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

November 26, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Nov-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 November 2002 Mardi 26 novembre 2002

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARDIAC CARE

CENTRAL NORTH

CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

GROWING STRONG COMMUNITIES

LABOUR DISPUTE

ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY

SCARECROW INVASION

AND FAMILY FESTIVAL

BOB AND BONNIE DAGENAIS

FIVE COUNTIES CHILDREN'S CENTRE

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 211

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

JUSTICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

DANS LE DOMAINE DE LA JUSTICE

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

ORAL QUESTIONS

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

PENSION PLANS

TENANT PROTECTION

PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SERVICES

CANCER SERVICES

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

FOREIGN-TRAINED DOCTORS

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

LOBBYISTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SMELTER OPERATION IN TIMMINS

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT

(SIMCOE MUSKOKA CATHOLIC

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RETOUR

À L'ÉCOLE (SIMCOE MUSKOKA

CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD)

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT

(SIMCOE MUSKOKA CATHOLIC

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RETOUR

À L'ÉCOLE (SIMCOE MUSKOKA

CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD)

VISITORS

PETITIONS

ALUMINUM SMELTER

EDUCATION FUNDING

HIGHWAY 69

CHILD CARE

PROGRAMME D'ALPHABÉTISATION

ET D'INTÉGRATION COMMUNAUTAIRE

EDUCATION FUNDING

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

SAVINGS OFFICE

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

LONG-TERM CARE

NATURAL GAS RATES

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

LONG-TERM CARE

CHILD CARE

OPPOSITION DAY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

EDUCATION FUNDING

Tuesday 26 November 2002 Mardi 26 novembre 2002

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARDIAC CARE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to inform this House of a shocking report that was published today in the Canadian Medical

Association Journal. Over a two-year period, this study shows that 50 patients died while waiting for an angiogram at the Hamilton General Hospital, 32 had heart attacks and 41 had congestive heart

failure. In this particular institution that serves over two million people, 63% of individuals do not get an angiogram in the time slot recommended by their family physician. There are currently

almost 500 people on the waiting list, the largest waiting list in Ontario.

What is even more shocking is that this government was warned. In 1999 the hospital made a submission for an extra lab. This government was warned that people

were going to die on waiting lists, and they ignored this warning. This government was warned that people could not wait six months for an angiogram, as they have been. They ignored that warning

and people died. I spoke to this issue in this House. They finally moved a couple of months ago, but the new lab will not be ready for another 24 months. How many more people have to die on waiting

lists because of this government's neglect, incompetence and mismanagement of health care?

It is disgraceful that in Ontario in the year 2002, 50 Hamiltonians on a waiting list for two years had to die while this government did absolutely nothing and

continued to ignore the demands for expanded facilities at this cardiac unit. It is a blight on this government. It is a disgrace beyond words.

How do you tell the families of those 50 people that those lives could have been saved had this government listened to the hospital, had this government listened

to those of us in the House who said it is unacceptable for people to wait? It is disgraceful, and this government will have to pay a price for this. They owe an explanation to the families of

those Ontarians and Hamiltonians who died on waiting lists because of sheer incompetence and neglect by this government.

CENTRAL NORTH

CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the House today to congratulate a successful public-private partnership in my riding of Simcoe

North.

Last night, the Ministry of Public Safety and Security, and Management and Training Corp Canada, were honoured by the Canadian Council for Public-Private

Partnerships. They jointly received the prestigious gold award for service delivery for the Central North Correctional Centre project in the town of Penetanguishene.

This award comes only one year after the Central North Correctional Centre first opened its doors. It is a fitting tribute to the high level of ongoing

co-operation between the ministry, MTCC and the community.

Central North Correctional Centre, better known in my community as the superjail, is Canada's first publicly owned, privately operated adult correctional

facility. MTCC manages the facility. The Ministry of Public Safety and Security ensures that MTCC meets the high safety and security standards that apply to the operation of all correctional

facilities in this province.

Our positive experience with the correctional centre has attracted attention from other parts of Canada. For example, I recently hosted a delegation from Alberta

at the superjail. Looking to perhaps follow an excellent lead, the province of Alberta was interested in learning about what has made the project so successful.

