has set a date for deregulation of

electricity, the operator of the Nanticoke plant will likely stoke up production to maximize profits which will only worsen the air quality in cities like Toronto, Hamilton, Welland, Niagara Falls

and St Catharines;

"Be it resolved that the Mike Harris government immediately order that the Nanticoke generating station be converted from dirty coal to cleaner-burning natural

gas."

I sign my signature on this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE

FOR ROAD USERS ACT, 2001 /

LOI DE 2001 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION

DES SERVICES À LA CLIENTÈLE

OFFERTS AUX USAGERS DE LA ROUTE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 1, 2001, on the motion for second reading of Bill 65,

An Act to permit the Minister of Transportation to delegate to

persons in the private sector powers and duties and responsibilities to deliver services relating to road user programs / Projet de loi 65, Loi permettant au ministre des Transports de

déléguer à des personnes du secteur privé des pouvoirs, des fonctions et des responsabilités pour fournir des services liés aux programmes à l'intention des

usagers de la route.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We were in the leadoff I think for the Liberal caucus. There are about 15 minutes left.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I rise to oppose Bill 65 for a number of reasons. Some of those reasons have been cited by the

office of the privacy commissioner, the Provincial Auditor and a number of other individuals.

I want to join my colleagues in saying, however, that we in government have done a rather poor job of providing adequate levels of service to those men and

women across Ontario who by law are obligated to receive driver testing. For many years that obligation has been the responsibility of the provincial government.

In my area, which is largely rural eastern Ontario, I am hearing more and more complaints from people, young people, who are asked to pony up 100 bucks or 75

bucks every time they turn around for a test, oftentimes having to wait months for the test; in many cases, having to drive 75 kilometres to 100 kilometres for the test; on some occasions, meeting

people not very agreeable for the test. Not a very good show, quite frankly.

If you live in Wilno, in Bissett Creek, in Matawatchan, in Braeside or in Barry's Bay, you've often got a three-, four- or five-month wait and in many cases a

very long drive. If you're 16 or 17, that's one thing, but if you are 80 or 82 years of age, it is not a very happy circumstance.

I want to give the department of highways, and I suppose the Harris government -- my old friend, our colleague Al Palladini, gets the credit for this, that the

changes in the way we test senior citizens, those over 80, have in fact been improved in the last five to 10 years. I want to be fair. I think it is, by and large, better in some respects recently

than it was 10 or 15 years ago. But the number of senior citizens who stop me at church picnics or at public meetings and register their complaint about the way this system is operating is quite

worrisome. I know that other members from rural Ontario -- I see the Minister of Energy is here and I'm sure in South Simcoe he's hearing some of the same complaints.

My friend the minister responsible for the treasury board -- is that what Turnbull does now? No, he's the Solicitor General -- is quick to point out about all

the government does with road-related taxes. I have the 2001 Ontario budget. I just want to remind the House and anybody watching that last year Her Majesty's Ontario government collected $911

million under the category of vehicle and driver registration fees. We took in more money last year from motor vehicle and driver registration fees -- $911 million -- and we project this year about

$925 million to $930 million. We take in more money in those fees than we will spend on the entire Ministry of Transportation capital budget for this year according to this same budget.

I can tell you what's going to happen when we get this system privatized, particularly if you live in rural and northern Ontario, but particularly rural

Ontario. The service, bad as it is now, will be worse because the private sector is going to be interested -- take my area, for example. They're going to be interested in Pembroke and Renfrew,

where we now operate testing centres. Who do you suppose is going to be interested in Griffith and Quadeville and Madawaska and Chalk River? Or Denbigh or Sharbot Lake? Not very many. The people in

those rural communities -- whether they're in north Frontenac or southwest Renfrew -- pay those fees and charges just like everybody else.

I just want to say, particularly when we had this exchange today in question period about cutting taxes and fees: 925 million bucks we will take out of the

pockets of drivers this year on the fee account. What kind of service are we operating? A damn poor service, especially poor in rural areas, and it's going to get worse under this scheme. Because a

market-driven privatized system won't give two tinkers' dams about rural communities. And we obligate that "Thou shalt" do certain things under this system. You don't have a choice. We don't have a

choice about the fact that we live in a country of four and a half to five months of winter.

The bill sets out provisions as to how the privacy provisions are going to be protected. I don't believe it for a moment. And you know why I don't believe it?

I remember the POSO example of two years ago. We as a Legislature did nothing. In fact, people laughed about the fact that 50,000 provincial bank accounts were wrongly, and I believe illegally,

exposed to eyes that ought not to have seen them. Was there any retribution? Was there any accountability for that? Nothing. Not a damn thing. There were some pretty prominent private sector

players involved in that. I have to say to the Angus Reid Group, good for them because they blew the whistle.

