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

November 24, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Nov-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 24 November 2003 Lundi 24 novembre 2003

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

MEMBERS' ROLL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

OF EASTERN ONTARIO /

CENTRE HOSPITALIER POUR ENFANTS

DE L'EST DE L'ONTARIO

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

HIGHWAY FUNDING

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA GESTION RESPONSABLE DES FINANCES

ANAPHYLACTIC STUDENTS PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ÉLÈVES ANAPHYLACTIQUES

SMOKING IN OPPOSITION LOBBY

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

MEMBERS' RESPONSES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA /

PLAN D'ACTION DU GOUVERNEMENT

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

MEMBERS' SEATING

ORAL QUESTIONS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

LAND USE PLANNING

LAND DEVELOPMENT

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

CHILD POVERTY

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that Mr Eves, the member for the electoral district of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey,

is recognized as the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

MEMBERS' ROLL

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has laid upon the table the roll of members elected in the general

election of 2003.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Excuses and broken promises. I was shocked this past week when I heard comments from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. When asked why this government was breaking yet another one of their campaign promises, he responded, "Perhaps we were too naive." For the Liberal government to simply plead

ignorance as an excuse for not living up to lofty campaign promises is simply unacceptable.

Let's look for a minute at the Liberal promise to balance the provincial budget. One of Mr McGuinty's first actions after being elected was to hire a consultant

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. May I ask that the member make his statement so you can all hear.

Mr Dunlop: -- with limited terms of reference in order to try to convince Ontarians that balancing the 2003-04 budget could not be done.

Well, Mr McGuinty's blame-game deficit does not hold water with Ontario taxpayers. Based on our government's balanced budget plan and what the Premier has

promised as part of his fiscal agenda, the Liberal government could run as much as a $3.5-billion surplus. All the Premier and the Minister of Finance have to do is start showing up for work and

accepting the responsibility entrusted to them by the voters of Ontario.

Come clean, Mr McGuinty. You could balance the budget if you had the political will. It can be done. But of course it is always easier for a Liberal to break

their word to Ontarians than to show up for work and make tough decisions. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the mantra of the government is excuses, broken promises and tax hikes.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mr Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your election. I am sure you will preside over this House

with fairness and impartiality.

The people of Ontario wanted a change. As the first Liberal member ever elected to represent the riding of London-Fanshawe, I am proud to be a part of that

change. It's my privilege to serve the people of London-Fanshawe, and I will do this to the very best of my ability.

A society can only be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. I am proud to represent a party that is committed to bettering the lives of all

Ontarians and that recognizes the government's responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable, including children and the economically disadvantaged. The Liberal government of Premier

McGuinty is committed to accessible public health care, an improved education system in this province, fairer taxation, and to working with people rather than against them.

The commitments that Premier McGuinty and our Liberal government have made will serve my constituents of London-Fanshawe well, as they will everyone in this

province. I'm proud to be part of this government.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): Excuses, broken promises and tax hikes: This is what Ontarians can expect from this Liberal

government.

In the eight weeks since this government was elected, they have shattered the record book when it comes to breaking promises. Since October 2, all we have heard

from the Liberals is, "Balancing the budget is too hard," or "Perhaps we were too naive," or, my personal favourite, "This is not the job we signed up for."

Let's be clear: Being the government is not easy. It requires strong political will and the ability to make difficult decisions, something we haven't seen in the

first few weeks of this government.

Mr McGuinty claimed throughout the campaign that he had $3 billion of savings in his financial plan. Where has the money gone? The Minister of Finance has also

said that he's going to introduce Liberal tax hikes that will result in half a billion dollars of revenue this year. Where will this money be spent?

Mr McGuinty recently announced that he had sold out to his federal cousins by accepting $300 million in SARS relief. This is much less --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I'm having difficulty hearing the member from Kitchener-Waterloo. She has a right to make her statement.

Please allow her to do that.

Mrs Witmer: I was talking about SARS relief and selling out to the federal cousins. The $300 million is far less than the $500 million offered

to our previous health minister. Perhaps Mr McGuinty should stand up to his federal friends on behalf of all Ontarians.

Come on, Premier: no more excuses. Get to work, roll up your sleeves and balance the budget. We demonstrated that it could and can be done.

The Speaker: I will recognize an independent, as someone requested earlier on, but I will rotate first and recognize someone from the government

side now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's the government side in the rotation.

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

OF EASTERN ONTARIO /

CENTRE HOSPITALIER POUR ENFANTS

DE L'EST DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): It is both a pleasure and privilege for me to stand before the Legislature today and speak

about our government's commitment of keeping the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario's pediatric services open. During the election campaign our Premier, Dalton McGuinty, vowed to keep the unit

in Ottawa and he has kept that commitment. In the wake of the Tory government's decision last year to consider moving the cardiac surgery program to Toronto, several well-known cardiologists left,

based on this threat over CHEO's future. Now I am pleased to see the hiring of 15 additional doctors, a new group of pediatric experts, at CHEO. I wish to commend CHEO's chief of staff and everyone

responsible for recruiting highly qualified physicians once again at CHEO.

Je suis fier de la communauté de l'est de l'Ontario qui s'est ralliée en faveur de CHEO. L'appui aux services de chirurgie cardiaque de l'Hôpital

pour enfants de l'est de l'Ontario et les imposantes manifestations en sa faveur furent des preuves tangibles de l'attachement de la population envers son hôpital pour enfants.

I was touched by the support at the CHEO rally that we had in Casselman last year. Its success was reflected by the presence of a well-known strong supporter for

our children, Max Keeping from CJOH.

En terminant, j'aimerais réitérer l'engagement de tous nos députés, de notre gouvernement, à garder ce service unique dans l'est de

l'Ontario.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): With the holiday season fast approaching, Ontarians can expect a big lump of coal in their stockings in

the form of the largest tax hike in the history of our province. Despite the Liberal promise to hold the line on taxes, the Minister of Finance will be introducing billions of dollars in tax hikes

in the coming days, at the risk of causing a faltering economy, lost jobs and less money in the wallets of taxpayers.

Ontarians are asking, "Why would the Liberal government do this?" Well, the answer is simple. The Liberals think tax hikes are some sort of magic bean that will

make all of their problems go away. They don't want to make the tough decisions that are necessary to balance the provincial books, so they're going to try and buy their way out of debt by hiking

taxes, hiking hydro rates and breaking the 200-plus promises they made during the recent election.

We know the budget can be balanced, but the Liberal government won't admit that. Their blame-game deficit provides a convenient excuse to break their promises

and to hike taxes. Balancing the budget takes commitment and the political will to make tough decisions, two traits this government appears to be lacking. Instead of whining, pointing fingers and

selling out to their federal counterparts, the Premier and the Minister of Finance need to start taking responsibility for their actions, roll up their sleeves and get to work.

The Liberals say they are about change. Well, it's time for Mr McGuinty to change his tune and start standing up for Ontarians. Come on, Dalton. Balance the

budget this year. It can be done. Ontarians don't want any more of your excuses.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): Let me say, on behalf of the people of Scarborough, that the Speaker's chair has never looked better, and

we're all very proud of you.

I'm pleased to rise today to express my congratulations to all those who were elected and to all those who were re-elected in the recent municipal elections on

November 10. This is an exciting and challenging time for municipal representatives across this province and certainly in my home city of Toronto.

I wish our newly elected mayor, David Miller, and his new Toronto council well in meeting their considerable challenges facing our city today. In particular I

congratulate Glenn De Baeremaeker, who will be taking my place in ward 38, and Michael Thompson, who will be taking our colleague Lorenzo Berardinetti's place in ward 37, in my riding of

Scarborough Centre. They're both very capable, hard-working individuals and I'm sure they'll do an excellent job.

As we enter a new era of federal, provincial and municipal co-operation, I look forward to working closely with newly elected councillors De Baeremaeker,

Thompson and all municipal representatives across the province in serving the needs of our local communities.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Mr Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate you on your election to the chair.

Halloween may be over, but the Liberal government's tricks are still coming, as Ontarians are treated to a bagful of broken promises. First of these was the

blame-game phony deficit. Key to the blame game is a little exercise we're calling "hide the revenue," a trick that would make any self-respecting accountant blush. The latest evidence: $771

million in federal health money that must be paid out of federal coffers by the end of this fiscal year, yet these dollars are nowhere to be found in the finance minister's expected revenues this

year. Why?

Perhaps they're being rolled into next year to pay for subsidized housing, an idea endorsed by the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal a few years ago. In

1999, Mr Caplan told the Guelph Mercury, and I quote: "The federal government has given the province $895 million more than they need for health care. That could be used for housing. That's a big

chunk of dough." Yes, $771 million is a big chunk of dough. Ontarians deserve to know where it is and where it's going.

What about the proceeds of the Teranet sale? Even the Liberals realized this would generate significant revenue. That's why they talked about selling it during

the election, until they realized it already had been sold. Teranet was sold for more than $300 million, yet in the finance minister's books, nearly $200 million of that revenue is missing. Where

is this revenue totalling nearly $1 billion, or perhaps it would be more precise to ask, where are these dollars going to be spent next year? Ontarians have the right to know. The new government

must come clean.

HIGHWAY FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): The joint transportation announcement made this past Friday by our government's Minister of Transportation and the

federal Minister of Transport exemplifies a new era of co-operation between the provincial and federal governments. By working with his federal counterpart, our Minister of Transportation

accomplished a great deal in the short period of time since being sworn in.

The six-laning of Highway 401 between Tilbury and Windsor in my riding of Essex has been a long time coming. This stretch of highway has required improvements

for some time, but apparently the previous government could not even reach an internal agreement about the projects, let alone come to an agreement with the federal government.

Because of the previous government's unwillingness to co-operate, Highway 401 users waited far too long for these necessary safety improvements to begin. Rather

than simply blaming the federal government for all of our problems, Ontarians have signalled that they want the McGuinty government to work co-operatively with all levels of government.

