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

December 7, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Dec-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 7 December 2004 Mardi 7 décembre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL

TRIPLE M METAL

CHILDREN'S CAR SEATS

OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL

RIDE PROGRAM

TIME ALLOCATION

STUDENT SAFETY

OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL

HANUKKAH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

ESTIMATES

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OMA AGREEMENT

EDUCATION FUNDING

STUDENT SAFETY

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

EDUCATION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

LONG-TERM CARE

LUMBER INDUSTRY

AGRICULTURAL LAND

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

PETITIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

TUITION

TAXATION

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

LONG-TERM CARE

HEALTH CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

EYE EXAMINATIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I'm pleased to rise today in recognition of the 115th anniversary of Osgoode Hall Law School, an important

institution in the history of Ontario. Osgoode was founded in 1889 by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Until 1957, the only avenue for admission to the bar in Ontario was through study at Osgoode

Hall. Virtually every practising lawyer and sitting judge in the province was a graduate of Osgoode at that time. Osgoode Hall Law School became affiliated with York University in 1969, in a new

building on campus.

As a graduate of Osgoode, I'm especially honoured to be speaking on this occasion. Osgoode Hall Law School has been home to many of today's leaders, educating

thousands of lawyers and senior members of the judiciary, including former Premiers, Attorneys General, other members of the executive council and MPPs from all parties in this House.

It has been an example for other law schools to follow. It is home to the largest graduate program in Canada, home to the largest law library in Canada and home

of the only professional development program in Canada. It was the first law school to establish a combined law and business degree, the first law school to develop courses in poverty law and the

first law school to establish a student-staffed community legal services clinic.

It has established a reputation nationally and internationally of prominence and distinction. No doubt all members will join me in congratulating the faculty,

staff, students and alumni of Osgoode Hall Law School on their 115th anniversary, recognizing their importance to the history of the province of Ontario.

TRIPLE M METAL

Mr Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge a local business, Triple M Metal, and their

tremendous contribution to my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. I recently attended Triple M Metal groundbreaking for their subsidiary's state-of-the-art aluminum remelting plant,

Matalco.

Triple M Metal is a leading-edge recycling company, and its subsidiary Matalco will be a global leader in the field of aluminum remelting. When fully operational

at the end of 2005, Matalco will employ 50 people and produce prime-quality aluminum billets, remelted from such items as junked cars and metal debris from building demolitions. There is currently

a great need for aluminum billets, and Matalco is filling that need by providing high-grade aluminum billets for the transportation, construction and consumer goods industries worldwide.

Most importantly, Matalco will use the most advanced and sophisticated remelting technology and equipment in the world, with industry-leading environmental and

energy-efficient processes resulting in virtually no generated waste.

It's with great pleasure that I acknowledge the positive contributions of Triple M Metal and Matalco to my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale and to the

province of Ontario.

CHILDREN'S CAR SEATS

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Yesterday, this House passed into law Bill 73, a transportation safety bill that compels families with

young children to buy new car booster seats and use these seats until their children grow to be 4 foot 10 and 80 pounds, or until they turn nine years old. While I voted for this bill at third

reading and support the principle of improving safety for children, I must inform the House that in the government's haste, it has overlooked an important concern for young families:

affordability.

These booster seats are not cheap. I was in a large retail store in my riding on the weekend, and the booster seats that are large enough to accommodate an

80-pound child cost between $70 and $100 each. Imagine the cost to families with three, four or even five children, already stretching their budgets to make ends meet. And to make matters worse,

yesterday the Minister of Transportation appeared to be indifferent to this concern, apparently telling the Toronto Star that there would be no financial help for families to help them buy these

booster seats, this in spite of the fact that car seats for infants and smaller children are tax-exempt and have been exempt from the 8% provincial sales tax for years.

My Bill 77, which I introduced in this House seven months ago yesterday, would provide these young families with a tax break on the purchase of new booster seats

by exempting the seats from provincial sales tax, a modest proposal consistent with the way we already treat car seats for smaller children, and something that would benefit young families at very

little cost to the treasury. I ask the government to allow a vote on Bill 77 before the House breaks for Christmas.

OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm reading this on behalf of Rosario Marchese, the NDP education critic, who is caught up in the media

studio at the moment.

New Democrats congratulate the faculty, students, alumni and staff of Osgoode Hall Law School on the role that the school has played in legal and public

education in Ontario for the past 115 years. Osgoode Hall Law School was founded by the Law Society of Upper Canada in 1889 and is the oldest continuously operating law school in the province of

Ontario.

On the 115th anniversary of its founding, New Democrats recognize Osgoode Hall Law School's significant achievements and contributions to public and private life

in Ontario. Osgoode Hall Law School has achieved excellence in legal education and has contributed to an increasingly diverse legal profession, reflecting the multicultural and evolving character

of Ontario society.

Today, we'd like to celebrate the school's progressive character and its contributions to this province. Osgoode was the first law school in Canada to establish

a combined law and environmental studies degree. Osgoode was the first law school in Canada to establish a student-staffed community legal services clinic, Parkdale Community Legal Services, and

Osgoode was the first Canadian law school to develop courses and programs in poverty law.

In keeping with this proud history of firsts, New Democrats hope that Osgoode Hall Law School becomes the first post-secondary institution in Canada to stop

ratcheting up tuition fees, so that all young people of all backgrounds may benefit from the excellent legal education offered by this great institution.

RIDE PROGRAM

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): The holiday season is upon us. In addition to the celebrations across our province, the month of December

also marks the beginning of the OPP's five-week OPP festive season RIDE, or Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere. This program has been in place since 1995, and over the past nine years, the province

of Ontario has seen a dramatic drop in impaired driving.

The festive season RIDE program has just released its statistics for its first week. The OPP issued 98 12-hour suspensions, and 60 persons were charged with

alcohol-related Criminal Code driving offences. Encouragingly, these numbers are down significantly from the same period last year.

I know that in my riding of Mississauga East, there are rising concerns about the number of impaired drivers on the road. To address this concern, Peel Regional

Police have stepped up their efforts this year, increasing the number of officers on the road with the RIDE program 50% from last year's numbers. The Peel police have also launched a new last-drink

program, wherein they focus their efforts on roads which had higher numbers of people caught driving impaired. The hope is that by intensifying their efforts, they can curb last year's increase in

drunk driving in Peel.

Impaired driving is a serious problem that affects the safety of all Ontarians. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work of the RIDE officers

both in my region of Peel and across the province of Ontario. Their continued efforts are keeping our roads safe both during the holiday season and throughout the year.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Those at home who are missing watching NHL hockey this season can entertain themselves with the flip-flop Olympics

coming from across the way from the government members.

We've already seen the daring double gainer on hydro pricing. We saw the back flip on Dalton McGuinty's promise, now broken, to hold the line on taxes. We are

seeing a very slow 180-degree twist on closing the coal-fired plants by 2007, and now we are seeing some flip-flops when it comes to time allocation motions in the Legislature.

The bronze medal for time allocations goes to Minister John Gerretsen, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who had once said it was "a complete attack

on the democratic principles and the parliamentary rules that have been a tradition within the Westminster model," but last night they passed a time allocation motion on Bill 135.

The silver medal goes to the intrepid House leader, Mr Duncan, who has brought in now three time allocation motions in the last three business days in a row:

every business day of the last three, a new time allocation motion coming forward from across the way.

But the gold medal winner of the flip-flop time allocation Olympics is the man who said, "For a government that promised to be open, this closure action is the

height of arrogance, the height of exactly everything you campaigned against and you said you were for." Who said that? Dalton McGuinty. Dalton McGuinty said one thing when he was in opposition and

said something completely different once he became Premier.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I would like to take a moment in this House to send my deep and personal condolences to the

family of a young man in my community. This 15-year-old took his life on Saturday, November 16, and it caused great sadness for all of us.

His parents tell us that their son felt compelled to end his life because of the continuous bullying he received from his peers both inside the school and

outside through the Internet. Whether this bullying was verbal or physical really doesn't matter. It was so severe that it caused him to feel that he needed to end his own life. It was really a

shock for my community, and it's not something that we often see in our rural communities. We are very devastated by this tragedy. That is why I feel compelled to address it here today.

In rural communities, we pride ourselves on knowing our neighbours, and many knew this young man and his family. We also have neighbours and friends who have

children who attend this high school. We share the sadness, and we also worry about those other students. One student told me that many of the kids at school are bullied, just some more than

others. It's not just a matter of kids being cruel to each other. This is a situation where the student felt so tormented that he was at a point where he could no longer deal with it.

I understand from our Minister of Education that a key component of our safe schools program is the creation of an environment that fosters respect,

responsibility and dignity for all. We need to ensure that our schools have the resources to deal with situations where children are being abused or being abusive. We need to ensure that our

children know where they can get help when they find themselves in a situation where they are continually being abused.

I encourage all school boards and schools to adhere to the Minister of Education's safe schools program so that we can foster safe, secure learning environments

for mutual respect among peers. For the young man in my community it's too late, but it doesn't have to be too late for many other students who are going through the same situation.

OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): It's with pleasure that I too rise today to mark the 115th anniversary of Osgoode Hall Law School.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging in the gallery today three guests from Osgoode: associate dean Janet Walker; president of the Legal and Literary Society, Rich

Appiah; and chair of student caucus, Antonio Di Domenico. Welcome to all of you.

As you've heard today, the Law Society of Upper Canada founded Osgoode Hall Law School in 1889, and today it is the oldest, continuously operating law school in

Ontario. Until 1957, the only avenue for admission to the bar in Ontario was through study at Osgoode law school. That means that until then, virtually every practising lawyer and sitting judge in

the province was a graduate of Osgoode. When Osgoode Hall Law School became affiliated with York University in 1969, it continued to educate thousands of lawyers and senior members of the

judiciary.

Today, there are 15,000 graduates of Osgoode Hall Law School practising in Ontario and elsewhere around the world. Graduates include numerous judges, including

the current Chief Justice and Associate Chief Justice of Ontario, plus numerous Premiers and Attorneys General, including the present Attorney General, other members of the executive council and

members of this Legislature.