The correctional centre has represented a win-win situation for everyone involved, including the inmates, who benefit from rehabilitation programs, and the

community, which benefits from 360 more jobs and $20 million invested directly into the community.

Last night, with the presentation of the gold award for service delivery, the jail stood out as a stellar example of how our government and the private sector

can work together to better the safety and security of our citizens.

GROWING STRONG COMMUNITIES

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise in the House today to highlight some of the commitments made by our leader, Dalton McGuinty, in the Growing Strong

Communities plan introduced yesterday.

The people of Ontario want to know that they live in safe and secure neighbourhoods. The Ontario Liberals are committed to protecting Ontario families by placing

an additional 1,000 net front-line police officers directly on the streets and highways of Ontario. We recognize that there is a need for increased security on our streets, and we are providing

that commitment to the people of Ontario.

It's interesting to note that Ernie Eves's throne speech in May did not mention fighting crime once. The Ontario Liberals have taken and continue to take a stand

to protect Ontario citizens, while this government has consistently slid away from promises to provide more support to keep our streets safe.

I want to take a moment to commend our front-line police officers who go out day after day to protect the residents of Ontario and provide many services that

continue to make our community safe. Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals are committed to providing more support for our front-line officers by placing more officers on those streets. I am

certain that this will be a welcome addition to municipalities that are struggling to cover the costs of police services due to the outrageous downloading that the Harris-Eves government has

imposed on them for the last seven years.

While this government is preoccupied with fixing the mistakes they've made, the Ontario Liberals are providing a clear alternative to the promises to make

Ontario a better place to work, live and raise a family.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The labour dispute at the Sudbury Star is now into its eighth week. Some 75 workers -- reporters, circulation

and clerical staff, advertising sales people, pressroom and maintenance staff -- were locked out by the employer on October 5, 2002. The lockout occurred after the union's negotiating team had

already agreed to take the company's final offer to the membership for a vote.

The issues in dispute include wages -- one third of the journalists are making $8 to $9 an hour; pensions -- some of the unionized staff don't have one; and a

guarantee of no layoffs when the lockout is over. This appears to have been the corporate message to workers when the Osprey Media Group took over the newspaper operation several years ago. From

day one the employer has used scabs to produce the daily paper. They can do so thanks to the policies of this Conservative government. When employers use scabs, there is no incentive for them to

get to the bargaining table to negotiate a collective agreement, and that's what's happening in Sudbury.

In December 2000, I introduced a private member's bill to prohibit employers from using scabs in strikes and lockouts. Today my colleague Peter Kormos, the NDP

labour critic, will introduce another anti-scab bill. Its provisions are the same as the ones we had in place when we were the government. It's time to end scab labour in Ontario for workers at the

Sudbury Star and for every other worker who is undermined every day by employers using scabs in strikes and lockouts.

ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): During constituency week I attended an event at Listowel Memorial Hospital in my riding of Perth-Middlesex.

The event was to mark the successful completion of the first half of a project to transfer all of the hospital's patient medical records to electronic format. While this is not unusual, there are

two unique aspects to Listowel's project. The Listowel clinic of more than a dozen doctors is benefiting from putting all its patients' medical records on the same electronic format so that when a

patient of a doctor at the clinic comes in to, say, emergency, the emergency room doctor will have access to their complete medical record, including allergies, past medical tests and blood work

results and prescriptions. The benefit to patients will be great. Access to complete medical records will mean fewer errors and less paperwork, leaving doctors and nurses with more time to spend

with patients.

The second unique thing about the Listowel project is that it is being completed on budget. That is not surprising for Listowel Memorial Hospital, which is noted

for being efficient and providing high-quality services while operating within its budget.

I want to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate the board of trustees, the management and staff at the Listowel Memorial Hospital and all of the doctors

at the Listowel clinic. In particular I want to recognize chief of staff Dr Barry Neable, as well as Brent Boshart and Mike LaPaine, who have undertaken and are working on this project.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND RAILWAY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Following the government's announcement last month that CN Rail would be given the nod to enter into

exclusive negotiations to purchase the government-owned Ontario Northland Railway, the member from Nipissing, soon-to-be-unseated AL McDonald, asked Northern Development and Mines Minister Jim

Wilson about the government position on protecting the ONR jobs. Wilson answered in the House that CN "had the best proposal at this time to protect jobs." Well, what happened today? In the midst

of these negotiations, CN lays off 1,146 workers. So much for job protection.