Any accountability? None. Any protection? None. We have a case going in Quebec at the present time. You'll all remember the journalist Michel Auger at le

Journal de Montréal who was shot in the parking lot in a gangland way. In the last press report I saw, a key component in how the gang figured out who he was was that they accessed his

driver's registration data. Charges, I believe, have been laid against an official -- probably a public servant, although I'm not sure -- in the motor vehicle registration branch in the province of

Quebec. Just a very recent reminder of how important and valuable this information is and what can happen to it when it's in the wrong hands.

Read the auditor's report. Read Dr Cavoukian's advice. Remember the POSO case. Lovely language in

section 9 of Bill 65. What's our track record? What has our

attitude been? Benign neglect at best and a hearty laugh when complaints are raised about egregious misconduct, as I believe it was in the POSO case.

I want to return again to my constituents. I am constantly besieged by people who tell me about just what it is they have to do, particularly waiting periods.

I know, from talking to other members, that if you're in rural Ontario you've got an above-average percentage of older people. In my county there is virtually no public transit -- none. So your car

and/or your half-ton truck or your neighbor's half-ton truck or car is absolutely critical if you're going to have any kind of quality of life.

If you live at RR3 Eganville, and your doctor's in Renfrew and your hospital is in Pembroke, you'd better hope you've got a licence or somebody near you has

got a licence and a vehicle. The networks that are out there to make sure that older people get to medical appointments and other requirements that they have, if they live in the rural areas, into

urban centres like Pembroke and Renfrew, are quite substantial.

I'm not here to defend the sorry state of public driver testing, because it's not a very happy situation and quite frankly it has been grinding down,

worsening, for some years now. I just repeat: it's not because the users aren't paying the bucks -- almost $1 billion now annually to the provincial government from drivers for road-related fees

and other charges. I'm not even going to talk about the $2.3 billion we will take this year from the gas tax alone.

Do you know what's going to happen under this scheme? I'll tell you what's going to happen. Just what's happening up on the 401. You're going to get to pay for

the 401 through the gas tax and you're going to get to pay for the 407 through another tax. You're supposed to celebrate that as some kind of an efficiency.

I'm almost alone in my own caucus on this subject of road-related taxes. When John Robarts recommended 50 years ago that the way we should pay for our highway

system was not through tolls but rather through dedicated gasoline and road-related taxes, all sides agreed.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Increase the gas taxes.

Mr Conway: No, that's not my point, I say to you, Tilson. I'm saying, if you're going to take on gas taxes $2.3 billion and on fuel taxes $600

million and on fees another $900 million, for a total this year of $3.85 billion, you spend more than 40% of that take on the purpose for which the tax and fee were charged in the first place.

We're cutting corporate taxes, we're cutting personal income taxes, but we are not cutting these other fees that, in a big, northern and rural province, are to

some real degree a function of our geography. Do you know what's happening? The gasoline tax, in a sense a geography tax, is now being expected to carry a greater load of general revenue expenses.

Is that the kind of tax policy people in Caledon want? I doubt it. I know in North Perth or in South Renfrew that's not a tax policy that people would endorse.

I'm not happy about high gas taxes, but I will pay them if the revenues are applied to the purposes for which the tax or fee was intended. I am personally sick

and tired of listening to corporate executives and others say, "Cut the marginal taxes, cut corporate marginal income tax rates, cut corporate taxes, impose tolls for new highways, but don't be

afraid now to take 60% of the gasoline tax revenue and apply it to general government expenditures." Do you know what? If that's the policy, then I say to Tilson and anybody else, you pare back the

gasoline tax -- but I say it to my own colleagues.

I find there's quite a divide here on this subject between the rural and the urban members, irrespective of their party affiliation. I repeat, at RR3 Eganville

you have no public transit. At Bay and Bloor, thanks to the box and provincial, municipal and federal taxpayers, you've got a rather elaborate public transit system, as you should in an urban

community as large as Toronto. But my rural constituents want to know when they're going to get $925 million worth of value on road-related registration and fee matters consistent with what they're

paying. Right now -- and let me say in a fairly ecumenical way -- whether you're Liberal, New Democrat or Tory, in the last 25 years you've been pretty quick to pick the pocket of the motorist and

pretty damned slow to put 90 or 95 cents back into the service for which the fee or tax was intended.

There are problems, absolutely. Is Bill 65 going to solve those problems? I think not. I think it is unfair and unjust what it will do to my rural constituents

-- not just my rural constituents, but rural constituents across the length and breadth of Ontario. I think the bill will not guarantee in any reasonable way the protection of privacy that it

claims to want to do. I think it is going to open up the government to all kinds of commercial pressures that are going to be more about revenue and less about safety than any of us would really

like. Quite frankly, I think it reminds us all, in this season particularly, that there are some places where fair-minded citizens say, "There is a role for government," and given the obligatory

nature of the driving business, given the rural nature, the very large and complex geographic nature of this province, given the privacy and security issues, surely it behooves this Legislature to

think again, to set aside Bill 65 and find more effective and more efficient ways of repairing and improving a public motor vehicle registration a