The announcement made Friday shows us all what can be accomplished when two governments put aside the bickering and finger pointing and work together for a

common goal. The residents of my riding will soon see the benefits of this new relationship, and I am confident that this past Friday's announcement is just the first of many to come.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I too rise today to address the Liberals' bogus deficit -- their justification for breaking promises;

this government's unwillingness to face the facts and its blatant refusal to do any work on behalf of Ontarians. I want to quote an excerpt from the Toronto Star: "We have until Christmas to

demonize the Tories. After that, we can't do it any more." That was a statement made by a Liberal insider to the press.

I'd like to submit to you, Mr Speaker, that since the government has taken office, that has been its primary goal, to demonize the former government, not to get

on with the job. Last summer, the then Liberal finance critic announced in committee that his party was under the impression that there was a $5-billion deficit. That was in June.

In September, the first act of this new Premier was to hire a private consultant at $1,500 a day, instead of using the acting Provincial Auditor. He did this so

he could tell him that if his government did nothing over the remaining six months of the fiscal year, there would indeed be a deficit of some $5 billion, something they claimed they already

knew.

I submit to you, Mr Speaker, that the actions of this government have been nothing more than a cynical ploy to attempt to demonize the past administration.

Someone needs to inform the Premier that he needs to stop acting like an opposition member and get on with the work in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I stand here as a New Democrat to say a couple of things in regard to what this government has done in its

recent election. I remember sitting here with them in opposition, and I remember the debate of the Liberals when they sat on this side of the House --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Well, not with them, but we were at least on the same side of the House. I remember some of the things that they talked about. For

example, I remember their position on hydro. In the last election, if I closed my eyes and I listened, I would sometimes think they were campaigning as New Democrats. What did they say during the

election? That they were going to keep the rate cap in place.

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Duncan, you'll get your chance; don't worry, we'll bring it to you. But what ends up in the end? During the election the Liberals

said, "We're going to keep the rate cap in place." What have they done since? The rate cap is going to be gone. Our hydro bills are going to go through the roof, because this Liberal administration

broke one of the fundamental promises in their campaign document and they're taking the rate cap off.

But it's not finished there. They say, "We don't believe in privatization," depending on what day of the week it is, because we know they flip-flopped so many

times when they were Liberals, on this side of the House, that they at least have to keep their tradition when they go on the other side. We've got to hope that they flip-flop and reverse their

position again. But the Liberals are now saying they're basically going to allow electricity prices to go to market conditions -- a heck of a difference from what I heard the Liberals talk about

when they were in opposition, to what I hear them talking about when they're government. It goes to prove that they campaign like New Democrats but they govern like Tories.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent, on behalf of the Queen's Park press

gallery, to adjourn for 15 minutes and allow the Premier to keep his commitment to have a 15-minute scrum right now.

The Speaker: I heard a no. Sorry.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA GESTION RESPONSABLE DES FINANCES

Mr Sorbara moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 2,

An Act respecting fiscal responsibility / Projet de loi 2, Loi concernant la gestion responsable des finances.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a 5-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1353 to 1358.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those who oppose, please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Mr Sorbara?

Hon Gregory S. Sorbara (Minister of Finance): It's an honour to introduce our government's second piece of legislation, the Fiscal

Responsibility Act, 2003. It's an important step toward keeping our core commitment to get the province's financial house back in order. We made that commitment because it's the foundation of

everything else that Ontarians want us to do. That includes excellence in public education, improving our health care system, strengthening our communities and, obviously, creating a more

prosperous economy.

Bill 2 speaks to what is the most important job of our government: strengthening the foundation for change. It is a significant piece of legislation and a

large step toward fiscal responsibility in this province.

ANAPHYLACTIC STUDENTS PROTECTION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES ÉLÈVES ANAPHYLACTIQUES

Mr Levac moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students / Loi visant à protéger les élèves anaphylactiques.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have got it. Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1404 to 1409.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): All those who are in favour of this bill, please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 91; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the House's confidence in this bill. The bill requires that every school principal establish a school

anaphylactic plan. The plan would, among other things, develop and maintain strategies to reduce the risk of exposure that could result in anaphylactic shock at the school, communicate information

about life-threatening allergies, arrange for training, develop emergency procedures for each anaphylactic student, and maintain current information on file. With consent, school staff could

administer or supervise the administration of medication that is required to be taken during the school day to save a life. In the event of an emergency involving an anaphylactic student, school

staff would be permitted to administer medication without consent. No action for damages resulting from administering medication would be permitted unless the damages were as a result of gross

negligence.

This could save a life.

SMOKING IN OPPOSITION LOBBY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of privilege arising from today's proceedings, Mr Speaker: Last week we heard some lofty

words in the throne speech respecting the dangers of second-hand smoke and cigarette smoking. We have heard other comments today with respect to the increase in the tobacco tax to 74%. I would ask

you, Mr Speaker, to look into an incident that occurred in the official opposition lobby today when a member of the executive council --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Name the member.

Mr Runciman: -- the member for Don Valley East, I believe -- came into the opposition lobby smoking, was asked by members of staff to leave

the premises and refused to do so. I think that is an affront to all of us and certainly a contradiction of the very lofty statements made by the government. Let's hope they're not hollow

words.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you very much for raising the point. I hope the members have heard that and adhere to the policy of the

Legislature.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I implore you to be firm with members about their flagrant violation of the

rules around this place. I'm sure I speak for many people who are in recovery and have quit that filthy habit and find the presence of smokers and their smoke to be dangerous, not only to my own

health but to the health of --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. I'm sure the member will adhere to the caution raised by the previous member.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 pm to 9:30 pm on November 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2003, for the purpose of considering government business.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Could I ask the member not to anticipate me.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against the motion, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

There will be a 5-minute bell.

The bells rang from 1417 to 1422.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Murdoch, Bill

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 86; the nays are 8.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

MEMBERS' RESPONSES

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Notwithstanding the standing orders, the

Premier is about to give a statement, and I would seek unanimous consent to allow the NDP members up to a total of five minutes to respond to the Premier's statement.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): All in favour? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA /

PLAN D'ACTION DU GOUVERNEMENT

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I rise to make a statement about Strengthening the Foundation for

Change. That's the title of the throne speech that was delivered by His Honour in this House, and that is what we intend to do. But as this is my first opportunity to speak in this session, I want

to acknowledge a few groups and one individual.

The first -- always first -- is the people of Ontario. I want to thank them for the privilege they have bestowed upon us. To be asked to govern by Ontarians is

a responsibility we take very seriously.

The second group I want to acknowledge is the members of this House. To be sent here by our communities is an honour that I know we all cherish.

Congratulations to all of you.

Finally, I congratulate our new Speaker. I believe I speak today for all members of the House -- and that may prove to be a rare occurrence -- when I say how

confident I am that you will do a tremendous job.

Our new government's job is to deliver real, positive change and to strengthen the foundation for even more profound change in the future. That's what our

throne speech is all about. Our new government believes strongly that we can have excellence for all in public education, with lower class sizes and higher student achievement; we can deliver the

health care we need, with more nurses, family doctors and hospital beds; we can grow strong communities that are safe, livable and clean; and we can change how government works so that government

works for the people of Ontario. These are our commitments to the people of Ontario, and we are keeping them.

Already, we are delivering real, positive change. We have acted to stop new applications for auto insurance rate hikes. We've restored local democracy to our

schools. We have taken planned private hospitals and ensured they are publicly owned and publicly operated. We have forged a new, constructive relationship with other governments. Our positive

approach has brought positive results on SARS funding, on health care funding and on highway construction. Of course, we've only just begun. As the throne speech attests, we have an ambitious

agenda ahead of us.

In education, we plan to tackle bullying, making our schools safer, and we plan to introduce character education. We will ask this House to debate and pass

legislation to express our rock-solid commitment to public education by cancelling the previous government's tax giveaway to private schools.

In health care, we plan to introduce more accountability for health care dollars. We're going to take steps to give the medical officer of health greater

independence, and we will move to curb tobacco use among our youth. We will introduce legislation that shows our rock-solid commitment to universal medicare. Our legislation will, if passed, stop

the previous government's creeping privatization of health care by making two-tier, pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care illegal in the province of Ontario.

To build a stronger economy and a stronger workforce, we will freeze tuition for two years, improve access to trades and professions, introduce legislation to

end the previous government's legislated 60-hour workweek, and bring forward a plan to ensure stable and reliable electricity.

We will act to ban the waste of taxpayers' dollars on partisan political advertising.

Pour renforcer nos collectivités, nous avons prévu la création d'une ceinture verte permanente dans la région du Golden Horseshoe,

l'interdiction du rejet de boues toxiques non traitées, la protection de notre eau potable et de nos ressources en eau douce, ainsi que des mesures pour faire cesser l'étalement

urbain.

Il s'agit sans doute d'un programme ambitieux. Il est ambitieux parce que nous sommes ambitieux pour la population de l'Ontario et que celle-ci attend beaucoup

de son nouveau gouvernement.

The people of Ontario understand, as do we, that to keep the breadth of our commitments we must keep one of our core commitments. We must get the province's

fiscal house in order. We made that commitment because it is the foundation on which all of our commitments are based. More importantly, it is the foundation on which our schools and hospitals and

communities, and indeed our families, operate. These are the things that matter most to Ontarians, because they strengthen their families and bolster their future.

We will keep that commitment not simply because we understand the value of a dollar, but because we understand the values of Ontarians. We will do it in a way

that is in keeping with their values: not on the backs of the most vulnerable among us, but by drawing upon the strength of all of us working together.

Ontarians are doing their job. Our economy is strong. But as Mr Peters told us in his independent report, the budgetary position of the province is weak,

weaker than anyone anticipated. We did not create the $5.6-billion Tory deficit, but we will eliminate it, working with Ontarians. We must eliminate it, because it threatens the public services

Ontarians have now, it threatens all that we want for Ontario, and it's in the way of delivering all the real, positive changes Ontarians chose on October 2.

We've got a job to do and we're going to do it -- in the right way, for the right reasons, for the best people: the men, women and children of Ontario, whom we

are all privileged to serve. We will not paper over this problem with money we do not have, we will not try to make it disappear with accounting tricks, and we will never sit on our hands and do

nothing. What we will do in this session, what we will always do, is deliver real, positive change and strengthen the foundation for even more profound change in the future. We will fulfill the

mandate we all share: to make this province the envy of the world once again.