Osgoode continues to be one of Canada's leading law schools, committed to excellence in legal education and legal scholarship, and plays an essential role in

helping us achieve a just society. This is reflected in its motto, "Through law to justice."

On behalf of the government, I congratulate the faculty, students, alumni and staff of Osgoode law school on the important role the school has played in legal

and public education in Ontario for the past 115 years. I am confident that all those associated with the school will continue to make such contributions to the public good in the future.

HANUKKAH

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Tonight, Jewish families across Ontario are going to sit down to celebrate Hanukkah, the festival of lights.

In fact, at 5:30 in front of the Legislature, we'll join the Honourable Monte Kwinter in lighting the menorah right here at Queen's Park, and later on, at 7:30 at Ross Lord Park, in honour of Matti

Baranovski, we're also going to light the menorah.

Hanukkah centres around the lighting of the eight candles of the menorah. One additional candle is lit on every subsequent night until eight nights have passed

and all eight candles are lit. This tradition of lighting the menorah and celebrating Hanukkah goes back over 2,000 years.

The Jewish people rose up against their oppressors, led by the valiant Judah Maccabee and his four brothers. After three years of fighting, the Maccabee army was

finally successful in driving out the oppressive regime. The victory was symbolized by the reclamation of the holy temple in Jerusalem, the most holy place of worship, of which only the western

wall remains today.

However, the holy temple had been desecrated and its eternal flame extinguished. After restoring the temple, the Maccabees could only find enough oil to light

the eternal flame for one day, but eight days were needed to make more oil to keep the eternal flame burning. The flame was lit anyway, but to everyone's joy and amazement, the flame continued

burning for eight days, enough time to replenish the oil.

This is the miracle of Hanukkah, which is celebrated by Jewish families all around the world today. I want to wish all Jewish families across Ontario a happy

Hanukkah.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

ESTIMATES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Standing order 62(

a) provides that "the standing committee on estimates shall present one report with respect

to all of the estimates and supplementary estimates considered pursuant to standing orders 59 and 61 no later than the third Thursday in November of each calendar year."

The House not having received the report from the standing committee on estimates for certain ministries on Thursday, November 18, 2004, as required by the

standing orders of this House, pursuant to standing order 62(b), the supplementary estimates before the committee of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care -- supplementary estimates only -- are

deemed to be passed by the committee and are deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

Pursuant to standing order 60, the estimates before the committee of the Office of the Assembly, Office of the Chief Election Officer, Ombudsman Ontario and the

Office of the Auditor General not having been selected for consideration, are deemed to be received and concurred in.

Motions? Statements by ministries?

Interjection.

The Speaker: There were no deferred votes, so we're moving along.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Orders of the day.

The Speaker: The government House leader says "orders of the day," which he would like, but it is oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, in your absence, I asked the Minister of Finance

about the serious breach of privacy involving some 27,000 people. I posed those questions to the minister responsible, the finance minister, and he declined to answer for something that is clearly

his responsibility. I also asked your minister responsible for consumer protection, and he declined as well.

Premier, when you sat in this chair, you were very clear about how you expected breaches of privacy to be dealt with. Now that 27,000 individual breaches have

occurred on your watch, your minister responsible refuses to take that responsibility. A quote from you in Hansard in 1996 -- this is your comment: "I am convinced that the Information and Privacy

Commissioner will not consider the issue of ministerial accountability. That does not come under the jurisdiction of her office." Do you still agree with yourself?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me take the opportunity on behalf of the government to say that what

happened was unacceptable. I want to commend Minister Phillips for taking the appropriate actions at the earliest possible opportunity.

Just so people will know what happened here in terms of our reaction to this, when we learned of this we immediately contacted the Information and Privacy

Commissioner and made that individual aware of the circumstances. We extended the courtesy of contacting the opposition and letting them know what had happened. We have invited in the Information

and Privacy Commissioner and offered all courtesies and co-operation to that individual so we can ensure that we find out exactly what happened and make sure it does not happen again.

In my supplementary, I will compare and contrast what we did with what the Tories did on their watch.

Mr Runciman: What is totally unacceptable is the Premier getting up here and saying something completely different from the position he took in

opposition, sitting in this chair. We have quote after quote with respect to these kinds of privacy issues, where the Premier took a completely different position than the one he is offering the

people of Ontario today.

Premier, your Minister of Finance's name and signature appeared on each of these cheques. They were sent from the Ministry of Finance -- it's printed on the

stubs -- yet you've chosen to make Mr Phillips the fall guy for your government, apparently to protect Mr Sorbara. You were clear about ministerial accountability when you sat in this chair and now

you seem to have a different view -- never mind the 27,000 people who now have their SIN numbers and personal information being shipped all around Ontario. Why are you more interested in protecting

Greg Sorbara than the privacy of 27,000 Ontarians?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to contrast the co-operative and responsible manner in which we have dealt with this issue, and here is the

difference: In 1997, as part of its review of government assets, Mike Harris's Privatization Secretariat contracted with Angus Reid to survey POSO account holders. It turns out that some 50,000

bank account numbers, balances and social insurance numbers were made available, in breach of information and privacy laws.

What's really galling is that this inadvertent release of information was kept covert, and covered up, effectively, from the Information and Privacy

Commissioner for some two and a half years. When she reported on this ultimately, she said that she was "unable to conduct a full and complete investigation in this case." She found that the

Ministry of Finance "endeavoured to restrict the scope of the investigation and the investigative tools available to the" Information and Privacy Commissioner. She concluded that documents provided

by the ministry were partially blacked out or severed, an action that was "disrespectful of the mandate of this office."

I'd ask you, Speaker, but more importantly, the people of Ontario, to compare and contrast our approach. As soon as we found out about this, we acted on this.

We made this public to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. As a courtesy to the opposition, we did not hide this, we did not cover this. We acknowledged that it was a mistake, and we're

taking the necessary steps to make sure that it does not occur again.

Mr Runciman: What has happened is that they've put 27,000 identities at risk. Six days after this, the people still haven't received any word.

Mr Paul Kyte from Belleville told us today that he's still waiting to get information from the government.

We talk about contrast; I want to cite another one for the Premier. In the wake of Jim Wilson's resignation in 1996 over a single alleged breach of privacy, Mr

McGuinty said that an FOI commissioner's investigation wouldn't do, that it's conducted in secret, with no media or public scrutiny, no testimony under oath. That was your position in opposition

when you were sitting in this chair.

Premier, you felt that a legislative inquiry was appropriate for one single breach of privacy in 1996. Today, for 27,000 individual breaches, you don't believe

it's appropriate. How can you justify that position, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Just to pursue what happened in the case of the POSO release of confidential information, on May 18, 2000, Speaker Gary Carr

found that there was a prima facie case of contempt. He ruled that "in official business dealings with an officer of this House, individuals owe an obligation of accountability to Parliament. That

our own officer advises that the opposite was the case is sufficient cause in my mind to find that a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament has been made out." That specifically addressed the

manner in which the previous government, the Conservative government, failed to own up to the release of confidential information over a period of two and a half years and made deliberate efforts

to thwart the investigation on the part of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

We have done the very opposite. We have owned up to this. We have accepted responsibility for this. We've invited the Information and Privacy Commissioner to

come in and determine exactly what happened and to offer the best advice we can get to make sure it does not happen again. We extended the courtesy to members of the opposition to inform them of

this issue. I believe we've acted responsibly and quickly, given the circumstances.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Premier. Premier, your Minister of Finance is again entangled in another scandal,

another mess, as a result of his involvement with Royal Group Technologies. He was an officer and a member of the board at the time the relevant situation arose -- that Royal Polymers is 100% owned

by Royal Group Technologies. On August 14, 2003, Royal Polymers allegedly discharged water that contained over 1,000 pounds of a carcinogenic chemical called vinyl chloride monomer into the

drainage system that leads to the St Clair River. It is charged that the company failed to disclose this to the Ministry of the Environment until four days later.

Both the spill and the failure to disclose are the subject of charges under the Environmental Protection Act as well as the Ontario Water Resources Act, which

could result in very substantial fines. Premier, these charges are to be heard on January 14, 2005, in court. Will you ask the minister to step aside while these charges are dealt with in the

courts?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No, I will not.

Mr Flaherty: Premier, these are your standards that I'm asking you to follow. You told the Toronto Star on October 9, 1999 -- I assume you

meant what you said, but we'll see -- "We have a tradition in our parliamentary system which requires ministers who find themselves under a cloud, even if only temporarily, have a responsibility to

step aside pending the outcome of any inquiry."

The Minister of Finance at the relevant times was on the board. He was part of the management team of the company that is being dragged into court by your

Ministry of the Environment, charged under government legislation with dumping volatile carcinogenic chemicals into the St Clair River.

This is a very serious matter. You say you care about environmental concerns. You say you have standards for your ministers in government. You say you believe

in ministerial responsibility. If you do, uphold your own standards and have the minister step aside until the charges are heard.

Hon Mr McGuinty: If one of my ministers were to find themselves under a real, as opposed to a virtual or fictitious cloud, then I would act

accordingly, but the only cloud here is in the mind of the member opposite with respect to this particular matter. For that reason, I will not be asking for the resignation or stepping aside of

anyone.

Mr Flaherty: Surely even you, Premier, know that corporations act through their officers and they act through their boards. That's why

legislation in Ontario makes them involved and responsible for their duties as directors and officers of a corporation.

Your own words again, Premier, March 2, 2004, in a scrum: "(Minister Sorbara) has indicated, and we have agreed, that should he become the subject of an

investigation -- not even a charge, just the subject of an investigation -- he will step aside."

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): That's ridiculous.