Just last Thursday, CN officials met with the Northeastern Ontario Mayors Action Group to tell them how good a deal this would be for jobs in northeastern

Ontario. Wow, what a poker face these CN officials must have put on.

Today's announcement, coming in the midst of these negotiations, shows how insignificant a deal this is to CN. Normally, wouldn't such an announcement scare off

such a deal, or is this already a done deal?

This is corporate culture at its worst. It's all about shareholder value and the bottom line and not about our people. If this purchase is so important to CN,

how can we be assured that they will take our part of northeastern Ontario seriously, provide good service and protect jobs?

Is this a good deal for northeastern Ontario? I don't think so.

SCARECROW INVASION

AND FAMILY FESTIVAL

Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I rise in the House today to congratulate the success of the sixth annual Scarecrow Invasion and Family

Festival in Meaford. It included the efforts and hard work of a group of people in my riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound who dedicated countless hours of their time to help make this event

spectacular.

The event is sponsored by the Meaford Business Improvement Association and the Meaford Chamber of Commerce. These people include a list of 10 organizers: Marilyn

Morris, Donna Gorrie, Kate Belec, Joan Cooper, Chris Curry, Denise Horvath, Brad Johnston, Janet Juniper, Laura Tannis, Dennis Smith, Mary Woods and Laurie Adams. In addition, there were over 125

volunteers.

The scarecrow invasion is designed to build community spirit and pride, increase shopping in the business areas and overall tourism in the county.

From mid-September until after Thanksgiving, residents and visitors were treated to the sight of thousands of wacky scarecrows throughout the municipality of

Meaford. The event was so successful that Meaford is competing for the Guinness Book of World Records challenge. The community-based scarecrow invasion promoted itself by simple, localized hard

work from the many volunteers and staff of this municipality. It is truly a community-based event.

The media coverage was phenomenal. It included local, national and international exposure. It allowed everyone from Korea to England to Alberta to see just how

community-oriented Meaford is. The interest shown in this event by the media was outstanding, and next year will be even bigger.

I congratulate all those involved in the success of this event and wish them the best in the seventh annual Scarecrow Invasion and Family Festival.

BOB AND BONNIE DAGENAIS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to two Ottawa educators who were brutally slain on the weekend as a result of a

bungled break and enter while they were enjoying their first months of retirement at their nearby cottage.

Bob Dagenais started his career as a teacher and retired as a principal. He served as a principal in three high schools, including Glebe Collegiate Institute in

my riding, where I knew him. He was very well loved and well respected by students and staff alike.

Bob's wife, Bonnie Dagenais, was a retired teacher from Broadview Avenue Public School, also in my riding, where she taught grade 3 for the last 10 years. She

was described by her colleagues as a talented teacher with a heart of gold.

These senseless deaths have left the Ottawa education community grief-stricken. Bob and Bonnie Dagenais will be sorely missed.

I echo a comment made by Ron Lynch, the director of education for the board, in which he said, "There are hundreds of staff and students who were impacted by the

grace and goodness that characterized Bob and Bonnie. Their contributions to the educational needs of this community were monumental."

Bob and Bonnie, on behalf of everyone in our community, thank you for your exceptional contributions toward the education of our children. It is estimated that

together you have touched directly over 4,000 young people in Ottawa.

On behalf of all the members of the Legislature, I extend sincerest sympathies and condolences to family and friends.

FIVE COUNTIES CHILDREN'S CENTRE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I recently had the privilege of touring the Five Counties Children's Centre, located in my riding of

Peterborough, and was informed of the impact that the province's increase in base funding and fiscal one-time dollars had on the centre -- $499,000 to be exact. From reducing the backlog of

outstanding assessments for children, to purchasing new assistive devices, improving building standards and moving the technology equipment into the 21st century, this money has been put to good

use.