Mr Ernie Eves (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of this Legislative

Assembly. I think it marks a very significant day in the history of this province.

Not too long ago, the people of this province knew that when political leaders went out and campaigned, they could rely upon them to deliver after an election

what they promised before an election. Our government changed that in 1995. Unfortunately, the government of the day doesn't seem to be able to get that message. They made 231 promises, by a very

conservative account, during the course of the election campaign, and all we've heard since then is what promises they cannot deliver on. They're even taking credit, in the statement the Premier

just read, for actions that were taken by the previous government.

For example, "We have acted to stop new applications for auto insurance rate hikes." Too bad that was already done on July 2 of this year. All they had to do

was leave in place the regulations that were there. I understand that either they already have undone or they have plans to undo one of the three regulations that were passed to give effect to a

reduction in auto insurance rates. By the way, during the campaign, Mr Premier, you promised to reduce -- not to freeze -- auto insurance rates by 20%. When are you going to deliver on that

promise, not to freeze them where they are today -- 20% higher -- but to deliver on your 20% reduction?

It looks like P3 hospitals still live in the province of Ontario, despite the fact that the Premier and his party campaigned against them. The only difference

is that these P3 hospitals are going to cost more than the other hospitals were going to cost.

They talk about the Canada Health Act, that they're going to introduce some bogus, phony piece of legislation that's going to try to indicate that they're

protecting the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario always have been protected by the Canada Health Act. Nothing this government does or doesn't do is going to change that. But I look forward

to seeing what they're going to do with respect to their principles around X-ray clinics, kidney dialysis clinics, MRIs and other services that have been delivered by the private sector under the

envelope of the Canada Health Act for many years and decades in the province of Ontario. I gather that, being true to their principles, they're going to turf all of those, and the people of Ontario

will be in a great dilemma; or they're going to have to go back on their principles. Of course, that wouldn't be a big surprise, as we are seeing.

They talk about making schools safer. Coming from a party that voted against the Safe Schools Act, that's a little hard to take. What steps have they taken in

their 33 days in office to actually reduce the deficit number this year? We all understand that there's a challenge. It's not every year we're going to have two bouts of SARS, a blackout, mad cow

and West Nile. Speaking of the latter, we look forward to comparing your record on West Nile to our record on West Nile this past year. I'm looking forward to that.

In your platform, the Premier indicated that he knew what the numbers were this year. He accepted this year's numbers. He said that he could find an instant $2

billion in savings and that he'd still have a $1-billion surplus. So where is that $3 billion that you knew was there when people voted for you on October 2?

With all due respect, we look forward to having a constructive role and actually making the government live up to every one of its 231 campaign promises.

Sooner would be better, rather than later.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I took great interest in the economic facts mentioned by the Premier in his statement. This is the Premier

who looked taxpayers in the eye in all those television commercials and said, "I won't raise your taxes." Well, we read this book today, and he's raising taxes on our small businesses, the

job-creation engine of the Ontario economy. He's raising taxes on senior citizens, when this former government wanted to make it easier for them to stay in their own homes. He's raising taxes on

young working families, people who wanted to realize the dream of home ownership. But today, with the introduction of this bill, that dream is extinguished.

He's raising taxes on tobacco to 74%, and all that those of us on this side of the House can say is, if that was good to do today, why wasn't it good enough to

talk about on election day? But we know there are two agendas: There is one agenda that they presented to get votes on election day and there's another agenda that they're presenting on the floor

of the Legislature here at Queen's Park.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I'll now recognize the member from the independents, Mr Hampton.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Speaker, to be sure, I am a New Democrat, and I am the leader of the New Democrats.

Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your election as Speaker, although, as you know, we wanted you to have some opposition in that vote so you would have

greater currency. We wanted you to win the vote. Nonetheless, we wish you well.

I want to say a few words to the Premier. Premier, I know that your media advisers told you today that you had to stand up and give the values speech, so

you've given the values speech. But the reality is, you now have to govern. The reality is that even before you are into your first question period, your government already has a record. The record

is that you've already broken dozens of promises before your first question period.

I just want to provide some reality check to the image speech that you were told to give. The reality check is this: Your government wants to pretend that

suddenly there is a deficit. But, Premier, I was in the estimates committee with your then finance critic, now Chair of Management Board, and I've got the transcript, page 22. In this questioning

of the then Finance Minister, Mr Phillips raises a number of issues. He says there's a $2.2-billion revenue problem because of asset sales. There's $700 million of in-year savings that hasn't been

found. There's $620 million of lower-than-expected revenue because of a failure of economic growth. He then says there's $770 million of money which should come from the federal government for

health care which isn't coming. Then he says there's an $800-million SARS problem. At the end of that, your then finance critic added it up and said, "My, it looks like there's a $5-billion-plus

deficit." That was your finance critic.

On June 3, six months ago, notwithstanding his admission that the previous government was headed for a $5-billion-plus deficit, you and your candidates went

out and promised over 231 big spending commitments. You promised that you would lower the tolls on 407. You promised you would keep the hydro rate cap. You promised that you would save the Oak

Ridges moraine from housing. You promised that auto insurance premiums would be reduced. You promised 8,000 new nurses. You promised money for schools, knowing there was a $5-billion-plus deficit

already.

Now is the time when you'll be questioned on this. I just want to note that. I just want to note --

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: I must have struck a nerve. Sorry.

The Speaker: When the Premier was making his presentation, I think they gave him the courtesy that everybody could hear. I'm having difficulty

now hearing Mr Hampton.

Mr Hampton: I just want to say that the Premier, in his speech, referred to character education in our schools. I would say, Premier, that

your government needs to set an example. Don't make promises you can't keep. Don't make promises knowing you won't be able to keep them, because you already knew of a $5-billion deficit. Your

finance critic knew about. Everybody who was in the estimates committee that day knew about it. Heck, even the Fraser Institute knew about it. It was widely known. So my advice: If you now want to

talk about character education, don't make promises you can't keep. Tell the truth. That's what people want to hear. Tell the truth.

The Speaker: Mr Hampton, you know that your comment was not proper. Would you mind withdrawing that, please.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, I'm speaking prospectively, into the future --

The Speaker: I ask you again.

Mr Hampton: I withdraw.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, I have two points of order. The first is brief and I make it in goodwill, acknowledging that

there are many new members here, and that is for the Speaker to note the maxim that a member must never refer to another member by name, but by electoral district or ministry; that is, the member

for Kenora-Rainy River, or in the case of ministries --

Interjection: The Chair of Management Board.

Mr Kormos: -- the Chair of Management Board. One does not, of course, refer to each other by name. I do not refer to Ms Churley --

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): NDP.

Mr Kormos: Ms Churley-NDP, nor do I refer to the Liberal member from a particular riding -- from Manitoulin etc -- or to the Conservative

member. I refer to the member and their riding, or I refer to the minister.

I raise that point of order, Speaker, knowing that you would want to assist all members, especially the new members of this assembly, in refraining from what

is an entirely inappropriate practice, but one which all persons here, even with some experience, slip into by not appropriately referring to a member. That's my first point of order.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, member for Niagara Centre. As we know, we just came through an election and quite a number of members here

are new. And to memorize all that -- I think it is well taken and that we should try our best to refer to individuals by their ridings. Therefore, your point is well taken. I hope that no one did

it in any way to disgrace or deface the order of Parliament itself.

MEMBERS' SEATING

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I indicated to you on Thursday that we would be raising this point of

order. I want to tell you at the onset that I was very carefully considering whether this was more appropriately a point of privilege or a point of order. I submit to you that it is more properly a

point of order, albeit a novel one, and one that I'm not aware of having been dealt with in this chamber before. The point is with respect to the seating of members in this chamber.

I put to you firstly, Speaker -- and I can tell you that I anticipate over the course of the next weeks, perhaps months, making frequent references to this

excerpt from Griffith and Ryle on Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures, Second Edition, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2003. This is a very important premise, a very important premise, that I

quote: "It is worth re-emphasizing that any assessment of the achievement of the Parliament must start from the clear recognition ... that Parliament does not govern the country but is the forum

for the public debate and criticism of the policies and acts of government. Parliament's achievement, therefore, must be measured by its success in providing such a forum and in exercising such

criticism."

First, addressing what I believe is axiomatic but warrants brief reference, Speaker, is your authority over seating arrangements. I submit to you that it is

the Speaker in this Legislature who determines seating arrangements. I make reference first to the well-known and very recent work by Robert Marleau and co-author Montpetit, House of Commons

Procedure and Practice, page 183. I quote again: "Members are allocated their seats and desks in the House under the authority of the Speaker but on the advice of the whips of the recognized

parties ... following negotiations....

"Members representing the governing party traditionally occupy those seats to the right of the Chair, with the Prime Minister and other ministers seated in the

front rows. Private members, otherwise known as backbenchers, representing the governing party are customarily seated according to their seniority or length of service in the House within their

caucus. If the number of members representing the governing party exceeds the number of desks on the right side, the overflow, or `rump,' of government members occupies those seats across the

aisle. This

section may, at the discretion of the Speaker, be near the chair or at the far end of the chamber."

Of course, Marleau, being the authoritative author that he is, with his incredible experience, footnotes that.

I'm going to get to what I call the bifurcated or split rump in just a minute.

Beauchesne: another Canadian authority, and I refer to Beauchesne's Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th edition, page 36. I want you to note

that this is the latest edition, published in 1989, prior to subsequent rulings by the Speaker of the federal House, including rulings in 1994 by Speaker Parent and of course the well-known ruling

of 2001, with which everyone is familiar. That is, "Members are allocated desks in the chamber by the Speaker on the advice of party whips who, in turn, have the concurrence of their leaders. By

custom, the centre of the first two rows of desks on the Speaker's right are reserved for ministers. The front row on the Speaker's left is reserved for the leading members of the opposition

parties. Each opposition party is allocated a proportionate number of front desks as they have elected members in the House."