Mr Flaherty: The Minister of Education thinks it's ridiculous that someone can be a member of a board of directors, an officer of a company,

charged with dumping of chemicals in the St Clair River, and serve as the Minister of Finance while the charges are pending. Do you agree with the Minister of Education on that?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I remember the tremendous disappointment with which the member opposite received the news of the Integrity Commissioner, who

cleared the finance minister of all the spurious claims and allegations previously advanced by him.

I would suggest to him that if his concern is real, if he thinks it has some merit, he should do what he has done in the past: Send this off to the Integrity

Commissioner, an impartial, objective third party, who will review the matter in the appropriate way. But my conclusion leads me to conclude that I will not be asking anyone for any resignation or

stepping aside.

OMA AGREEMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The question is for the Premier. Premier, you are rapidly turning into medicare's moving target. First

you said you were sure that doctors would ratify your deal. When the doctors voted down your deal, you said you'd work with them to strike a deal. A week later, you said you'd impose a deal, even

though that would poison the province's relationship with our doctors and set back primary care reform.

Today, another McGuinty flip-flop: You now say you want to start talking again. How do you expect Ontario's doctors to work with you to get an agreement when

you, yourself, don't know what your position is from day to day and week to week?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We've been working long and hard with Ontario's doctors through their

representation, the Ontario Medical Association. In fact, we devoted some nine months to what we believed was a very successful negotiating process involving some 164 separate meetings. At the end

of that process, both sides' representatives signed an agreement to then recommend the agreement to their principals. Our representatives did that to us, and we took that recommendation in support

of that agreement. The OMA's representatives for some reason decided they were not going to recommend the agreement to their constituency.

So we find ourselves at this point in time when we've made a tremendous amount of progress with respect to coming to an agreement that serves the interests of

both Ontario doctors and Ontario patients. The conclusion we've come to at this point in time is that it's time for us to move forward on behalf of Ontarians.

Mr Hampton: What you describe is a process that took place over four weeks ago, and in the intervening four weeks, you've changed your

position four times. That's why doctors are confused. That's why (1) they don't know what your real position is, and (2) they're not sure what the process is. Your Minister of Health went out and

started a strategy of vilifying and attacking doctors, so they have a hard time understanding that. The question again is, when will you know what your position is with respect to Ontario's doctors

so that they can then sit down and negotiate with you, or are you still going to impose a deal?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I think it's perfectly clear from the member opposite that he's a champion of the status quo. He thinks that what we have at

present, when it comes to both the quality of our health care system and its affordability, are things he's prepared to embrace. We are not.

What we said to doctors -- so the member opposite is perfectly clear on this -- is that we are not prepared to renegotiate the old agreement, we are not

prepared to negotiate a new agreement; however, we have regard for the six specific concerns that were raised by the OMA at the time of the ratification process. What we have done is offer six

separate adjustments to the existing agreement in order to improve it, in keeping with the concerns raised by the Ontario Medical Association.

I'm pleased to report that just yesterday in Hamilton, the Minister of Health indicated that we're prepared to move, as soon as this spring, on 45 new family

health teams. We've got 90 communities that are banging on the door at Queen's Park, saying, "When can we move ahead with transformation in health care?" Those 45 alone will serve 650,000 Ontario

patients. We look forward to moving on that.

Mr Hampton: Again, the Premier tries to avoid answering the question. I want you to know my position: I'm just opposed to all the

flip-flopping. I'd like to know what the clear position of the McGuinty government is, and doctors would like to know, because they have no idea what they're being offered because they have no idea

where you stand from one day to the next. They have no idea what the process is when one day you're threatening to impose a deal and the next day you suddenly say you want to talk. On issue after

issue, the McGuinty government seems to say that it knows best, but then a day or two later, you recognize that you've got a problem with your position.

Again, Premier, this is a very serious issue. There is a doctor shortage in the province. When is the McGuinty government going to figure out its own position,

so that doctors will finally know what your position is and what your process is? Are you imposing a deal, or are you negotiating a deal? What's your position, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The only person who's confused about the transformation of our health care system is the member opposite. We know exactly

where we stand when it comes to changing health care in Ontario.

Here are a few questions I might toss back to the member opposite. If he believes that we should be paying our doctors more, then he should stand in his place

and say so. This deal makes them the best paid in all of Canada. If he believes that we should not move forward with family health teams and ensure that we bring more primary care to more families

and more communities around the province, then he should stand in his place and say so. If he thinks we should not be encouraging and incenting doctors to provide more prevention and to encourage

them to do more work in our nursing homes and deliver more work when it comes to home care, then he should stand in his place and say so.

I can tell you, Speaker, that we're for moving forward. We're tired of the status quo. We will not defend it. We will not embrace it. We will work with our

doctors and our hospitals, and we will move forward on behalf of patients.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Once again, it seems that the McGuinty government's position is as clear as mud. Before the election,

Premier, you railed against the Conservative government for mismanaging our education system. You said, "The Harris-Eves government tries to run 5,000 schools from Queen's Park. They take a

one-size-fits-all education funding formula and impose it on every school in the province." Today your Minister of Education is imposing a collective bargaining formula on cash-strapped school

boards that he knows won't work. He's going to force the school boards to take the blame when his scheme fails.

Your government has been trying to micromanage health care. That hasn't worked. Why are you now trying the famous Conservative tactic of micromanaging

education?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to begin by complimenting and congratulating our Minister of

Education, who has been working so hard to improve the quality of public education that we offer all our students. I'm pleased to say that we have a new tone in public education today in Ontario.

We've made some significant progress, although we've only been on the job for some 14 months. The members opposite may not believe this is progress, but I can tell you that thousands and thousands

of parents are happy that in 1,300 schools we have smaller class sizes. Parents and students alike are pleased with the fact that we've hired 1,100 more teachers. We have over 8,000 newly trained

teachers with special expertise in numeracy and literacy working in our schools as a result of this minister's efforts. We're proud of those advances. We're proud of the new tone we've brought to

public education. We're proud of the partnership approach we're bringing to trustees and teachers alike.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you talk about tone, about style. Let me tell you what people want to see: They want to see some substance. What they're

seeing today is your government breaking another two promises. You promised to implement the Rozanski report's recommendation on school funding. You're not doing that. You promised that you would

treat school boards with respect and that you would enhance their power and their decision-making. Instead you are going to straitjacket them in terms of their decision-making. Just one question of

substance, Premier: Will you implement the Rozanski report recommendations and stop strong-arming school boards like you promised?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to remind the member opposite that he and his party voted in favour of maintaining the private school tax credit. Now

he purports to be a champion of public education in Ontario. We are also proud that, notwithstanding our fiscal constraints and the financial mess with which we have been saddled by the previous

government, we're able to invest $1.1 billion more in public education.

But more than that, what we are doing now is that the minister has acted to protect some of the important investments we have made in education. Specifically,

when it comes to the money we've invested in smaller classes, the money we're investing in keeping good schools open, the money we've invested in helping struggling students in other areas, we have

specifically said that the money devoted to that must remain devoted to that, that you can't use that money, which brings about some positive, substantive change inside our schools to the benefit

of our students, in your negotiations with teachers. We think that's fair, we think that's reasonable, we think that's responsible and we think it's in keeping with what our responsibilities are

when it comes to better education for our kids.

Mr Hampton: I don't think I heard an answer to the question of what happened to implementing the Rozanski report recommendations, but I want

to go to the next promise. Before the election, you promised peace and stability in our schools. What the Minister of Education announced today is sure to result in conflict, the kind of conflict

that comes from micromanaging. You said yourself before the election, "We will ensure that there is transparency in public education.... We will establish a standing committee on education to hold

public hearings every year on the effectiveness of provincial funding."

There is a big hole in the provincial funding. By third-party calculations, you're close to $700 million short. My question is, where is that standing

committee on education to look into whether or not you're funding public education appropriately? Where is that promise, Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Well, there's no doubt about it; there is much more work to be done when it comes to improving public education for our

children, and we look forward to doing that.

But, you know, there is a common thread that runs through the questions put forward today by the leader of the NDP, and it is that he won't talk about the

substance. He won't talk about the substance because he's afraid to tell us where he stands when it comes to smaller classes. I think in his heart of hearts he believes in smaller classes. He's

afraid to talk about the new tone that we've struck in public education, because in his heart of hearts he supports the new relationship, the good, solid, working, positive relationship that we've

struck with Ontario teachers.

He is afraid to talk about the new finances we've found to keep our good schools open, because in his heart of hearts, I know that he is supportive of our

policies in that area and in so many other areas of public education.

So I say to this Legislature and to the good people of Ontario, it's time for the real Howard Hampton to step up to the plate and to tell us that he supports

us when it comes to public education in the province of Ontario.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday, I rose in the House to express our condolences to the

family of 16-year-old Andrew Stewart. Today, the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex gave a moving statement about a 15-year-old who committed suicide as a result of bullying over the Internet.

Minister, you and your Premier voted against the Safe Schools Act in the last government. You have now been Minister of Education for more than a year. As the

Minister of Education, you have had more than one year to deal with the important issue of bullying in our schools, yet you found time to have your ministry develop guidelines and policies about

what goes into vending machines in our schools. Would you stand in your place today and tell us what you have done to address this important issue of bullying that is taking place every day,

increasingly so, in our schools right across this province? What have you done?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I first want to express what I think is the sentiment of everyone in this House, which is

condolences for the families involved in two separate tragedies that have struck young individuals, young adults, in our province. I think it is vitally important that we support their schools and

their families at this particular time.

I will say, in a completely separate manner, that this government takes the safety of individuals in our schools and on the school grounds and, indeed,

anywhere we can have an influence, as our primary responsibility. Before we get to educate, the kids and the young adults need to be safe.

And we have been collaborating with some initiatives around the province already. We have been providing some ability.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Kennedy: I hear the member opposite grumble something about other things we've done, and I'm sure he doesn't mean to imply in any

shape, way or form that there is any active omission or commission by anyone in relation to the tragedies that have taken place.

What I will say to those families and to the public at large is that there is an initiative on safety that we have worked on collaboratively with the school

boards, that there is much unfinished business when it comes to safe schools and that we will be making an announcement within a very short period of time about that. Appropriately, it will be

general in its impact, and appropriately, it will supply an appropriate role for the provincial government to make sure that everything that can be done is being done in our schools.