I'd also like to tell you about a young man who is 14 years old, a client of the centre and who wrote a letter about his experience. At the age of seven, this

young man was severely injured in an automobile accident. As a result of the accident, he was unable to speak spontaneously like we can. The centre tried without success to find a computer system

that would assist him while communicating.

I'd like to read an excerpt from his letter: "It took too long to get to the point where the computer would talk for me. I tried to call a taxi one time but they

hung up on me before my computer said hello. Finally, in February 2002, they found the Light Writer, and since then I haven't been able to shut up. When I first came to the centre, I couldn't walk

or even stand by myself. Five Counties helped me get a wheelchair and gave me wheelchair driving lessons. The physio department found me a one-of-a-kind special walker to help me learn to walk

again. I have the only one like it in Canada. They found me canes, and now I can walk all by myself."

This is just one of the many great stories about the children in Peterborough county who receive wonderful treatment and therapy from Five Counties Children's

Centre.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 211

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 69(b), the House leader of the third party, the member

for Niagara Centre, has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 211,

An Act to resolve a labour dispute between the

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

JUSTICE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

DANS LE DOMAINE DE LA JUSTICE

Mr Young moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 213,

An Act to improve access to justice by amending the Solicitors Act to permit contingency fees in certain circumstances, to modernize and reform the law

as it relates to limitation periods by enacting a new Limitations Act and making related amendments to other statutes, and to make changes with respect to the governance of the public accounting

profession by amending the Public Accountancy Act / Projet de loi 213, Loi visant à améliorer l'accès à la justice en modifiant la

Loi sur les procureurs pour autoriser les

honoraires conditionnels dans certaines circonstances, à moderniser et à réviser le droit portant sur les délais de prescription en édictant la nouvelle

Loi sur la

prescription des actions et en apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois, et à modifier les règles qui régissent la profession de comptable public en modifiant la Loi

sur la comptabilité publique.

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

The Attorney General for a short statement?

Hon David Young (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The proposed legislation would modernize outdated laws, improve

access to the justice system for middle- and lower-income Ontarians and protect the public's confidence in their investments.

The bill introduced today would regulate contingency fee agreements, consolidate dozens of limitation periods into one clear statute and provide a legislative

framework for the important work being done by Professor Ron Daniels.

I look forward to debating this bill at second reading.

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 214,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 / Projet de loi 214, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The purpose of the bill is to restore the provisions that were incorporated into the Labour Relations Act by

the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act of 1992 during the NDP government and subsequently repealed by the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by, of course, the Conservative

government.

The purpose of the provisions being restored is to prevent an employer from replacing striking or locked-out employees with scabs, a term that is defined in

the bill. The bill allows scabs to be used in emergencies.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to stand down the first question. We're waiting for

the arrival of the Premier.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We'll stand down the first question then. The second question, the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and

Addington.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services.

On the Harris-Eves watch, single-parent families are being abandoned not once, but twice. Deadbeats are forsaking their families to a life of poverty, and your government is forsaking those

families to your dysfunctional Family Responsibility Office.

When the Provincial Auditor looked at the FRO, he found that 75% of the cases were in arrears, with more than $1.2 billion owing to children and their

custodial parents -- a most damning indictment. The auditor found that more aggressive enforcement measures, such as drivers' licence or passport suspension, bank account garnishment or a default

hearing, were seldom pursued. I get dozens of FRO calls every week. Nothing has changed. If anything, things are getting worse. Minister, why are you sentencing thousands of children in this

province to a life of poverty?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague across the way for the question. This

government very much cares about taking care of families, particularly in situations where we have single parents who are seeking assistance from parents who no longer live in the family. That's

why we have made a number of changes to improve the Family Responsibility Office, to collect more money, a great deal more money, for support payments that are court ordered.

That's why in 1997 this government began by introducing a number of tougher reform measures, including suspending drivers' licences, including garnisheeing

bank accounts, including using collection agencies. We now are beginning to see the results of those changes. In 1994-95, $368 million was collected in court-ordered support payments. I'm now

pleased to report that that has increased by 50%, to $555 million in the year 2001-02.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Minister, the auditor's most recent report was very clear. You have failed to respond to his damning findings at FRO, and the

hundreds of calls to my office and to the offices of every member of this Legislature confirm that.