Page 37 deals with the rump: "If the majority party has more members than there are desks on the Speaker's right, then the remaining government members occupy

desks across the aisle. This

section may, at the discretion of the Speaker, be near the chair or at the far end of the chamber and is commonly referred to as the rump." Marleau, Beauchesne.

Erskine May, the British authority -- and of course everyone in this chamber is familiar with Erskine May. We have to note that in Westminster, in the British

Parliament, which has hundreds of members and nowhere near enough accommodations -- there are the benches, of course -- there are no assigned seats for private members, or what we colloquially call

backbenchers. I am referring to Erskine May, 1997, 22nd edition, page 178: "In the Commons no place is allotted to any member," as I just indicated, "but by custom the front bench, on the right

hand of the chair, called the treasury bench or government front bench, is appropriated for the members of the administration. The front bench on the opposite side, though other members

occasionally sit there, is reserved by convention for the leading members of the opposition."

Now take us to Griffith and Ryle once again. I quoted from Griffith and Ryle as part of the preface. Once again, Griffith and Ryle, Sweet and Maxwell,

published 2003. Erskine May has not had new editions in some considerable length of time, but not for as long as Bourinot, and I'm going to get to Bourinot in 1916 in just a minute. Griffith and

Ryle, page 196: "To the right of the Speaker sit ministers on the front bench, and behind and around them the backbenchers of the government party. To the Speaker's left are the opposition

front-bench spokesmen and their supporters. Below the gangway ... on the opposition side there are also benches for members of smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish, Welsh

and Ulster parties." Once again, "smaller parties," not necessarily recognized parties for the purpose of funding, under the standing orders and rules of the British Parliament -- notwithstanding

that, still opposition parties.

Australia -- I refer to the work House of Representatives Practice, 3rd edition, edited by L. M. Barlin, published 1997, page 83:

"In many respects the functioning of the House is based on the clear-cut division between government and opposition; that is, the opposing political parties,

and the working arrangements and conduct of business reflect this. An obvious recognition of this historical development is the seating arrangement in the House with government members sitting to

the right of the Speaker's chair and opposition members to the left."

Bourinot, last edition, 1916, published by Canada Law Book Co here in Toronto, a Canadian authority and one of the best-established Canadian authorities --

Bourinot, the 4th edition, page 156 -- this is 1916 and this illustrates how long this practice has been in existence, this tradition, this convention, in fact, as Marleau would speak of it, an

order, by virtue of the common law, by virtue of practice.

"The members of the two houses are provided with seats and desks, to which is affixed a card with the name of the member to whom it has been allotted. The

members of the privy council and the members supporting the administration of the day occupy places to the right of the Speaker, as far as they can be accommodated, and the members of the

opposition to the left."

I had occasion to take a look at seating plans going back to the early part of the last century, indeed going so far back that the gallery on this side was

referred to as the "ladies' gallery," while the gallery on this side was referred to as the "public gallery," which I suppose, in a sad way, reflected some of the unfortunate values of the

time.

But let me take you through this, because this deals with the bifurcated rump. Marleau makes reference to the bifurcated rump as having occurred in the federal

Parliament. Marleau notes that there were several occasions in the 35th Parliament when the overflow of government members sat to the immediate left of the Speaker, and that is to say at the end of

the chamber closest to the Speaker, but, I say to you, not in such a way as to interrupt or form a wall or a barrier between other opposition members.

During the 24th Parliament, 1958 to 1962, the overflow of government members sat to the left of the Speaker at the far end of the chamber. During the 33rd

Parliament, 1984 to 1988, when there were 211 government members, the overflow of government members was situated both immediately to the left of the chair -- closest to you, Speaker -- and at the

far end of the left side of the chamber.

Interjection: Bifurcated.

Mr Kormos: Bifurcated rump, a split rump -- effectively splitting the overflow of government members to bookend those members of the

opposition parties. Now, please, sir, I didn't author the name "rump" and so I don't use that in any way that is disparaging to the members supporting the government who find themselves in the

rump.

Look what happened in 1949. In 1949, we had a bifurcated or split rump for the first time that I'm aware of here in the province of Ontario. The Conservative

government had a rump which occupied the place in the House farthest away from the Speaker. The CCF -- the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation -- sat to the Speaker's left, on the opposition

benches. Next to them sat the Liberal Party, including one Liberal-Labour member, identified as such in the seating plan. I just mention that as an interesting observation: a Liberal-Labour member

-- not a member of the Liberal Party, but a member of the Liberal-Labour Party. Then even two Labour-Progressive members -- and those people who are students of the history of this great place will

recall Joe Salsberg and A.A. MacLeod -- sat to the immediate left of the third party. So you see, in 1949 we had a rump that sat at the far end. We had three groups of opposition members, with two

members identified on the seating plan as Labour-Progressive, but nonetheless to the immediate left of the third party.

What I'm suggesting to you is that the documentation demonstrates that the seating plan that has been convention has been one of the official opposition; to

their immediate left, the third party; and then to their immediate left, descendingly, other opposition parties or even groups of opposition members.

In 1951, a very similar scenario. We haven't reached the split rump yet. In 1951, once again, two Labour-Progressives with a Tory rump at the far end of the

chamber, CCF, Liberal, including the Liberal-Labour member sitting with the Liberal caucus -- most interesting -- and identified as Liberal-Labour on the seating plan.

In 1952, the first split rump, as mentioned, in the federal Parliament occurring the one time. Understand why that happened. In that respect, Roderick Lewis's

book The House Was My Home, published in 1987 -- and I know that everyone here has read this. If new members haven't read it -- I'm serious -- I urge it upon you. Lewis explained that there were

three split rumps of three successive Parliaments in the early 1950s.

On page 11, he writes, "Of course there have been a number of occasions when the government was supported by a very large majority when a

section on the

opposition side had to be allotted to members of the government party, such a

section being commonly called a rump. While members of the government party of course do not like sitting on the

opposite side it does not present the same difficulties for them as it would for opposition members being seated on the government side." Lewis clearly makes note of the problematic and truly

unprecedented phenomenon of opposition members -- he uses the language very clearly -- in effect being seated on the government side. "The most unusual arrangement arose during the Parliament of

1951 to 1955." He goes on to explain. What had happened is that Premiers and official opposition leaders had historically sat at the Speaker's right but close to the Speaker. Premier Leslie Frost

thought the imagery of being surrounded by his backbenchers was more dramatic, and Premier Leslie Frost moved the Premier's chair to the centre of the government benches.

Lewis indicates on page 12, "As has been stated Mr Frost had moved his seat to the approximate location of the Premier's seat in the present House with the

Leader of the Opposition opposite so that the 10 members of the opposition were grouped in a small

section surrounding the opposition leader and there were two blocks of government members, one to

the left and one to the right of the opposition."

We've got that in 1951, as I showed you. We've got it in 1952, once again. Here we have but two CCFers not sent off into the nether lands, but located where

convention and tradition indicate they should be in their appropriate position to the left of the next-largest opposition party.

To 1953: a bifurcated split rump, once again the Liberals being the official opposition, including one identified Liberal-Labour Party member, two CCFers, and

once again Joe Salsberg, Labour-Progressive, not off to another part of this chamber, but following that succession of opposition party, third-party and then increasingly smaller numbers.

In 1955, the last bifurcated rump, but three CCFers sitting to the immediate left of the official opposition with the split rump so as to not interrupt the

opposition benches.

In 1960, no need for a split rump, but once again five CCFers, not with a rump separating the two groups of opposition members but the five CCFers being in

their appropriate, historical, traditional and conventional role to the immediate left of the Liberal official opposition.

In 1964, 27th Parliament, same scenario.

In 1968, 28th Parliament, same scenario.

In 1971, 29th Parliament, same scenario.

In 1975 there was no rump.

In 1977, 31st Parliament, no rump.

In 1981, no rump.

Indeed, the next rump was in 1987, and the last rump prior to this government, 1987 through 1990, and once again, as has been indicated in parliaments

throughout the British Commonwealth, the rump is at one end or the other. In 1987, with that majority government, the rump found itself at the far end of the chamber and not separating the two

groups of opposition members.

Speaker, I put to you to that it is clear that this matter of seating is within your authority. You are the final word on where members sit.

I want to indicate to you that the Clerk's office advised me on two successive days, first on November 17 and then on November 18, of proposed seating plans

which had the Liberal rump in this unconventional, untraditional and unprecedented place. I wrote to the Clerk on November 18 expressing our concerns about separating two opposition groups by a

government rump and indeed endorsing either the split rump of 52 to 55 or in fact calling for convention to be complied with.

In wrapping up, this isn't just a matter of convention, and convention alone. Convention is important in this institution; not to say there isn't evolution, of

course not, but convention and tradition are important. Convention and precedent have the power of standing orders, but there are some practical reasons for this.

Quite frankly, Speaker, you know as a result of your considerable tenure and experience here that from time to time opposition parties are required to

collaborate. I recall one occasion where, although the third party was sitting as the third party, it was a member of the official opposition who, during a very contentious debate, stood firm in

his seat and remained there through the night. And there was significant collaboration, as you may recall, Speaker, between the third party and the official opposition.

There are other occasions when, because of the common role -- and that's what gets back to my first reference to Griffith and Ryle in that the design of this

place is not for the government to govern. The government doesn't govern out of Parliament. Rather, Parliament is a forum where government is tested. I put to you -- I don't want to be any

lengthier than I have to -- that this compels your intervention, that you ought to restore the Liberal rump to their appropriate position, to their historical position, and that would be either on

one end or the other.

You see, this isn't about where my colleagues and I sit; it's about where the rump sits. The rump belongs on one end or the other. That's clear. There is no

precedent to the contrary -- or on both, but never, ever occupying the left of the Speaker, space traditionally reserved for opposition members. You've seen opposition members amounting to one, Joe

Salsberg, Labour-Progressive, who was accorded the position in reference to the Conservative rump of the day, which put the Conservative rump in their appropriate place, and that was at this

extreme end.

I put to you that you have the jurisdiction, that you have to exercise that jurisdiction, and that you have to rectify, with respect, this unfortunate

oversight.