Mr Klees: Actually, I am suggesting that there has been an omission on the part of this minister to serve the schools and the parents and the

students of this province.

This minister has had priorities that had nothing to do with the important things that are taking place in our schools. I'm putting him, today, on the spot.

I'm asking him whether he has, since I tabled the letter from Mr Thomson, who has repeatedly appealed to the minister and to his school to intervene in a bullying of his own child at Mother Teresa

High School in Ottawa. I delivered this letter to him yesterday. This is a serious issue. This young child has been beaten. Has the minister personally intervened yet? Or does he still not think

that bullying in schools is enough of a priority over and above vending machines, junk food and all the other things he has been occupying his time with?

Hon Mr Kennedy: Mr Speaker, there is nothing that I want to add to the member's line of questioning. If there is anything that the families

and affected students deserve right now, it is the respect and dignity of this House.

There is public policy that gives us latitude to work on things that in a general way will help make our schools safer, and that is forthcoming. There is work

that we've already done. When it comes to specific cases, whether they're given to me by the member opposite or by anyone else, what I will say is -- and I want this to be known -- if there is

anyone out there who is affected by bullying, their situation will not be discussed in this House. We will not name them or their parents or anyone else. There is enough stigma attached.

What I would say is -- and I think members opposite know in this House -- if there is any situation that the office of the minister can help with, we work

diligently in that regard. I want that expectation to be known by everyone watching, because there is an abiding interest by this government to do everything possible to maintain a safe

environment. There may be individuals out there who think they --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the city of Toronto kicked off its budget debate with worries

about user fees, tax hikes and TTC fare increases. Why have they done this? It's because you haven't paid your share. You have arbitrarily capped Ontario's contribution to Toronto's social service

and housing programs. That has left Toronto $71 million poorer. They have had to lay off 1,000 staff in the last couple of years, but unfortunately, they have had to hire 1,100 more people to look

after the downloaded services. Toronto's budget chief says that this is unfair.

Premier, in your election program, you called municipal downloading "unfair, short-sighted and destructive to our communities." Will you stop being unfair,

short-sighted and destructive to our communities, and will you restore the 80-20 split that served this province so well before you were elected?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Just to be clear, we are very proud of the good working relationship we

have developed with the city of Toronto. We're now in earnest negotiations to modernize the City of Toronto Act, so that we can work together to strengthen this city, this engine of our economy and

the Canadian economy, and so that we can help it stand on its own two feet.

But I'm also proud to say that as a result of our gas tax initiative, this year alone the city of Toronto will get an additional $81 million. There is more

work to be done -- we are all aware of that -- when it comes to ensuring that the city of Toronto has the necessary wherewithal to chart its own destiny, and we look forward to working with

them.

Mr Prue: Mr Premier, I'm not talking about the gas tax, and I'm not talking about transit. I'm talking about your election program, in which

you said downloading provincial problems on to cities and towns resulted "in cuts to services and crumbling infrastructure." That's exactly what we're seeing in Toronto and literally every other

city in this province. You know that property taxes alone cannot cover what is happening out there, but you have been slow to help all the towns and cities of this province on the downloaded social

services.

Unless you do your part, the gap between the revenue and the expenses for municipalities in every municipality will continue to grow. You've said it yourself.

Downloading has created a real mess for municipalities. When are you going to stop mimicking Mike Harris and start keeping your own promises?

Hon Mr McGuinty: The Minister of Finance would like to speak to this.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I think the member, were he wanting to be fair, would be mentioning some very special assistance that

went to the city of Toronto last year in the form of a grant of some $90 million on the TTC.

I think he would want to mention, as well, our government's determination -- and it was in the budget last May -- that we are going to be uploading, not

downloading, more of the cost of public health. I think he would want to mention the unique negotiations that are going on with the city of Toronto on a wide variety of issues.

I think, in fact, he would want to let the public know that for the first time in eight and a half years there is a really strong, constructive and productive

relationship between this government at Queen's Park and the government of the city of Toronto on Queen Street.

EDUCATION

Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, today you announced that our government is working to

bring peace and stability to the school system. For the past eight years, our education system was subjected to constant attacks by the previous government. They left schools ravaged and those who

worked in them demoralized.

On the campaign trail in Willowdale last year, more than anything else I heard from parents who were angry about the way the education system was being

mismanaged. They were incensed by the constant bickering between the province and the school boards. They wanted a better and more stable learning environment for their children, not one where

constant strikes or threats of strikes existed.

Minister, during the campaign we pledged long-term funding for the education system. How does today's announcement work to fulfill that, and how will this

pledge bring peace and stability to our schools?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): Thank you very much, to the honourable member for his question. We did announce today events to

further the peace and stability in our schools. It is a marked achievement that really belongs to the schools, the principals and the teachers, that they have been able to focus on student needs

and are going to continue to do that.

Today, after listening and discussing carefully with the participants in the system, we've come up with some additional measures that will make sure that

continues to be the case in the future. They include incentives for long-term contracts so that we can have up to four years of stability in our schools, and predictable funding stands behind that.

It's in a framework.

Of course, significant funding, as our Premier has said, of $1.1 billion is on the way to implement the Rozanski report by next year, slightly ahead of

schedule. But with it comes an outlook. This is not something a government can buy; it's simply something a government can exhibit: respect. In everything we're doing, we're trying to create and

maintain an environment of respect toward teachers, school boards and all participants in education, because the students benefit when that is the prevailing outlook.

Mr Zimmer: Minister, those same people who were concerned about their children's learning were also concerned with something that Ontarians in

general concern themselves with. I'm talking about accountability and transparency. My constituents want to know that their tax dollars are being well spent.

Just yesterday, we passed a bill banning partisan advertising, ensuring that not a single dollar will ever be wasted on such frivolous actions again. Minister,

what is your ministry doing to ensure that every dollar that is allocated for educational programs important to parents, such as smaller class sizes, is effectively spent in schools?

Hon Mr Kennedy: We put forward to the school boards a range of helpful things. Part of it is new supports, including teacher development

instruction and do well in school; learning opportunity grants to help kids who are struggling the most go forward; good schools open grants that help rural schools be more viable. Those grants,

intended that way, need to be spent on improvements.

It will be possible this year for every member of the public, every interested parent, every interested worker in the system to see where the dollars from the

government have gone and how they've been distributed by the board. It still allows tremendous latitude by the board, but it clarifies exactly how the money is going to get spent and exactly how

students are going to do well, while at the same time the boards are going to be able to exhibit respect and good understandings with their education workers.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): A question to the Minister of Agriculture. As you know, prices for cash crops are half what they

were last spring: beef; tobacco is a disaster; apples, potatoes and other fruit and vegetable crops are in a very bad position.

You signed on to the CAIS program. These farmers are desperate for help, but your program is failing them. The program allows farmers, who have been processed,

to appeal 90 days after getting their calculation of benefits programs. The problem is, I have yet to have a farmer tell me -- none of them, actually, have received their CPD statements.

It's now three weeks before Christmas. Minister, how do you expect farmers to plan for the coming year when many of them won't know for another three months

whether they'll be receiving CAIS benefits?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I take exception to the comment the member has made about the CAIS program. The

agricultural policy framework is going to bring $1.7 billion in support to agriculture in this province. The member may be critical of the CAIS program, but I think he needs to recognize that we've

received over 30,000 applications for the CAIS program. We've processed in excess of 13,000 applications, and over $55 million has been paid out to the farmers in this province.

That's why we took a proactive approach. I don't know if the honourable member took up the offer to appear before a session that we put together for all

members of this House to inform them of the CAIS program. If he has a specific example of a producer who needs to know the status of his file, I ask that he fill out a confidentiality form, have

that forwarded to our MPP liaison and we'll look into that specific issue.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary, the member for Oxford.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Minister, there seems to be a disparity between what you think is going on in your ministry and what is really

happening to the farmers in Ontario. Almost half of the farmers in Ontario who applied for CAIS still do not have a processed application. The minister has taken so long to get his act together

that those 18,000 farmers are just receiving notices or have yet to be told what they need to qualify for the 2003 safety net funds.

That track record is bad enough, but over 15,000 farmers in this province didn't even bother to apply for CAIS. Either they couldn't come up with the deposit

money or they just didn't know about the program.

Considering the incompetence that has been shown so far with the farmers who have applied, Minister, what are you going to do to get the other 15,000 farmers

involved? What are you going to do to ensure that all the farmers of Ontario are aware of, and have equal access to, the CAIS program?

Hon Mr Peters: I take some real exception to the comments the member just made. I think it's terribly disrespectful that you would call a

member of the public service incompetent. I think you owe the public sector of this province an apology for calling public sector employees that word.

As I said earlier, we're moving forward with the CAIS program. I just announced this morning market revenue insurance: $94 million in support for the grains

and oilseeds sector in this province. Two weeks ago, we announced $173 million in wedge funding in support of the agricultural community.

Again, as I said to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, if he has specific examples, fill out the confidentiality form, contact the ministry and we'll look

into specific files. As well, I would welcome honourable members' comments as we finish our first year of the CAIS program and undertake a comprehensive review. I would welcome your constructive

comments about how we can make it better. These programs -- CAIS and production insurance -- are there to help the farmers in this province. He could do the respectful thing and help the farmers of

the province as well.

Interjections.

Mr Hardeman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to point out to this House that I at no time referred to the incompetency of the ministry

The Speaker: Thank you. That's not a point of order.

New question.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Premier. In Sudbury, the crisis facing alternate level of care patients continues

because there are not enough permanent long-term-care placements in our community. The Sudbury Regional Hospital will once again be forced to send long-term-care patients out of the community, to

Espanola and Manitoulin Island, to get their needs met.