Let me tell you about Pam. She is forced to raise her two children with a top-up from Ontario Works because the FRO is incapable of getting her husband to pay

his child support. Yesterday, my leader released a plan to help Pam and thousands like her. It's tough on deadbeats. I know you're against our plan, but Pam thinks it's great. Your government has

abandoned her. How can you abandon Pam and her children with your complete mismanagement at the FRO?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Our government has undertaken a number of initiatives. I didn't mention this in the first part of my response, but it's our

government that has developed reciprocal relations with the United States so that we can find those payers who are reluctant to make sure their families are properly taken care of. It's our

government that has aggressively pursued them to make sure these payments are made.

Can we do more? Obviously we can do more. Have we seen changes? Well, yes. For instance, just a few years ago the speed at which payments used to be turned

around was much slower. It used to take up to 10 days for a payment to be turned around. What is the time now? We can now turn around a support payment in less than 48 hours.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Let me tell you about this turnaround time, Minister. If you're so tough, tell me why Sue in my riding has been waiting for

support for two years. She's owed $12,000 in child support.

Minister, the auditor already exposed that you are tough on rhetoric but soft on deadbeats. You don't have the guts to use the enforcement measures you already

have. Dalton McGuinty will post the names of deadbeat parents on a Web site, and he will take away their drivers' licences, because no child in this province should be abandoned.

I know you're against our plan and I know that you're against real action to help children in this province. The Family Responsibility Office is an abysmal

failure. There are thousands of people like Pam waiting for support, and they are angry at your failure to take tough action. Minister, how can you defend this shameful record of abandoning

children in the province to a life of poverty?

Hon Mrs Elliott: My colleague, I think, is forgetting that we have made tremendous improvements. We have increased millions and millions of

dollars we've collected to go directly to families. Is there more to do? There's always more to do in every single system we are responsible for. But a number of changes, and I'll add some of the

other changes we've made to improve the family support office: 85% of all court-ordered support payments now are deposited directly into the recipients' bank accounts; 1,900 calls are handled a

day; 17,000 callers are spoken to from Monday through Friday and 11,000 responded to on the weekend. We're trying very hard to be responsive.

My colleague across the way talks about drivers' licences, and I remind her that it's our government that first established this particular process. It's

another one of the measures we've undertaken to find those payers, make them pay and take care of the children of Ontario, who deserve our care.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to stand down my lead.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Yes. We'll continue and we'll go to the NDP in the rotation, if we could. They're standing down the question. No?

OK.

PENSION PLANS

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): My question is to the Premier and it relates to Bill 198, this government's budget bill, which

includes provisions related to pensions. Mr Premier, you will be aware that on Friday the Superior Court here in Ontario ruled that terminated employees "have the right to have distributed that

portion of the surplus that relates to that part of the pension plan being wound up." Yet your own legislation says under

section 78.1:

"

(3) If the windup report approved by the superintendent for a partial windup indicates that the pension plan has a surplus as of the effective date of the

partial windup,

"(

a) it is not necessary to pay surplus out of the pension plan on the partial windup unless the pension plan requires it."

This is clear evidence that your plan strips away the hard-fought rights of employees to access their surpluses. Will you withdraw this portion of the bill

today, Mr Premier?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There is no intention on the part of the government to do what the member is

suggesting --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Just a minute -- and if that is what some people are interpreting that

section to say, then you have the government's undertaking

that we will not proclaim that section, that we will consult with representatives of labour and of management to sit down and go over the solution to the problem. Quite simply put, there is a very

basic principle here: that employees and employers should be entitled to share in any surplus that is being distributed, whether it's on a partial windup or a total windup.

There may be circumstances where there has been agreement as to who's entitled to that ahead of time, and if there's an agreement, then there's an agreement

with respect to that. But if there is not, I share the member's concern.

Mr Smitherman: Notwithstanding your expression of concern, Mr Premier, your words do very little to reflect your understanding of the

legislation. I've sent you over a copy of it and I urge you to read it.