At this point, I'll leave it at no more than that. I don't think I should engage in any stronger language, because I'm prepared to acknowledge that it was but

an oversight, because I can't for the life of me imagine government House leaders or whips so malicious as to want to display, dare I say it, contempt for parliamentary tradition and convention,

nor so malicious as to want to interfere with the respective roles and the sometimes mutual collaborative roles that opposition members, although they may not belong to the same party, engage

in.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to give our caucus's support to the point of order

brought forward by the member from Niagara Centre. We believe there is a case to be made for the Speaker to consider this point of order for the very simple reason that the seating arrangement

appears to stand against long-standing parliamentary convention in Ontario.

The standing orders that govern this place do not specifically lay out rules with regard to the seating of MPPs in the House. However,

section 1(

c) of the

standing orders provides for this type of situation, namely issues dealing with House business that are not provided for in the standing orders.

I'll quote briefly from that section: "In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, and

in making the ruling the Speaker or Chair shall base the decision on the democratic rights of members referred to in clause (b). In doing so the Speaker shall have regard to any applicable usages

and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition."

Based on a survey of the Ontario Legislative Assembly seating plans for the last 75 years, the current seating arrangement stands alone as the only time that

members of the government caucus are sitting between, indeed splitting, the opposition benches.

Some 76 years ago, the Legislature of the day saw 83 government members elected; 55 sat on the traditional government side, while 17 sat in the opposition,

furthest from the Speaker. The Liberals, Progressives, United Farmers and Labour sat as a group on the opposition side.

In 1947, with 90 members elected to the House, the seating plan shows that 45 of 66 government members were seated on the government side and 21 on the

opposition side, furthest from the Speaker. The remaining opposition members -- the Liberals, CCF, Liberal-Labour, Labour-Progressives, one independent -- were seated as a bloc, separate from the

government members.

In 1989, the governing Liberals housed 76 MPPs on the government side, with an additional 18 on the opposition side, again furthest from the Speaker. As you

may recall, the opposition members sat as a bloc.

In 1995, when our party elected 82 members, 70 sat on the government side, while the remaining 12 sat as a bloc furthest from the Speaker's chair.

Mr Speaker, we're looking to you to consider the seating plans for the last 75 years as an example, indeed a standard of parliamentary tradition in Ontario,

when making your decision. Note a few brief examples from other jurisdictions. The current seating plan from Alberta's Legislature shows the tradition of housing government members apart from

opposition members when there's a need for an overflow caucus of government members on the opposition side. In Alberta, the opposition Liberals and NDP are located beside each other, while

government members housed on the opposition side sit beside the opposition members.

The bottom line is that both here and in other assemblies constituted under British parliamentary tradition, the opposition benches sit as a bloc of members

elected to hold the government of the day to account without regard to their status as a duly recognized party.

We would once again, Mr Speaker, respectfully ask you to consider this case carefully in light of established parliamentary convention in this province.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I want to respond to the point of order briefly, if I may.

First of all, the member from Welland-Thorold did reference Montpetit and Marleau, but he neglected one very significant paragraph; he seemed to overlook it.

Allow me to read that. This is under the

section dealing with assignment of seats in the House.

"Those members who do not have a party designation or who represent a party not recognized by the House are seated subject to the discretion of the Speaker in

whatever seats are remaining. These members typically occupy the desks to the left of the Speaker along the back rows, often but not necessarily near the end of the chamber. The Speaker allocates

the seats for these members pursuant to their seniority as elected members, while at the same time retaining a degree of latitude in determining these arrangements."

You'll recall, Mr Speaker -- we are dealing with a separate situation here -- that in this House in 1999, the then Conservative government, with the unanimous

support of the House, defined what a party is in the standing orders. That's under

section 2:

"For the purpose of these standing orders,

"`recognized party' means a party caucus of eight or more members of the Legislative Assembly."

In the last House, in the brief time I have been here, independent members have been seated in that corner, in that corner, and the Speaker's chair is in that

corner. That has been the tradition of the place.

I think it's also important to note that former Speaker Carr, in the lead-up to the reconvening of the House, was aware of the proposed seating plan now in

place and, to our knowledge, raised no concerns about it.

There is no difference in where the seven members at the end are seated from where they were in the last House. The history of the place, the tradition of this

place, has been in fact that independents tend to be along the back row, according to precedent; that is according to Montpetit and Marleau. In the corners here we've had various independent

members in the brief time that I've served in this Legislature.

I'd ask Mr Speaker, in contemplating this, that he take into account, if not this arrangement, then what normally happens with the seating of the independent

members as such. It's quite clear in the precedents established in Montpetit and Marleau. The members who are concerned about this are basically seated in the same spot they were before. This does

not, in our view, in any way infringe on the right of any member of this Parliament to participate, whether they sit there, there or there. In fact, in Ottawa, one can recall in very recent history

the overflow government members seated indeed very close to the Speaker's left on the opposition side. There is some latitude to the Speaker, but the Speaker must account for all facts, including

traditionally where we place independent members in this House in terms of seating.

With that, and recognizing the time, I would conclude by saying that the participation of all members, regardless of where they are seated, is guaranteed by

you through the standing orders that are agreed to by this House. Accordingly, we trust that regardless of whether a member sits in this seat or at the far end of the House, he or she will have an

equal opportunity to represent his or her constituents. The seating arrangement as contemplated now does not, in our view, infringe upon the rights of any individual members to represent the best

interests of their constituents or this province.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): On the same point?

Mr Kormos: If I may in brief reply, I am rather amazed at the comments by the government House leader. Yes, I've read all of Marleau and

Montpetit several times and, you see, those little numbers refer to footnotes. When the little numbers appear at the end of a sentence, you have to read the footnote. The footnote, of course, is

the ruling by Speaker Parent on June 16, 1994, in response to --

The Speaker: Member, let's clear up a point. Are we going to have a debate of this now? You've put your case, and I think you made some

excellent points. I also think that the member from Leeds-Grenville made some very, very good points and, of course, the House leader. If you would allow me, instead of having a debate about that

today, to take those concerns and get back to you as soon as possible, I would really appreciate that.

Mr Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. I do refer you to the ruling of Speaker Parent, though, of June 14, 1994, because it clearly gave nine

New Democrats bloc seating, not in back rows.

The Speaker: And if there is additional information you do have, I am quite open that we can meet each other and do this at a time so I can

come back with a ruling that is satisfying to all.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given the very expensive media training that new members of cabinet have gone through and that

at least one -- the member for Ottawa West-Nepean, I think -- bought a new suit for this occasion, I would ask for unanimous consent that we extend question period for the full hour.

The Speaker: The member has asked that question period be extended for the full hour. Do I hear unanimous consent for that? I heard a no.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Ernie Eves (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Mr Premier, you said on October 17 this year in a speech to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce,

"We sent out a very clear signal, it's been out there for a very long time now: We're committed to putting genuine protections to the Oak Ridges moraine, and we've said we're not going to allow the

construction of those 6,600 homes." Is that a principle you still believe in?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and look forward

to a number of exchanges in the ensuing months.

Our responsibility in this and all matters is to bring a responsible approach to dealing with these issues. We have made the very best of a bad situation. We

have expanded the corridor and the wildlife routes, we have protected more of the sensitive lands around Philips Lake, which we've brought into public ownership, and we have managed to reduce by

900 the number of housing units on the lands. The other thing I should say is that we will take the necessary steps to ensure that no other government can enter into this kind of deal again.

Mr Eves: Speaking of Philips Lake, I didn't know you could skate on it yet.

Your Minister of Municipal Affairs said on Friday when he was questioned about this, "Perhaps we were too naive." This was out there for some 16 months before

you made your speech to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. You were talked to about this, you were warned about this, you are a lawyer by trade. Are you really asking the people of Ontario to now

believe that for 16 months and all through the election campaign you promised that you would put a definitive end to this, and then all of a sudden, mysteriously, between October 17 and last

Friday, you finally realized after 16 months that you were wrong and you were naive and you couldn't do it. Is that what you're asking us to believe?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to assure the people of Ontario that we fought as hard as we could to turn your deal around and to protect

environmentally sensitive lands. That's exactly what we did.

We're also, as I said earlier, going to take the necessary steps to ensure that this kind of a deal cannot be entered into. Beyond that, we're going to lend

permanent protection to the Golden Horseshoe greenbelt, which will protect hundreds of thousands of acres in perpetuity.

Mr Eves: To the Premier again: Then, last Friday, on November 21, not only did you renege on your commitment about the moraine; you didn't

even have the common decency to attend yourself. You, by coincidence, arranged three other events around the province of Ontario. You had been in government for 30 days. Are you asking the people

of Ontario to believe that not once in those 30 days could those other three commitments have been dealt with, which would have enabled you personally to attend at the moraine announcement and make

it yourself? Are you asking us, the 12 million people in the province of Ontario, to believe that this was just a coincidence?

You know, the Premier has been quoted as saying, "This is not exactly the job your new government applied for." I think the question people of Ontario have to

be asking themselves today is, "Are you up to the job?"

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would be interested in learning more about what we intend to do to ensure that we are

providing better protection to environmentally sensitive land in Ontario.

We're going to introduce significant new planning reforms to protect the public interest and prevent deals like the ones you just got into in Richmond

Hill.

We're going to introduce fundamental reforms to the way land use planning processes are done in Ontario to give people a real and meaningful voice in the way

their communities grow and prosper.

What we intend to do, to repeat, is to ensure that this kind of a deal is never, ever entered into by their government again.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would like to first of all take the opportunity to thank

the minister for acknowledging in a very public way at his most recent press conference that when our leader, Ernie Eves, was issuing warnings to the opposition and to Mr McGuinty that cancelling

or even threatening to cancel the Oak Ridges moraine agreement would cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, according to the new Minister of Municipal Affairs, he was indeed speaking the

truth.