On October 27, your government announced 10 temporary long-term-care beds at Pioneer Manor, even though Pioneer Manor could have accommodated 30 temporary beds

and even though Sudbury city council had urged you to fund 30 temporary beds in order to meet local needs. Today, nine of the 10 beds at Pioneer Manor are full and there are 20 alternate level of

care patients at Sudbury Regional Hospital waiting to be discharged for long-term care.

Premier, will you finally do the right thing and fund 30 temporary long-term-care beds at Pioneer Manor so the frail and elderly do not have to be sent far

from home to have their needs met?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Minister of Health is keeping a very watchful eye on this

matter, and I had the opportunity to become still a bit more acquainted with it personally when I was up in Sudbury last week to announce our very important prosperity for the north plan.

That is why we have announced thus far 10 temporary beds. We are watching this very closely. Our broader plan calls for relieving pressures on hospitals by

making more investments in home care and long-term care, public health, more prevention, more family health teams and the like. But I understand and am somewhat acquainted, although the minister

himself is much more acquainted, with the pressures affecting the people of Sudbury. I know he is keeping a very close eye on this.

Ms Martel: Premier, if I might, the frail and elderly and their families are not very interested today in your long-term plan. They are more

interested in ensuring they don't have to go to Manitoulin Island and Espanola to get their long-term-care needs met. You see, this situation could have been resolved in October if only your

government would have agreed to fund 30 temporary beds at Pioneer Manor. The space is available. The need is there. City council urged you by way of resolution to fund those beds to meet the local

needs. Your government is failing to respond to the long-term-care needs of the frail and elderly in our community. It makes no sense for them to have to go far from home for care, to Manitoulin

Island and Espanola, when the space is available for their care in our community.

I ask you again, Premier, will you finally fix this situation and fund 30 temporary beds at Pioneer Manor so the frail and elderly don't have to go far from

home for long-term care?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure how much more I can add to what I've already said, except to say this: Many of us in this Legislature have

parents who are approaching an age where they may have to go into a nursing home. Obviously we would all prefer that they be near to their home and near to us, and in an ideal world we would be

able to accommodate that, but we have to live in the real world, and from time to time there will be some patients, some of our parents, who are a little bit farther than we would like.

But I can tell you this: What we are working on is a bigger solution. I know that the Minister of Health --

Interjection.

Hon Mr McGuinty: The member opposite may not be interested in hearing this, but I think Ontarians generally are. She has raised a good issue

and I think it's worthy of a half-decent response. The minister is not here. He has indicated to me that this is a very important concern to him. He has specifically referenced the situation in

Sudbury. That's why he has acted in the case of that particular community by creating 10 temporary beds. Obviously there is more to be done. I know the minister is working on it and looks forward

to making more announcements in the future.

LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Earlier today I received a phone call

from Longlac Wood Industries and was told that they are currently evaluating the feasibility of a project to construct a new state-of-the-art facility to manufacture oriented strand board in the

municipality of Greenstone. As you know, oriented strand board is a modern value-added product used in new residential construction, and the possibility of this new operation is quite exciting.

Having said that, LWI has also indicated to me that they are evaluating this as a replacement for their current facilities, which they believe are no longer sustainable.

Minister, can you give me a sense of how this process will unfold and, more specifically, can you tell my constituents and others how they can make their views

known on the proposed oriented strand board mill?

Hon David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I'd like to thank the member for the question. I was with him a couple of months ago in the

community of Longlac and I know how totally dependent that community is on the forest sector. This proposal is very exciting news because it addresses the issue of starting to add more value to the

forest fibre that we derive from the boreal forest up there. What's very nice about this, besides creating a more modern product than the poplar ply and the waferboard that's presently being

manufactured at this time, is that the modern machinery making oriented strand board can now use more underutilized species with the aspen poplar, like birch, balsam poplar and other low-grade

hardwoods. So this is very good news.

We're posting this on the Environmental Bill of Rights Web site and, once we get the comments in, I'll be making a decision whether we will be issuing a

facility licence or not.

Mr Gravelle: Exciting news. Obviously, if approved, the construction of this new mill in the Greenstone area will continue to provide jobs in

harvesting, road construction and transportation, and will hopefully offset the impact of the closure of the existing aging facilities.

As we've all said many times before, forestry is tremendously important to northern communities. It employs about 80,000 workers and generates annual sales of

somewhere around $18 billion. Almost 50 communities in northern Ontario are heavily dependent on the forest sector to sustain their economies, and the LWI operation in Greenstone is no exception to

that.

In addition to the decision you'll be making regarding this new operation in Greenstone, can you also tell the Legislature what the province is doing to curb

job loss in the forest industry and to ensure that the forest industry stays strong into the future?

Hon Mr Ramsay: This proposal does come at a very good time because right now the forest sector is under some tremendous challenges:

international competition, the rising Canadian dollar, high energy costs, and the softwood tariff from the United States, which is imposing a lot of penalties on the exportation of our softwood

into the United States.

Last week, I announced a minister's forest council, bringing together the top CEOs, the top labour people and some independent experts to give me a report by

April of next year as to what we can do to put this industry on a firm footing. This industry has to remain competitive. It's very important to the northern economy, and I thank the member very

much for his interest in this sector.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: During the estimates committee on October 20, I

asked you if we could expect some sort of agricultural viability plan to support greenbelt farmers before the introduction of the legislation. In response, you stated, "You'll have to wait until

this bill gets introduced and find out the details at that time." We waited, and found out that it was nothing but another broken Liberal promise.

Minister, I ask you again, will you commit to us today and to farmers in the greenbelt area of Ontario that by the time Bill 135 goes to committee, you will

come forward with a provincially funded farm viability plan to support farmers in the greenbelt area, backed up by provincial dollars?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture is

pleased to answer this question.

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It's quite hilarious to see the advocacy of this member on behalf of farmers, because

when he was in government they cut over $100 million from the agriculture budget, and his advocacy of and sudden interest in preserving tender fruit lands, when there was a tender fruit land

preservation program in place that his government cancelled as well.

We moved very quickly in bringing forward the agricultural advisory team. Former federal minister Lyle Vanclief and Bob Bedggood, president of the Agricultural

Adaptation Council of Ontario and former president of the Christian Farmers Federation, undertook an exhaustive consultation around the province to look at the very issues the honourable member

made reference to. Their comprehensive recommendations were brought forward. Some of those initial recommendations regarding minimum distance separation and severances of surplus dwellings have

been incorporated into the greenbelt legislation. We're moving forward on the implementation of others of those recommendations.

Mr Hudak: The minister talks about hilarious. Sadly, his answers have become a running joke in this Legislature. Minister, you know as well as

I do that you've done studies, you've done consultations, but you haven't made one step in action to support the greenbelt farmers. It's a simple question, and that's the main conceit of your

legislation. Land use alone isn't going to keep the tender fruit land growing. Land use alone isn't going to keep the Holland Marsh in production. The conceit of your legislation is, you actually

need a farm viability plan. It galls grape growers, it galls tender fruit growers, it galls vegetable growers, that they say they can protect the land through land use changes.

Minister, you know as well as I do -- you want to save the farm, save the farmer. Please tell us that by the time this bill goes to consultations, you'll have

a real plan put forward, backed by provincial dollars, not just more talk and more studies -- real action.

Hon Mr Peters: We are very conscious of ensuring the viability of agriculture not just within the greenbelt but all across this province.

That's why we've come forward with a number of support programs to ensure that we are there supporting the farmers of this province.

You know, it's interesting when you read the Wine Council of Ontario press release of October 28, 2004, that it says, "The fact that urbanization of our unique

agricultural lands will be prevented is great news.... We have long sought a strong provincial policy that will prohibit severing these lands for residential purposes."

As a result, even the Niagara Peninsula conducted their own study looking at the impact of the greenbelt. They showed very clearly that you offer the

suggestion that farmers should be compensated. Some farmers have suggested that they should be compensated for lost value, based on the perceived value of their land at some point in the future,

assuming that certain events come to fruition. But perceived or speculative value is based on things that may happen, not things that necessarily will happen.

We're going to be there to support the agricultural community, not only in the greenbelt but all across this province.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, a year and a half ago, you promised swift action on a

transformational scheme for northern Ontario drivers: studded tires. You said, "We will permit northern drivers to use this important road safety equipment during the winter." Some 14 months later

-- it's your second winter as government -- slush, ice and snow cover the roads in Red Lake, in Dryden, in Thunder Bay, in Timmins, but your studded tire scheme seems to have developed a leak.

Premier, when did you slam the brakes on studded tires, the signature McGuinty promise for northern Ontario drivers?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): In response to the member's question, you wouldn't be slamming the brakes on

a slippery road, because you would be sliding all over the place. You would be out of control, like the leader of the third party is in asking this question.

You have to be very, very careful, when you drive on winter roads, that you do so with caution and use all the necessary tools that are in our arsenal to

ensure that you arrive safely. I've got to be perfectly honest: We fully intend to ensure that winter driving is safe for all northerners.

Mr Hampton: I thought the studded tire promise had developed a leak. Obviously, with the McGuinty government, it's a blowout.

Premier, here is the real issue. People across northern Ontario know that with icy highways, they are literally taking their lives and putting them at risk

when they go to a medical appointment and even when they go to work. They know that after the privatization of highway maintenance, our highways are not as safe as they need to be.

Since your studded tire promise has clearly developed a leak, when will you address the real problem? When will you bring highway maintenance back into the

public sector so that dedicated, knowledgeable, experienced people are keeping our highways clean and safe?

Hon Mr Bartolucci: Again, I have to be perfectly honest. The only blowout is the leader of the third party. The leader of the third party, who

was reluctant in the past to come on board with regard to studded tires, now tries to use a campaign commitment we made to try to embarrass us. The reality is, the only embarrassment with regard to

the safety of winter roads is the third party.

We will be very happy to ensure that the people of northern Ontario know that our priority is safe winter driving, that drivers in northern Ontario have what

they need to ensure they arrive safely, and we will be introducing legislation to ensure the use of studded tires.

PETITIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's indeed my pleasure to bring to the attention of the Legislature a petition I've received from my constituents

in the riding of Durham.

"Whereas today in the Legislature Minister Duncan, the Acting Premier, stated that Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara has already referred to the Ontario health

premium as a tax, even in the budget lock-up;

"Whereas on May 18, during the budget lock-up, the Minister of Finance was recorded on tape as actually saying, `We had the option of looking at personal

income tax increases or going with the Ontario health premium. Our choice on the health premium was very clear. We chose it because it gives us an opportunity to identify a revenue stream separate

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully request that Minister Duncan correct the record and resign."

TUITION

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition today to increase public funding for post-secondary education, reduce tuition fees and

reinstate an upfront system of grants for Ontario students:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal government took an historic step forward by funding a tuition fee freeze for two years; and

"Whereas a majority of Ontarians support increased public funding for colleges and universities as well as reduced tuition fees; and

"Whereas increasing student debt through income-contingent loan repayment schemes or raising loan limits only increases the cost of post-secondary education

for students from modest means; and

"Whereas per student investment in Ontario still lags gravely behind the vast majority of jurisdictions in North America;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, supporting the Canadian Federation of Students' call to increase funding for colleges and universities and reduce tuition fees

for all Ontario students, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to: (1) reduce tuition fees for all students in Ontario, (2) increase public funding for post-secondary education to at least

the national average, and (3) implement an upfront, needs-based grant system for Ontario full-time and part-time students."

I'll put my signature on this.

TAXATION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

I affix my name in full support.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

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

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

they need;

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

overburdened family physician offices and emergency departments;

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

million in other health care costs; and

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

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

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

I agree with the petitioners. I've affixed my signature to this.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Portuguese Canadians number 171,545 in the Toronto census metropolitan area, many of whom encounter serious barriers (language, culture, and location)

to accessing community and long-term services; and

"There are no long-term-care homes dedicated to the needs of Portuguese Canadian seniors; and

"Camões House for the Aged and Portuguese Community Centre of Toronto is proposing a partnership with a local long-term-care provider to purchase up to

160 existing beds in the Toronto area (for a nominal fee), to develop a Portuguese Canadian long-term-care home in Toronto. This partnership is tentative and is dependent on the approval of the

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We encourage the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, his staff, and members of the Legislature to support the Camões proposal, and to make the

appropriate administrative and policy changes required to develop a Portuguese Canadian long-term-care home in Toronto."

Since I agree with this 100%, I'm delighted to affix my signature to this document.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): This petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

physiotherapy services;

"We, the undersigned" constituents residing in Liberal MPP Michael Colle's riding, "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

Because I want to support these constituents, I will affix my signature to this petition as well.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the funding formula used by the Ministry of Health provided only a 1% increase for Four Counties Health Services in Newbury; and

"Whereas Four Counties Health Services has a projected deficit of $1.7 million; and

"Whereas the plan to balance the budget of Four Counties Health Services by 2006 recommends the closing of all beds at the hospital; and....

"Whereas the continuing viability and operation is of critical importance to the quality of life of all citizens in the hospital's catchment area;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request a review of the budget/funding and consultation with the hospital board/administration/community to reflect the needs

of our rural hospital and community."

I'll give this to Daniel.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas,

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

need;

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

physician offices and emergency departments;

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

health care costs; and

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

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

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

It's signed by thousands of people from my riding.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's signed by about 200 people from the

Chatham-Blenheim area. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Ontario's three remaining regional centres for people with developmental

disabilities, located in Smiths Falls, Orillia and Blenheim, Ontario;

"Whereas the regional centres are home to more than 1,000 disabled adults, many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the

community;

"Whereas closing the regional centres will have a devastating impact on people with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental services

sector and the economies of the local communities; and

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of the regional centres to extend specialized services, support and professional training to

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Ontario's regional centres for people with developmental

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

I am in agreement and will affix my signature thereto.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

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

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

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Sir Frederick Banting was the man who discovered insulin and was Canada's first Nobel Prize recipient; and

"Whereas this great Canadian's original homestead located in the town of New Tecumseth" -- Alliston -- "is deteriorating and in danger of destruction because

of the inaction of the Ontario Historical Society; and

"Whereas the town of New Tecumseth has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with the Ontario Historical Society to use part of the land to educate the

public about the historical significance of the work of Sir Frederick Banting;

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

"That the Minister of Culture endorse Simcoe-Grey MPP Jim Wilson's private member's bill entitled the Frederick Banting Homestead Preservation Act so that the

homestead is kept in good repair and preserved for generations to come."

I've signed the petition. I obviously agree with it. I want to thank Randy Greenman of Wrays Pharmacy in Alliston for circulating this petition.

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Great petition, Mr Wilson.

I keep getting petitions to stop pop cans and beer bottles littering our children's playgrounds. The petition is addressed to the assembly of Ontario and the

Minister of the Environment, specifically. It reads as follows:

"Whereas we find lots of pop cans and beer bottles in our parks plus children's playgrounds;

"Whereas it is therefore unsafe for our children to play in these parks and playgrounds;

"Whereas many of these bottles and cans are broken and mangled, therefore causing harm and danger to our children;

"Whereas Ontarians are dumping about a billion aluminum cans worth $27 million into landfill" sites "every year instead of recycling them;

"Whereas the undersigned want to see legislation passed to have deposits paid on cans and bottles, which would be returnable and therefore not found littering

our parks and streets;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, strongly urge and demand that the Ontario government institute a collection program that will include all pop drinks, Tetra

Pak juices and can containers to be refundable in order to reduce littering and protect our environment."

I am in full agreement with this petition and I'm delighted to sign it.

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have more petitions to keep Muskoka part of the north.

"Whereas the district of Muskoka is currently designated as part of northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the geography and socio-economic conditions of Muskoka are very similar to the rest of northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the median family income in the district of Muskoka is $10,000 below the provincial average and $6,000 below the median family income for greater

Sudbury; and

"Whereas removing the district of Muskoka from northern Ontario would adversely affect the hard-working people of Muskoka by restricting access to programs and

incentives enjoyed by residents of other northern communities; and

"Whereas the residents of Muskoka should not be confused with those who cottage or vacation in the district; and

"Whereas this is a mean-spirited and politically motivated decision on the part of the McGuinty government;

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

"That the McGuinty government maintain the current definition of northern Ontario for the purposes of government policy and program delivery."

I support this petition and affix my signature.

EYE EXAMINATIONS

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that says:

"Whereas the 2004 provincial budget was not clear on whether adult optometry patients who have or who are at risk for medical conditions, such as diabetes,

glaucoma, macular degeneration and clinically significant cataracts, would continue to be covered through the Ontario health insurance plan; and

"Whereas Ontario's optometrists strongly feel that Ontario seniors, those under 20 and those with chronic sight-threatening diseases must continue to receive

primary eye care services directly from Ontario's optometrists; and

"Whereas forcing patients to be referred to optometrists through their family physicians ignores the years of specialized training optometrists undertake to

detect, diagnose and treat eye conditions; and

"Whereas almost 140 communities across the province have already been designated as underserviced for family practitioners and the government's approach will

only exacerbate the problem unnecessarily;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care immediately clarify that the eye examination services they provide to patients at risk for medical conditions

will continue to be covered by OHIP and the coverage for these services is not dependent on a patient being referred to an optometrist by a family physician."

I'll give to it my friend page Dever today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other

standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 106,

An Act to implement Budget measures and amend the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994; and Bill 149,

An Act to implement 2004

Budget measures, enact the Northern Ontario Grow Bonds Corporation Act, 2004, and amend various Acts, when Bill 106 and Bill 149 are next called as government orders, the Speaker shall put every

question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bills without further debate or amendment, and at such time Bill 106 shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on finance

and economic affairs, and Bill 149 shall be ordered for third reading; and

That the standing committee on finance and economic affairs meet on Thursday, December 9, 2004, from 10 am to 12 noon and following routine proceedings for the

purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 106; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the clerk of the committee shall be 12 noon on December 9. On that day, at not later than 5 pm, those

amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every

question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The committee shall be authorized to meet beyond the normal hour of adjournment until completion of

clause-by-clause consideration. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to

standing order 127(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than Monday, December 13, 2004. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on

that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report

forthwith, and at such time Bill 106 shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called on that same day; and

That the orders for third reading for Bill 106 and Bill 149 shall be called concurrently; and,

That, on the day the orders for third reading are called, the time available for debate up to 5:50 pm or 9:20 pm, as the case may be, shall be divided into two

equal parts, with the first part being allotted for debate on Bill 106 and the second part being allotted for debate on Bill 149, and that each part shall be further divided and apportioned equally

among the recognized parties; and

That, when the time allotted for debate of both bills has expired, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of

the third reading stage of each of the bills without further debate or amendment. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all questions have been put and will be taken in succession, with

the door being unlocked for 30 seconds between divisions; and

That there shall be no deferral of any vote allowed pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Caplan has moved government notice of motion 293 --

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker: Mr Caplan.

Hon Mr Caplan: I must tell you, this is the first time that I have ever moved a time allocation motion, and I spoke to many of them when I was

on the other side of the House. I want to say, and I want to be very clear, that I am very proud that our government has opened this Legislature up to much fuller debate and discussion. I want all

of the members of this House to know, and I want the public of Ontario to know, that we as a government do not take time allocation lightly. After eight years -- and I spoke at great length about

the process of time allocation literally being forced down the throats of the opposition and treating this Legislature as irrelevant -- we're going to treat the atmosphere of this place, the

people's place, in a much different way.

I want to highlight that in a couple of ways. I certainly want to talk about the history of our government over the course of the last 14 months, but I also

want to contrast that with the approach taken by both of the other two parties.