I'd like to read this into the record too. This is from Mercer consulting, one of the leading members of the ACPM that the minister consulted with in the

development of this bill. This is their analysis of the Monsanto ruling and its impact on other pensions. I'll read you just one line of it: "If enacted, this legislation would reverse the finding

in Monsanto for plans other than Monsanto's."

Mr Premier, with all the evidence that has been compiled about your flawed consultation and about the fact that your legislation does exactly what the

opposition has claimed it does, will you stand in your place today and as an honourable person agree that this has been done badly and that you will withdraw it?

Hon Mr Eves: I've already given the honourable member a commitment that we will not proclaim that

section of the bill and that we will sit

down with representatives of both labour and management and make sure there is an understanding that surpluses are to be shared equally between employees and employers unless there is an agreement

and an understanding to the contrary.

Mr Smitherman: All your assurances aside, unfortunately the reality is that the legislation you presented before this House and intend to have

passed by all of your seals over there is legislation that takes away the rights of employees. If it isn't clear enough to you from reading your own legislation and from reading the Mercer ruling

on Monsanto, Mr Premier, then you need a little sober second thought on this. You can't be trusted on this. Your consultation was flawed. The words you offer are in dramatic difference from what

your legislation proposes. Will you stand in your place today and withdraw this legislation so you can get it right?

Hon Mr Eves: I have always supported the employees' share of surpluses in pension plans, and I'm standing in my place today and making a

commitment that this

section will not be proclaimed until everybody has the understanding as to what it means. And if the honourable member turns out to be correct and the

section isn't properly

worded, we will change the

section and it will never be proclaimed. Is that satisfactory?

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation numbers released today show

that apartment rents in Ontario cities continue to rise. Since your government changed the rent laws to favour landlords, the average tenant in Toronto is paying $2,712 more a year for a

two-bedroom apartment. That's $2,712 going right out of the tenant's pocket to the landlord. It's time to give tenants a break. New Democrats propose a two-year rent freeze. Since your government

is responsible for this, will you implement a two-year rent freeze, or are you going to continue picking tenants' pockets?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Municipal Affairs will respond.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The CMHC report today was good news. It shows the vacancy rate is actually

improving for renters in this province from last year. It's up to 2.7%, a little different from what you've been saying around here for the last year. Housing starts are at record numbers, and more

people own homes. As for affordable rents, if you want to compare our record to your record on what you allowed rents to go up each year under your formula when you were in government for five

years, I'd do that comparison any day of the week. Ours are still lower by far than yours ever were.

Mr Hampton: The reason that the vacancy rate appears to be going up is because all kinds of people can't afford the extra $2,700 a year. In

fact, statistics Canada tells us that since you brought in your landlord rent legislation, 40,000 units of apartment housing have disappeared. There's not more supply, there's less, but people

can't afford it. In 1997, rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto was $821. Now, it's $1,047 a month. That's how much it's gone up.

Will you recognize that you are literally taking money out of the pockets of tenants and putting it in the hands of landlords? Will you implement a two-year

rent freeze and give tenants a break for a change?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The answer is no. The province saw your policies didn't work. We had rent control, and now the Liberals want to go back to the

future when there's absolutely no investment in rental or any kind of housing stock in this province. What we're trying to do -- the market is working, but there are some people who need help.

We've got shelter allowances that we're improving to help people. We've signed the federal government accord to build 10,500 more units of affordable housing. The TPA, the formula that allows

landlords to raise rents, is actually less under this government than it was under your government.

Mr Hampton: Minister, it gets worse for tenants, because as a result of the hydro price increases this summer, landlords have already applied

for an extraordinary rent increase. Landlords are going to stick the tenants with another rate increase, but when your pre-election rebates and rate caps for Hydro come out, nowhere in your

legislation does it provide for that money to go to the tenants. So the tenants get stuck with higher rent. Meanwhile, you funnel the rebate into the pockets of your landlord friends. Is this a

deliberate strategy to put the screws to tenants one more time, or did you just hope that no one would notice this?