Now I would like to ask the new minister to speak the truth as well. Will he admit in this House today that, contrary to what his leader is saying, that there

will never be another deal like this, he indeed, acting on behalf of this new government, entered into precisely the same kind of deal with developers and he extended this deal by some hundreds of

acres in exchange for saving 50 acres? Will he today disclose to this House precisely how much this new deal that he has made will cost the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): In response to the member opposite, let me just say

this: The exchange that took place -- we're basically exchanging the most ecologically sensitive lands in the Oak Ridges moraine, to the extent that there will be 50 more acres of parkland around

the two kettle lakes that will be protected for generations to come. The developers will also contribute $3.5 million toward the development of that park. As a result of what has happened, sir, you

know that the wildlife corridor of the moraine will be widened to a much greater extent than it currently is. You should also know that as far as the land exchange in Pickering is concerned, we

will fully consult with the city of Pickering and the region of Durham to make sure that the political leadership of those communities is totally involved in the land exchange that will take

place.

Mr Klees: It's very obvious to me that the minister was not involved at all in negotiating this deal, because he has no concept of what's in

the deal. The fact of the matter is that when the facts come out in this province, he has exchanged some 40 acres of land for some 800 acres in Pickering. I'd like to know how he can justify that

when they are unable to meet any of their commitments relating to health and education in this province because of a supposed, bogus deficit. Yet he has single-handedly sold off literally hundreds

of millions of dollars of provincially owned lands to do a bad deal for the people of Ontario. How can he justify it, and will he table that deal in the House today?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: Sir, the only bad deal that was made was your deal with the developers. We made that deal much better, to the extent that

there will be 50 acres of land added to the parkland. The corridor will be wider so that wildlife can go through the moraine there. You know that to be a fact as well. As a matter of fact, we not

only did that, but we will make sure that this kind of situation will never happen again in the future, with the introduction of greenbelt legislation in this House and planning legislation that

will in effect give the people of Ontario and the cities and municipalities that are involved a much longer period of time to react to developers' plans that come before them.

Mr Klees: The new minister says he had no choice; we've heard that before from a Liberal. He had a choice, and the choice he had was to honour

an existing agreement that, quite frankly, was supported as a fair agreement not only by all stakeholders but by environmental groups such as STORM. They said it was a good deal for the

environment, it was a good deal for taxpayers. This minister and his new leader have sold out the taxpayers of this province. Shame on you.

Will you disclose the actual details and confirm for the people of Ontario the hundreds of millions of dollars that you have just sold us down the river

on?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: You know that we have made the bad deal that you made a lot better. And if, according to you, the environmental community

was all in favour of your deal, they surely ought to be in favour of this deal, because it's so much better, in that more land will be protected as far as the moraine is concerned.

The councils of the town of Pickering and the region of Durham will be fully involved in any land exchange that takes place in that area.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Eves: A questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: You understand that when Minister Hodgson negotiated this deal, he committed to the

people of the province that the deal would be submitted to the fairness commissioner, to the Environmental Commissioner and to the Provincial Auditor. Will you please stand up in the House today

and confirm that your government will do exactly the same and that if any of these bodies disagrees with your deal, you will can your deal?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: The fairness commissioner has already agreed to take a look at this deal in exactly the same way they took a look at your

bad deal, and I'm sure that the same can be said for the Environmental Commissioner. This deal will be subjected to exactly the same rules and regulations as the deal you made some time ago.

Mr Eves: I see that the Minister of Municipal Affairs again thought he was perhaps too naive last Friday. That's not what you said in a scrum

at the event last Friday. You said it would be submitted to the fairness commissioner only; I'm glad to see that you've reconsidered after three days. Are we going to go through this every single

day, that you guys make a commitment and three days later you change your mind? Save the Rouge president and Toronto city councillor-elect Glenn De Baeremaeker told Minister Gerretsen that he

campaigned for the Liberals during the provincial election because of their position against the development -- his words, not mine: "Why did you lie to us?" he said.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: As I've already indicated here in the House today and as I indicated at the press conference that was held last Friday, this

deal will be looked at by the fairness commissioner. He's agreed to do that, and we look forward to him doing that.

The Speaker: Just let me caution the members again. I know sometimes we become rather creative about using the words that we have used and I

know it's an indirect way of saying something about lying. I hope you would refrain from using that kind of strategy.

The next question is for a government member.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I have a question also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, on Friday, November 21, you

announced a number of reforms to the planning process in Ontario, namely, reforms to bring more accountability, transparency and public input to the way land use planning decisions are being made

across this province -- something previous governments appeared to have no interest in doing. What will be done to bring about real and positive change to the planning process in Ontario?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): I would like to thank the member for his question, as I

would like to thank the other members for their questions as well.

Our commitment is to give the people of Ontario a real and meaningless -- meaningful voice --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I thought you all wanted to get question period for one hour, but somehow you are extending it and

reducing it in a different way now.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I just want to assure the minister that he's off to a good start of a

meaningless way of doing business in this government.

Hon Mr Gerretsen: Unfortunately, I did slip into thinking about what the former government had done when I said that word "meaningless."

We are all about giving the people of Ontario a meaningful voice in the planning process, and that's going to be done in three ways. Number one, we're going to

protect the public interest by preventing developers from forcing unwanted urban expansions. We're going to give municipalities the power and control over that. We're going to give members of the

public a stronger voice in the planning decisions that affect our communities by doubling the time frame for allowing municipal review of planning applications.

Mr Flynn: Minister, in the past five years, municipalities in the GTA have spent more than $20 million fighting OMB decisions. The township of

Uxbridge, for example, had to raise property taxes just to pay the legal fees it incurred while fighting a developer at the Ontario Municipal Board.

As you are probably aware, I am a former regional councillor for Halton. As a regional councillor, I was appointed to the GTA task force on Ontario Municipal

Board reform, and we submitted a report to the province in March 2003. Minister, will you take seriously the recommendations in the GTA task force report, unlike the previous government, and enable

democratically elected municipalities to ensure they have vibrant and healthy communities?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: First of all, let me take this opportunity to congratulate all of the municipal politicians who were elected two or three

weeks ago. The task that they will have over the next three years will be daunting, and we all wish them well.

There is absolutely no question that one of the other changes that we're going to make to the planning legislation is to make sure that land use planning

decisions will be consistent with provincial policy documents: not just "having regard to," but "will be consistent with."

As Ken Boschoff, the president of AMO, said after this announcement was made last Friday, "Giving councils due credit to make decisions for their communities

is an important step in recognizing municipalities as a responsible and accountable order of government elected by their constituents to look after their municipality."

We totally agree with AMO's position on this. We'll be working with them and the other stakeholders to make sure that the new planning process will best suit

the people of Ontario, and that's what this is all about.

LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Theodore Roosevelt once offered the brilliant political advice

to speak softly and carry a big stick, but when it comes to carrying out his Oak Ridges moraine campaign promises Dalton McGuinty speaks loudly but carries a little stick.

The obvious conclusion to their land-swap deal: thousands, and potentially tens of thousands, of new houses are going to be built in the Seaton area.

To the minister, can he guarantee for the House today that two thirds of the land in the Seaton area will be protected from development, as requested by local

environmentalists? Can he guarantee that today?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): We've already given the commitment that over 50% of the

land in Seaton that is environmentally sensitive will certainly not be built upon, and we can give that assurance unequivocally.

I can also tell you that the city of Pickering and the region of Durham will be fully consulted and involved in the land exchange program so that they know

exactly what's going on and so that what will be built there will be in conformity to the wishes of the city of Pickering and the region of Durham.

Mr Hudak: I'm rather concerned. There was also a consultation with the people of Ontario, and the Liberal Party under Dalton McGuinty clearly

indicated in its platform that up to two thirds of the land in Seaton will be protected from development. That's page 19, sir, of your platform. You just said that one half of the land will be

preserved. Your campaign commitments, your member for the area, all those who were campaigning in the 905 area, said that two thirds of Seaton will be protected.

Why are you, sir, now in the House saying that only 50% will be protected when you campaigned on two thirds? Is this again, on the heels of the Oak Ridges

moraine flip-flip, one more Dalton McGuinty flip-flop when it comes to development for the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: Sir, as I indicated before, the environmentally sensitive land will be protected. The question I have of you, sir: Would you

rather have the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): You're supposed to listen to the answer, and I would appreciate very much if you would give the minister a

chance to respond. Minister?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: The city of Pickering and the region of Durham will be fully consulted before the final land exchange takes place to make

sure that those municipal governments agree with the steps that the province is going to take in this particular area. Sir, that is the best kind of guarantee and advice that can be given with

respect to the land exchange.

TOBACCO SMUGGLING

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Finance. As you are aware, my community of

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh borders the United States and is in close proximity to the Quebec border. In the early and mid-1990s our community struggled with increased and evident tobacco

smuggling which endangered members of our community as well as enforcement personnel. This blatant disregard for law and order became so serious that the province's hand was forced to lower

cigarette taxes in order to curb tobacco smuggling. With our government keeping its commitment to raise taxes to the national average, what are you going to do to ensure we do not find a resurgence

of smugglers' alley?

Hon Gregory S. Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I want to begin by congratulating the new member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. He

succeeds a great, now retired, member of this Parliament, John Cleary. We all remember him well. I want to wish you, sir, the very best of good luck as you take your seat in this House.

You raise a very important question. The fact is that today we introduced a bill that will raise in a significant way tobacco taxes. The balance in dealing

with tobacco taxes is to make sure that the additional levy is not so high as to encourage, if I can use that word, an underground economy in tobacco. We think our moderate approach to moving

toward the national average in cigarette taxes will do just that. We are going to be extremely vigilant so that we don't make the mistakes that were made in the past when the national government

had to actually roll back cigarette taxes in order to dampen that underground economy. We're not going to let that happen.

Mr Brownell: Minister, it is good to hear that you take the smuggling issue seriously. We don't want to return to the problems of the past. I

want to stress again that the serious issues of violence stemming from smuggling have turned some people off raising tobacco taxes. People want to see that there is a positive benefit to the policy

beyond revenue. Can you tell me what the health impact of an increase in tobacco taxes would be? What is the benefit to the people of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh if there is an increase in the

tobacco taxes?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I think it would be best to refer that supplementary to my colleague the Minister of Health.