Our government, the McGuinty government, has introduced 44 government bills. We've passed 22 bills, and this is the fourth time we have had to use time

allocation. I agree that these two bills, Bills 106 and 149, which are the subject of this debate, are very important bills. They are budget bills. They will receive third reading debate, as I've

just outlined in the time allocation motion. I want to stress that this is something that was rarely done under the Conservatives or under the New Democrats and, as you're listening to other

members of the other parties talk about time allocation, I hope you will keep that in mind. I want to be clear that our government will not treat this House with the disrespect that the previous

government did. Time allocation will be used, but it will be used sparingly; only on major legislation that is time-sensitive.

I wanted to compare and contrast, as I said at the outset. The modern form of time allocation, as it exists within the standing orders of the orders and

proceedings under this House, was in fact set by government House leader Dave Cooke, under the New Democrats. I would say without any exaggeration that it was the New Democrats who set the trend

for time allocation motions. In fact, the NDP used time allocation about 500% more than the previous Liberal government under then Premier David Peterson. There were no public hearings when the New

Democrats ripped up collective agreements under the social contract. No time was allocated even for third reading debate. There were no public hearings when the New Democrats raised the gasoline

tax 3.4 cents per litre. Of the 21 budget bills passed by then-Finance Minister Floyd Laughren during their five-year reign, only one was ever sent to committee for public consultation.

I want you, Speaker, and all members of this House to compare and contrast that record with the measures that are contained here. I also want to put on the

record the approach we're taking and the respect with which we're treating this House as compared to the previous government under both Premier Harris and Premier Eves.

The Eves government, in the 37th Parliament, used time allocation on 83% of government bills that received royal assent -- unheard of. From 1999 to 2003, the

Harris-Eves government used time allocation motions on 67 of 110 bills that received royal assent -- unheard of. Over 60% of legislative actions were forced down our throats, cutting off debate,

allowing for no committee time and also allowing no third reading debate. Under Premier Eves, only once -- only one time -- did a time-allocated bill even allow for third reading debate.

These tactics were built on the legacy, as I said, that was handed down by the New Democratic Party -- I fully concede by then-House leader Dave Cooke -- and I

think illustrate a lack of respect for this institution. Only one quarter of all the bills the Harris-Eves government selected as their budget bills were ever sent to committee. Only one budget

bill in eight years ever travelled during committee time. So I'm going to find it somewhat ironic when I hear, I expect, opposition members come and tell us that they have such trouble now with

using time allocation in a very sparing way.

Speaker, I want you to understand that we on this side of the House have an abiding respect for this place and want to make sure it works effectively, and that

in fact you have full debate and opportunity for committee hearings and, most importantly, third reading debate. I'm very proud that our government has changed the attitude and opened up for

greater democratic support, reform and participation by all members of this Legislature.

We are sent here by the people of the various ridings we represent to do their business, and we cannot do that if governments on every occasion use a heavy

hand. Of course, there have to be times, because some bills are time sensitive, when business must get done, and this is one of those occasions. I am very proud of the work the House leader for the

government side, Mr Duncan, from Windsor-St Clair, has done to build a co-operative kind of atmosphere in this House.

I will be supporting this motion. I would ask all members to support this motion, and of course later, when Bills 106 and 149 do come for a vote, assuming this

motion passes, I would urge all members to support the budgetary policies of this government.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): This is the mother of all time allocation motions.

Interjections.

Mr O'Toole: Some of the people are laughing at the seriousness of the content of this time allocation. It is a budget bill which ceases and

shuts down all possible debate on behalf of our constituents, not just in Durham but in Ontario, who are outraged. The minister who just spoke said they wouldn't abuse parliamentary procedure on

process. What a surprise and shock. I can recall the number of promises the Liberals made and have begun a long litany of breaking each and every one of them.

In the time I've got, I won't respond to the things of a trivial nature that the member who has just spoken has put on the record. In fact, their outrage

should be -- the finger should be pointed at themselves, because I know that they were on the record when we were in the same situation of trying to move forward with legislation that was important

to restructure the province of Ontario and the economy of Ontario from what we inherited in 1995. There was serious resistance, of course, to many of the legislative initiatives. But the chicanery

or the treachery of what they're doing today is one more example of not wanting to listen to the people of Ontario, and it's shocking. It's absolutely shocking when I think of the outrage they

raised at the time of our government, and prior governments, using the time allocation procedure motion. But this one here bundles a couple of budget bills, Bills 106 and 149, together. It bunches

them up so that it's even more complex and perhaps diverts the real debate from the substance of the bills that are before the House.

I think I should, for those viewing today, reflect for a few moments on some of the bills. Bill 106 is the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. When you look at

it, it amends the Income Tax Act to impose a tax called the health premium. Now, the viewers of Ontario should be quite aware how controversial this health tax is -- or it's a health premium. In

fact, it's probably going to go to the courts, and what is going to result from the courts would be a decision that -- in the public sector, some of the union contracts for some time now have said

that the government would pay any increase in the premium. What their arguments in court are going to be, substantively, is to say that because it's a premium and it's an increase in a premium,

then in fact it should be paid for by the employer. The employer, of course, is the government. Another level could be the municipal level, or it could be the public sector in the broader sense,

all of the MUSH sector: municipal, universities, schools and hospitals. We'd be expected to pay all of those premiums. To the people of Ontario, what does this health tax mean? It means about $50

or $60 a month on your bill. So that's one bill here.

There's the Trust Beneficiaries' Liability Act, which is another that should be paid very close attention to. So that's Bill 106; it's one of the bills. I've

covered just one issue of substance within that bill.

Now, Bill 149 offers a much greater challenge. Bill 149 is a huge bundle. In my limited time of research here -- because of time allocation, of course, there

isn't sufficient time to bring forward the debate from the stakeholders and from my constituents, more importantly, whom I listen to rigorously and respond to as well as I can. In this one, there

are a couple of other speakers who I know will be mentioning some of the punitive measures that are buried in this very, very large bill. I think Bill 149 is a large and complex finance bill, and

as such, it really does a disservice to time-allocate such an important bill.

In that, I think there were 85 changes to certain credits or tax credits. I just want to mention a couple of them. One of them was for first-time home buyers,

the land transfer tax. We had a policy of exempting that. For the first time, buyers were exempt from paying the land transfer tax -- very, very important for young families and new families buying

their first home. We felt that it was an extremely important incentive for people and home ownership, that argument. So it's clear to me that they're against young people having a chance to have

their own home. That's what the substance of this is really about. They're taking that right away.

There's another very important part which the private sector were engaging in. In the debate that's ongoing for daycare and the importance for families today,

we implemented -- Mr Speaker, you would probably know this -- a tax credit for employers who invested in child care or providing child care services in the workplace and/or near or about or for the

workplace. For those working families in Ontario, the employer was incented to provide daycare facilities through a tax credit mechanism. That has been cancelled.

We've all heard, with some anguish, about the film industry today. We had the film tax credit, which we implemented. The Liberals, during the election -- one

more broken promise -- had promised to increase that film tax credit. So the industry, which creates jobs, tourism and promotion of the province of Ontario, is going to be denied that promise. In

here, it's very clear that they're going to do nothing for that industry, which is so important to the creative culture in Ontario.

I just wanted to encourage, since we're talking about the bill, a couple of initiatives that I've taken on myself to respond to these unfair and rather onerous

burdens that they're putting on the people of Ontario.

Yesterday we passed Bill 73, which is a highway safety bill really, and it had one

section in it dealing with mandatory booster seats; children up to about

eight years of age and, I think, about 60 pounds would have to have a booster seat. Infant seats receive a provincial retail sales tax credit. They get a credit or are exempt from paying that. I

think it's Mr Arnott who has a private member's bill, and all we are asking is that the government extend this credit to working families again who are now forced by the government to buy booster

seats.

There's no one in the House here who disagrees with that. In fact, the bill passed yesterday; I supported it. The one flaw is that every time they make an

announcement, there's no relief for the payer. The payer of last resort, regardless of which pocket, is going to pay more. The government could offer incentives and encouragements that are missing

from this bill.

Actually, I have several bills in Orders and Notices. One that I want to mention -- I'll have to take a minute here in the limited time I have; I'm waiting for

our whip -- is the retail sales tax on $4 meals. They were going to implement that tax on meals over $4, which was going to be a hardship for many individuals.

Also in the limited time I have left, I have Bill 154, which I just introduced the other day. What this bill does -- I'd ask members' attention on this -- is

attempt to modify the health expense threshold. When we pay expenses for health care, until we spend $2,000 -- there's a threshold under the Income Tax Act -- none of the other health-related

expenses are deductible. What I'm trying to do in that bill is reduce the threshold of $2,000, so that persons who have chiropractic, which has been delisted, optometry and physiotherapy, as well

as a range of other things that could be set by regulation that are preventive, as well as self-initiated by individuals, could become encouraged or incentivized to wellness or prevention of

disease and other ailments that befall people.

So this time allocation motion -- I'm not responding to the minister who spoke here who was trying to deliberately point out that they're only doing it because

they're forced to do it. They're doing it in spite of the goodwill of this House and in spite of the hard work that members are prepared to do. I, for one, will be voting against this time

allocation, because it's a shock. I'm amazed at what they're able to get away with, slipping it through in the last few days of the Legislature.

It's a shame that this debate is being bundled up, two bills together, very important budget measures that the people of Ontario need more time to discuss and

understand before they're implemented. I can't in all good conscience, on behalf of my constituents in Durham, support time allocation on such an important measure that's going to affect the lives

of hard-working Ontarians.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I listened to the honourable minister talking about a history that I think he did not understand very

well, and throughout all of it, I was reminded of the bard. Of course, I always go back to the Bard, and there's a famous saying from Shakespeare in Hamlet, which is, "The lady doth protest too

much." I think perhaps it is the minister who doth protest too much, because what he is trying to tell you is a history he no longer understands, a history that is not part of him any more, a

history that he literally is making up as he goes.

I had the privilege and the honour of sitting in this very Legislature throughout most of the last session, and I will tell you, it was a history many times of

our being forced into closure, being forced into debate by the government of the day, being told that it didn't matter what this Legislature said, that they were going to force their bill through

anyway. I heard all of the ministers, particularly the government House leader today, talk time and time again about how they would never, if they were in government, invoke closure. I will tell

you that I am a little appalled. I understand why governments from time to time need to invoke closure, but I am saddened all the same that this government has chosen to do so today and has chosen

to do so with these two bills.