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I too would like to add my congratulations to the member for

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh on his election, and say that smoking kills, that in the province of Ontario tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable illness and premature death, killing

16,000 citizens a year. Health care expenditures related to tobacco use cost Ontario taxpayers an estimated $1 billion a year, and diseases caused by tobacco cost the economy an estimated $2.6

billon each year in lost productivity, as reported by the Addiction Research Foundation. These are all good reasons for Ontarians to stop smoking, but far and away the greatest reason, and the

reason that I recommend this piece of legislation to the member from Simcoe North, is because it can prevent young people in the province from taking up this habit which may reduce their life.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I'd like to return to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, your Premier said on October 17, 2003,

after the election campaign, "We're not going to allow the construction of those 6,600 homes." Yet on Friday you said, "Perhaps we were too naive without knowing the full implications of the deal

at the time." I'd like you to tell the House, the people of Ontario, what specifically did you learn between October 17 and last Friday?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): What I did learn since that time is that we've got a

bigger park, we've got more environmental protection and we've got a thousand fewer homes in that particular area. The moraine has been saved to a much greater extent. That's what we've learned

since then. The deal that we have now is a lot better for the people of the Oak Ridges Moraine and for the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario have won as a result of the negotiations that

this government, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, took to make sure that the moraine is protected; as well as the greenbelt legislation that will be introduced later on in this session; as

well as the Planning Act legislation that we just talked about. We want to make sure that the people and the municipal leaders of Ontario are much more involved in the planning process of this

province than they have been.

Mr Baird: I think what the people of Ontario see is another government minister and a part of a government who have broken yet another

campaign election promise. You were the party that said you were going to be open; you were the party that said you were going to be transparent. If this is such a good deal for the environment, if

it's such a good deal for people in York region, the GTA and the people of Ontario, why won't you immediately table your backroom deal with developers? Are you ashamed to table it today and will

you table it today? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: The details with respect to the deal will be known in due course, which is precisely the same argument that was used by your

government when you were in office just two or three months ago. What we do know is that the people of Ontario are going to get greater greenbelt legislation and protection. We're going to protect

over 600,000 acres of land in this area for conservation purposes. That's what we're going to do. We're going to better the Planning Act in the processes, something that you in your eight years of

practice didn't do at all. We're going to make sure that the people of Ontario have a say in the planning of the future of this great province of ours.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is for the Minister of Children's Services. Minister, as you're undoubtedly aware, I'm

very concerned about the welfare of children. For many years I've seen families living below the poverty level struggle and all too often fail to provide the necessities of life for their children.

Our family has fostered children who believe that the definition of wealthy is someone who has three meals a day. For too many, food has become a privilege rather than the right that it actually

is. A recently released report on child poverty has a number of alarming statistics that reflect the current state of child poverty still to this day. Not only is it alarming but it's shameful that

families who are good, honest people that make up the very fabric of our society are so often caught in a situation that, by its nature, does not enable them to better their position in life.

Since we've seen very little done provincially over the past eight years to assist struggling families and eliminate children from having to live in poverty,

how do you plan to assist parents who are trying to be successful and provide the very basic of necessities for their families?

Hon Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children's Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I want to thank my colleague for Prince

Edward-Hastings for his question. I know that all the members of this House are concerned about the recent findings of the child poverty report. I'd also like to remind members of the House that

from 1989 to 1999 child poverty rates in Ontario rose from 11.5% to 16.5%; and from 1995 to 1999 the number of children in low-income families grew by 9% in Ontario. I think it's significant that

for the first time in Ontario's history we have a ministry for children, the Ministry of Children's Services. My responsibility is to better integrate all of the programs across all the ministries

for children.

In the speech from the throne last week, our government demonstrated its commitment to children by making a real positive difference in the lives of Ontarians

by announcing that for the first time in eight years the minimum wage will finally increase, that pregnant women on social assistance will once again get the nutritional supplements they need, and

that deadbeat parents who fail to support their children will be held to their family responsibility. The new Ministry of Children's Services is an integral part of the government's plan for real

positive change.

Mr Parsons: I would agree that Dalton McGuinty's commitment to children could not be better demonstrated than through the creation of your

ministry. My constituency office has received numerous contacts praising our government for this initiative.

Given that it's a new ministry, I would ask that you share with the Legislature what we can expect to see from your newly formed ministry over the coming

years.

Hon Mrs Bountrogianni: My primary goal is to improve the integration of programs across all ministries.

Building a new ministry will take time. We need time to get it done right, rather than get it down quickly. Our plans will be thoughtful. I refuse to take any

action that is impulsive when it comes to the best interests of children.

I will assume responsibility for all children's programs in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, such as Early Years, child care and children with

special needs. I will be working closely with my colleague the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to look at the programs in his ministry that affect the early years of children, as well as

special treatment programs for children. I will also be working closely with the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to transfer, by the new year, youth justice services for

children ages 12 to 17 to the new children's ministry.

We will focus on helping kids get their lives back on track and become contributing members of society. Our government believes that if we invest in young

people, the future of Ontario will be limitless.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, you've tried to express lately the sentiment that you're

surprised that the province has a $5-billion-plus deficit. But I read the remarks of your then finance critic Gerry Phillips on June 3, six months ago, where he was talking to the then Finance

Minister. He says you've got to find $2.2 billion in asset sales, $700 million in in-year savings, $620 million in lost revenue because the economy's not performing, $770 million in federal health

care funding, which may not come, $800 million in SARS costs. Then he adds it up and says there's a risk of a $5-billion deficit.

Now I turn to Erik Peters's document, and Erik Peters says $2.2 billion in asset sales, $700 million in in-year savings not found, $620 million because of low

economic performance, $770 million in federal money that may not come, $800 million in SARS costs. He adds it up and says it's $5 billion-plus.

After Gerry Phillips said the same thing as Erik Peters, how can a $5-billion deficit be a surprise to you?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member opposite for his question and I want to

assure this member and all members of the Legislature that we will bring a responsible approach to dealing with government finances. That is why we moved so quickly to bring in an outside,

independent, objective reviewer of the state of the government's books. We discovered at that point in time, and we made it plain and clear to all the people of Ontario, that the former government,

the Tory government, saddled the people of government with a $5.6-billion deficit.

Mr Hampton: But Premier, what Erik Peters told you is exactly what Gerry Phillips said six months ago, except after Gerry Phillips said it,

you and your colleagues engaged in 231 big spending promises.

You were going to retain the hydro rate cap; there was going to be money for 8,000 new nurses; there was going to be money for schools; you were going to lower

the tolls on Highway 407. Premier, you had to have known that you couldn't keep any of those promises. My question is: Knowing, as you knew then, that there was a $5-billion deficit, because your

finance critic told you so, did you ever intend to keep any of those promises?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to assure the member opposite and all Ontarians that we will move as quickly as we can to implement our agenda for

change. I want to remind the member as well about some of the things we've already moved ahead on.

We've stopped approving auto insurance rate increases -- 15 minutes after forming the government. We've announced that we will freeze tuition for at least two

years. We have removed the supervisors from the Hamilton, Ottawa and Toronto school boards. We have established a new Ministry of Children's Services. We have appointed a Minister of Northern

Development who is actually from the north. We have announced today legislation to eliminate the private school tax credit. We have announced legislation to roll back corporate taxes to 2001

levels. We are going to maintain personal income tax rates, and it goes on and on and on. We will implement our agenda for change.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member for Oak Ridges, we'll allow one.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Thank you, Speaker. As the member representing the wonderful riding of Oak Ridges, I can't help but place this

last question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because it relates to the Oak Ridges moraine.

I can't think for a minute that the minister would intentionally have tried to mislead the public by leaving the impression --

The Speaker: When we started today I heard about three or four of those kinds of comments. I would ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr Klees: I'll withdraw that.

The Speaker: Just quickly to your question.

Mr Klees: I can't for a minute believe that there was any intention at all of leaving the impression with the people in this province in his

announcement of November 21, where he refers to the creation of a bigger, better park on the Oak Ridges moraine, that this in fact is something that he negotiated on behalf of the people of

Ontario. If it is, perhaps he's not aware that there was a 1,360-acre park designation in the original agreement that was negotiated by the former government. Perhaps he has negotiated an

additional 1,400 acres, which means that we now have 2,760 acres of parkland. Can the minister clarify for us, did he negotiate a new bargain in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: What was negotiated was that an additional 50 acres of land would be added to the park, which represents the 900 homes that

will not be built on the moraine so that the moraine can be better protected and the wildlife corridor will be larger than it was before, especially in those areas around the two kettle lakes. That

is the precise reason why the renegotiations took place and why this new deal, which is a much better deal than the bad deal that your government made, sir, was negotiated on these properties.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 30(b), I'm now required to call orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, government notice of motion number 1.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, in 15 years, I've never witnessed an occasion where, after the throne speech --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Member from Niagara Centre, is this a point of order? I didn't hear you.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Speaker: Once again, I'm shocked: 15 years and I've never witnessed an occasion where the throne speech wasn't

debated on the first day the House met after it was read. Did something screw up here? I don't understand.

The Speaker: Government House leader.

Hon Mr Duncan: Seeing that the speech was read twice, sir, we thought we'd move to interim supply today.

Hon Gregory S. Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I move that the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and

other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing October 1, 2003, and ending March 31, 2004. Such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation for the 2003-04

fiscal year following the voting of supply.

Hon Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to allow the independent NDP members to have 15% of the time

available for debate on the interim supply motion.

The Speaker: Is that the consent of the House? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sorbara: It is truly an honour for me to be beginning the debates in this House and to be doing so on interim supply. I should tell

you, sir, that I remember back in 1985, the first year I was a member of this House, being here and hearing words like "interim supply," and what did that mean and how did it apply to the business

of government, and my goodness, 18 years later I have an opportunity to be actually bringing forward the motion on interim supply and saying a few words about it.

Because there are a number of newly elected members in the House, particularly in the wonderful Liberal caucus, I might just say a word or two about what

interim supply does and why it's such an important motion in the overall operation of the financial affairs of the province. The standing orders provide that the government and its ministries can

spend funds that are approved by this Parliament. Of course it's the very nature of a responsible parliamentary system that all taxes raised and all expenditures made are under the authority of

votes that take place in this 103-seat Legislature.

There are a number of ways in which this Legislature approves expenditures of money. You'll remember, sir -- I think it was back on March 26 this year in the

previous Parliament -- that the then government, under Premier Eves, brought forward a special warrant to spend some $12 billion. That authority, coming from the cabinet, was actually only noted

here in Parliament, and that was cabinet agreeing to spend money right through the summer period. It was our indication that the then government was certainly preparing for an election.

So special warrants approved by cabinet can give rise to expenditures, but the most important mechanism for approving expenditures in a global way is the

motion on interim supply and, finally, before the end of the year, a supply motion that provides the money for ministries to actually make the necessary expenditures.

It's interesting that we're doing this today, because it was earlier today that I introduced a number of taxation measures that met the commitments we made

during the campaign and, much more importantly, are very important first steps in this Legislature by this government to get our financial house in order. If there was one theme that was common in

the speech from the throne, it was that we as a government -- and the Premier has said it a number of times -- are determined to fix the foundation, to ensure that this province is on a sound

financial footing.

So today we brought forward a bill to roll back the corporate tax cut that the previous government had put into place. We brought forward a tax measure to keep

personal income taxes at the rate that people are currently paying. We brought forward a measure to eliminate the private school tax credit that was the subject of so much debate over the course of

the past two or three years and certainly during the election campaign. And we brought forward measures to simply repeal the seniors' education tax credit, a measure that was passed just before

this House was dissolved and again was a matter that was subject to debate I think all across the province. So now we return here and we are taking the steps necessary to start to fix the financial

fortunes and the financial foundations of this great province.

There was a lot of debate during question period and over the course of the past few days about the Erik Peters report and what he discovered shortly after the

election. I think the best way to summarize what he discovered was that the province was not on a sound financial footing. The previous government, that had argued for eight years that they were

the great financial managers, that they were the ones who were going to fix government, as they used to say, left office with as large a deficit as we have seen in Ontario for I think certainly the

past five or six years and historically forever, except a couple of years with the New Democratic Party when they were in power from 1990. Everyone remembers Bob Rae's first budget.

Erik Peters had an independent look and said, "It's not just that there was a bad year because of SARS. It's not just that there was some economic turndown."

And if you listened to his comments during his press conference particularly, he said that the previous government really had to use some innovative methods in order to even suggest that there was

a balanced budget for the current fiscal year, 2003-04.

During my response to Mr Peters's comments, I described that we had seen, at least in the current fiscal year and over the course of the Conservative

government's time in power, two things: mismanagement and misrepresentation.

As we start our turn as the government party in Ontario --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask your ruling on whether it's fair and appropriate, given your

comments before this debate -- whether you accept the word "misrepresentation," where one member would accuse other members of misrepresentation and if that would be parliamentary.

The Speaker: I looked up when I heard the word "misrepresentation," and I'll ask him to withdraw that.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I am simply quoting words that I used in another venue. We needn't get into that here.

Interjection: He's challenging the Chair.

The Speaker: Would you withdraw the statement?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Yes, I will, sir.

As we start our period of being responsible for the public life of this province -- its laws, its expenditures, its policies, its development -- I think our

commitment is to ensure that we do a better job in that regard. That's why the Premier has said on a number of occasions that it's not quite the job we applied for but it's the job that must be

done first if we're going to be in a position to achieve all of our objectives: building stronger communities, expanding the strength of our public education system, creating a better health care

system in the province and cleaning up our environment.

One of the expressions that I used during the course of discussions on this same matter is, "You have to play the cards that you're dealt." The cards we've

been dealt weren't quite the ones we were expecting, but we're ready to take on that challenge. If I can tell you, sir, the mood I feel when I talk to my colleagues in caucus is that it's kind of

an exciting challenge because it demands that we work even harder, it demands that we be even more careful in the way we spend taxpayers' money and it demands, in the end, that we be open and

straightforward and give the people of Ontario the straight goods about what we're facing.

So today we brought in some measures in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2003, that fulfill our commitments on taxation measures that we talked about during the

campaign. Today we introduced a bill to raise tobacco taxes. That bill is designed both to reduce the number of smokers in Ontario and to ensure at the same time that we don't encourage a new

underground industry in tobacco smuggling and illegal tobacco sales. And today we introduced measures to get rid of a number of tax credits that certainly were not in the best interests of the

people of Ontario.

But that is simply a first step. As you heard the Premier say on a variety of occasions, we need to now undertake a very extensive consultation with the people

of Ontario as we move forward to our first budget. It's really in our first budget that we will be able to start to lay the new framework and the new structure for a better Ontario in all the areas

that we talked about during the campaign.

Meanwhile, it's kind of a tradition in this House during debates on interim supply that you allow a little bit of leeway among speakers, and I know we're going

to hear that from members opposite.

I just wanted to take an opportunity, while we're talking under this motion, to say a few words about what happened during the election campaign and how proud

we were of the 103 candidates who stood for us during that campaign. I want to put on the record my congratulations to all of them and the 72 of us who succeeded in our ridings.

I also want to say a word about the campaigns of the other two parties in this province -- the other two major parties. I'll get in trouble if I don't mention

the Green Party. They were there as well with 102 candidates. I thought overall we all served the people fairly well in the election campaign. In the heat of battle, yes, some words one might

regret now and again are spoken, but I think we measured up. There is my friend from Trinity-Spadina kind of chuckling. I predicted a different result in his riding, and as a partisan I would have

preferred a different result in his riding, but I look forward to his contributions over the course of the next four and a half years or so. But all in, I think we engaged the province in a healthy

and strong debate about the future.

It was, I think, for us very encouraging that the options that the Conservative Party, the governing party at the time, was offering the people in the form of

both lower taxes and better government services certainly lacked a great deal of support, not to say credibility.

I remember, from the day it was launched, the public power campaign of the New Democratic Party. I think they carried themselves well in that debate, but the

results made it relatively clear that simply transferring over to the public sector, to government in one form or another, the re-creation of Ontario Hydro, the new attempt at public auto

insurance, wasn't quite what the people were looking for in the next generation of public policy. But the message was carried clearly, and I congratulate the -- well, I can't say that, but I want

to congratulate the leader of the party for a good campaign, and congratulate the former Premier and his party for the work they did during the campaign.

The results are now in, and we are delighted that we have received such strong electoral support from the people. As we begin to vote supply in this House, to

provide the services and pay the bills one by one, as they come into the treasury, I just think it's worth noting that what really happened on October 2 was the celebration once again of our

democratic system.

I see the member from Niagara Falls is in the House --

Mr Kormos: Niagara Centre.

Hon Mr Sorbara: -- and we look forward to his remarks. I take it you're speaking on interim supply, I say to my friend.

Just in winding up, sir, I want to congratulate you for your election, and the members who have been elected to this Parliament for their election. I look

forward to listening to the comments of a variety of members on interim supply.

I want finally to say how humbled I was when my colleague the Premier asked me to take on responsibilities as Minister of Finance. It's not going to be easy.

We are going to have our challenges meeting our responsibilities. But for our part, if we all try to work together in a way that perhaps we haven't before, I think we can meet those challenges and

have a marvellous four years here together.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The member for Nepean-Carleton.

Mr Baird: Mr Speaker, as I said at the outset, you look good in that chair. We haven't seen any motions yet, but it would certainly be a good

choice if there was a motion presented with respect to your additional responsibilities.

This is a vote on interim supply, and as the Minister of Finance said, it is a fairly wide-ranging debate where you can talk about issues as they affect the

government and as they affect you in your constituency.

I did want, at the outset of my remarks, to just thank the people of Nepean-Carleton for their strong support on election day and over the past eight years. I

was very fortunate to get support not just in Nepean, which I've represented for eight years, but particularly in Carleton, Osgoode, Rideau and Goulbourn townships. I say this to many of the new

members of the government: It is perhaps easy to come in on a tide. You truly realize how fortunate and privileged you are to serve your constituents, your neighbours, your friends and your family

when the tide goes the other way. I've been very grateful for their support. I wanted to acknowledge that in this, my first speech following the general election.

In my constituency, we talked a lot about important issues with respect to public expenditures, particularly issues in health care and education. We talked a

lot about economic development, job creation, growth and taxes, and what it takes to help create an environment that encourages job creation and economic growth. We can't accomplish anything as a

province if we leave people behind. We can't accomplish all we need to accomplish if we don't create jobs and allow people to provide for themselves and their families. That's something that's

important. When we do create jobs and bring in more additional revenue, we can support priorities like health care and education.

One thing I said on election night was that I wanted to be a forceful and strong advocate for people in Nepean-Carleton and in Ottawa and eastern Ontario and

that I wanted to hold the government of the day accountable but that I also wanted to stand up and agree when the government does some things right.

I was privileged to be at the Royal Ottawa Hospital on Friday, where there was a huge amount of concern that the private arrangement would be cancelled. I was

pleased, along with my colleagues on the other side of the House -- Mr Lalonde, who's here today, was among all the Ottawa members who were there -- to see that project go ahead; I was worried that

it wouldn't. My colleagues -- Norm Sterling and others -- certainly worked hard in recent years to see that proposal come forward. George Langil and his board of volunteers and the entire team at

the hospital really put together a good proposal. A huge amount of effort had gone into that. I was pleased to see that go forward.

Small changes were made. The deed for the hospital will be kept in a different safe, and there will be a 100% mortgage in the other safe. Other than those two

pieces of paper, it's exactly the same sort of deal that we had envisaged.

The Premier did say that he wanted to end the creep into two-tier medicine. Well, of course, nothing was changed with respect to clinical services. The

hotel-type services -- who would plow the snow, who would mow the lawn, who would physically build the building -- are going to be done by the private sector. The clinical services, the health care

services, are all, just as they were under us, going to be provided by the medical team at the hospital.

Someone asked me what the difference was between the deal that Dalton McGuinty announced and our deal. There was a big differe