There's a very good quote here from George Santayana, and I'd like to quote it because it is totally in keeping with what the minister had to say earlier in

his statement: "A man's memory may almost become the art of continually varying and misrepresenting his past, according to his interests in the present."

I would tell you, the minister's interest and the government's interest at present is getting through two very controversial bills today. They have invoked

closure for one of the first times in this legislative session and one of the first times in this new government's mandate. I am saddened, because these two bills are without a doubt the most

controversial bills that have been brought forward in this Parliament. This Parliament has done many, many things. They have passed bills that people could say are non-consequential, bills that

might have been of some importance, bills that were rushed through, but here we have two bills that follow up on the single most controversial act of this government. The single most controversial

act, I would suggest, without a doubt has been the imposition of a health tax after the government and the Premier, as he was not then but is now, campaigned vigorously in the last election that

there would not be a health tax. He said clearly and succinctly on television, commercial after commercial after commercial, debate after debate after debate, that he would not impose a health tax

and in fact that he found the whole idea of a health tax to be abhorrent.

The two bills we have before us today, Bills 106 and 149, deal in very large measure with this health tax. What is being rammed through today is, in the

public's eye, the single most wrongdoing that this government has embarked upon in its very short history of 14 months. This is the most regressive budget and the most regressive set of bills that

this government has dreamed up in its scant slightly more than a year's existence. It is a regressive budget and it is an unfair budget. It is an unfair health tax. It is an unfair health tax that

has been, along with the other things that they did at the same time -- with the Hydro shuffle; with the reduction of 12% to the various ministries; with the cause of licence fees going up in

Ontario; with the delisting of services for chiropractors, for optometrists, for physiotherapists; with the clawback that they promised to give to the very poor and for children -- that was all but

squelched in the budget, so that families only receive some $89, instead of the $2,800 they had been promised. It is a budget in which the child care promises that they made during the election

were not delivered. It was a budget in which the education benchmarks, which they promised to undertake because of Rozanski, were not met, where virtually no housing has been built in this province

Hon Mr Caplan: How about the gas tax?

Mr Prue: I hear the honourable minister starting to heckle me. The minister of non-housing is heckling me.

I tell you, all this has happened -- shelter allowances that were promised and finally have been delivered to the magnificent sum of some 400 families in

Toronto who are lucky enough to have a shelter allowance, when they promised 32,000 families would have it. At the rate they're going, it will take 87 years to deliver on their promise. This is

what has happened with their budget.

Now, in Bill 106, they talk about instituting a health tax. Well, let's look at the health tax and exactly what it does and exactly who it affects. We all

know, everyone in this House knows, even Liberals will admit if you talk to them privately, that it hurts the poor far more than it hurts the rich. This is not a tax under the Income Tax Act,

which, in ordinary fairness, will tax those people who earn a lot of money more than it will tax people at the bottom. This is a tax that starts to hit people who earn $22,000 a year. A single

parent with a child who earns $22,000 a year in this province lives in poverty, according to the low-income cut-off figures of the federal government. They live in poverty, they live in

destitution, but they pay a portion of the health tax. A family of four with one parent working -- the mother working and the father staying at home with two kids -- who earns $30,000 or $35,000 a

year, pays the mid-range of the health tax. We know from the low-income cut-off figures, if they live in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa or London, that they too live in poverty, but they pay $600 in

health tax. We know how much this is costing; we know how wrong it is. But this is what this government has decided to impose upon the poor, upon the destitute and upon those who cannot afford

it.

They've capped it at $900. So if you're Conrad Black, you pay $900.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): He can't afford it any more.

Mr Prue: The Liberals are defending Conrad Black because he can't afford it any more. That's what I'm hearing. This is a man who can go out

there and rip off thousands, who can find himself in financial trouble, who has millions and billions of dollars, but who, I swear, will not even pay the $900, because as the honourable member has

said, he cannot afford it any more. But some poor person working a little more than minimum wage, with family at home and earning $20,000, will be smacked by you really well, at $300. You're very

proud of that, and you're using closure to force this through.

I will tell you, this is a very heinous thing to be doing. This is

an act that deserves much more public debate.

Interjection.

Mr Prue: I'm being heckled by the member again. He obviously stands in support of Conrad Black and against tens of thousands or hundreds of

thousands of people who earn very little more than the minimum wage and who are about to be whacked.

This is what is being forced and rammed through the Legislature today. This is what they are doing. This is how they are using the power of closure. This is

what they're doing in this Legislature on these two bills. They are taking a real run at ordinary people in Ontario and how they're going to be affected by their regressive budget.

We know what this budget is going to mean to ordinary families. We know their taxes are going up in huge proportion to what they once paid. We know that the

average family is going to see the provincial portion of the taxes they pay go up by 10%, 15%, 20% or 40% more than what they paid in the past as a result of this health tax. We also know that the

people who earn more than $100,000 or more than $200,000 are going to see their portion of tax rise only in the very small percentages of 1%, 2% or 3%. We know this is an unfair tax, but we know

they're using the power of their majority here today to ensure that ordinary, small people get whacked. I want everybody to understand what this is about.

Mr Patten: "Get whacked" -- that's a great expression.

Mr Prue: Yes. It's a great expression and a true expression. With all respect, it is an expression that ordinary people understand, and I wish

the member opposite understood it half so well as they do.

We also have the other bill here, Bill 149. What does it do? It does a whole bunch of really great things for ordinary people too, and it does some really

great things for the super-rich and for very big corporations. What Bill 149 does most of all -- its single claim to fame -- is eliminate the capital tax.

I've heard Tories talk about this, and Liberals now talk about it with the same relish: This is going to help create some jobs in Ontario; this is going to

help small industry meet its payrolls and make the amount of money it needs to be self-sustaining and to grow. But the reality of elimination of the capital tax is that, above all, it's going to

ensure that two large segments of our commercial sector make even more money than they make today. And who are those two large sectors? The first one is the banks -- the six sisters, the Big Six in

Canada -- and the second is the insurance companies.

Let me talk about the banks first of all. I heard the CIBC and the Royal Bank announce this week that it wasn't a very good year for them. They only made

merely $2 billion in profit, each one of them, and the banks overall in Canada made $13 billion in profit.

What the elimination of the capital tax is going to mean to them is that they're going to make even more profit, because in fact in Ontario alone, 25% of the

capital tax is garnered from that industry, so an industry that makes $13 billion in after-tax profit is going to get even more from the McGuinty government. That's what closure is being used for.

So that people understand, the closure is because we feel sorry for the banks; we think that $13 billion is not enough, that we need to make sure they make more.

I see the Minister of Finance shaking his head. He thinks they need to make more, I'm sure, because that's why he is imposing this and taking off the

elimination of the capital tax.

We also know that the insurance companies, those little darlings that claim and cry that they're not making all the money they should be making, and that the

rates aren't high enough and that the $2 billion or more they're making this year, in a turnaround year, is simply not enough, are the second group that is going to benefit from the elimination of

the capital tax.

That's where all this is going. That's what this government is about. That's what Bill 149, in its seminal interest, is all about. It is about eliminating a

capital tax from two groups, I would suggest, that this government knows can afford it, two groups that should be paying their fair share, two groups in our society that need to be paying to keep

the society going in exactly the way we have, in the past, hoped it would go: for ordinary people to have an opportunity to contribute and to take from this society, and for those who earn in the

billions and billions of dollars each year to pay their fair share.

The elimination of the capital tax will cost $1 million this year only, because it's just being implemented, $40 million next year and $110 million the

year after that. That's more than the city of Toronto will need to meet how much money is needs in terms of the shortfall. That's what's being taken out, that's what's happening as a result of the

elimination of the tax laws and the revenue share to Ontario.

The second thing this Bill 149 does is, it ends the PST on a whole range of programs, and the one that's particularly vexatious and troubling to me is ending

the PST rebates for handicapped drivers and their families. It ends a rebate that was instituted many years ago so that when a handicapped driver or a family who needs to equip a vehicle so that he

or she may drive around or ferry members of their family from the house to school or to social events or to doctors' appointments -- that is being eliminated under this bill.

Regular listeners to this program will know that I stood in this House several times over the case of Mr Jason Chenier, who lives in eastern Ontario, and what

was happening to him as a result of the government misinformation about this bill and what was on the Web site and what they were doing. This bill will ensure that the government's plans under the

budget will come to pass, because the money will finally be eliminated, the money that was allocated will go instead to the March of Dimes, it will be means tested and it ignores the great many

Ontarians who are of modest or middle incomes who will no longer be able to equip vehicles they need for themselves and for their families in order to meet their daily lifestyles.

This bill also does other things. The PST rebate on energy efficiency is being done away with. I think this is very short-sighted. Even Toronto Hydro, in the

last couple of days or weeks, has come out with a program to get rid of beer fridges. They understand that the program on the PST rebate for energy efficiency for such old clunkers as beer fridges

is a good idea. This government does not. In fact, it takes away the PST rebate and did so effectively July 2004.

This bill also does one good thing and, perhaps by omission, several other things that are not so good around the securities task. One of the 14

recommendations of the finance committee looking into the Ontario Securities Commission was the extension of civil liability in case of misrepresentations in secondary trades under the Securities

Act, and this is accomplished in this bill. I commend the government on this one point, for doing the right thing. But I have to ask the government: There were 14 recommendations in total; 13 of

them are not in this act. If the government thought that this was a good suggestion, why are the other ones not there? Why is there no separation of the adjudicative function from the policy and

investigations function? Why is there no direct order for restitution? Why is there nothing in there about conflicts of interest? Why is there nothing in there about self-regulating agencies? Why

is there nothing in there about dealers' associations?

I would suggest that the government, in putting forward this bill and acting in such a quiet and unassuming way under the Securities Act, is paying little mor