Hon Mr Hodgson: That's not my understanding. The hydro policy enunciated by the Minister of Energy will be fair to the tenants as well, as it

is to all home owners and consumers. I can say, though, that it's easy to make promises when you're the third party. You might be reminded that when you campaigned on An Agenda for People, you

campaigned on a 10% rent reduction. That never happened. In fact you increased it year after year when you were in government.

PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question for the Premier: All of your grand schemes to privatize Hydro have created a monstrous

disaster, yet your government wants to plough ahead with privatizing more and more of our health care system. Reports indicate that Mr Romanow is going to call for a national home care program and

is going to call for it to be protected under the Canada Health Act. Two years ago, a coroner's inquest in the death of young Joshua Fleuelling concluded that your government's privatization of our

home care services backed up hospital emergency rooms, and that led to the death of that young man. That coroner's inquest demanded that you cancel for-profit home care. Your government privatized

the delivery of home care. Will you now recognize that it is time for a publicly funded, publicly administered system of home care, and will you do the right thing?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, that information the leader of the third party provided is not

factually correct. Second, he presumes that he knows what Mr Romanow's report is going to say on Thursday morning. I can tell the honourable member I have had two lengthy discussions with Mr

Romanow over the last few months and I can assure you that Mr Romanow doesn't think any part of Ontario's health care system is "off-side."

Mr Hampton: Here's the reality of for-profit delivery of home care. Wages of home care providers, the workers, have plummeted. The control of

community care access centres has been taken out of the community and seized by your government. Thousands of Ontario seniors and disabled have been cut off home care. They have been told home care

services are no longer available.

Premier, admit it, your Hydro privatization scheme has been a complete disaster. When the Romanow commission is giving every indication that they're going to

oppose any further privatization of the health care system, why do you insist on ploughing ahead with more private delivery, more for-profit delivery of health care?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, the health care system, not just in the province of Ontario but in virtually every province across this country,

has about, as he well knows, 30% to 40% of the money in privately operated facilities in one way, shape, form or another, whether it's diagnostic procedures such as blood testing, whether it's

kidney dialysis or whether it's some other form. The reality is, and what differentiates the Canadian system from other systems, is that it all goes through a publicly administered, equally

accessible universal health care system. That principle has never been deviated from in Ontario, nor will it be as we go forward, and we look forward to Mr Romanow's report on Thursday morning.

CANCER SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Over a year ago your government set out to merge regional

cancer centres with local hospitals, and you appointed Dr Alan Hudson to head a committee that would implement your directions. The negative response to this plan from cancer patients and from

cancer care advocates forced you to retreat, at least publicly.

The committee report recommended "that the current structure of governance and management (of the regional centres) should remain at this time." It appears all

that that did was give you the time you needed to get the issue out of the public eye so you could go ahead and do what you always intended to do. You are now moving ahead to merge regional cancer

centres with hospitals. You appointed Dr Hudson to head Cancer Care Ontario, and he is proceeding "at your direction," as his newsletter states, to put both the budgets and the employees of cancer

centres under the control of the hospital.

Minister, this is not just a plan to integrate cancer services for patients; this is a merger. Why are you proceeding with a merger that nobody wanted except

you and Dr Hudson?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member's facts are wrong. The fact of the matter is that this is a

plan that has been approved by the board of Cancer Care Ontario. It has gone about its business to have individual meetings with individual hospitals that also deliver cancer services across this

province.

This is a plan not to merge but to integrate services so the cancer patient has the ability to understand who is responsible for what in the system so their

care is better, more humane, more accessible and of a higher quality, quite frankly.

This is a plan that has been agreed to by all of the major players who are delivering cancer services. Why are you opposed to something that is agreed to for

better cancer services for the people of Ontario?

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I do agree with you that most of the consultation that was done on this was done in private. I also happen to know that

the private ones were just as negative as the public one that you carried out.

Let me read you what Cancer Care Ontario had to say before Dr Hudson was appointed to do what you wanted done. In a confidential report submitted to the

implementation committee, Cancer Care Ontario said, "The type of integration and other solutions that are required will not be found in giving hospitals operational control of the regional cancer

centres. Indeed, such a move would likely exacerbate existing human resource shortages and, in and of itself, do virtually nothing to shorten waits for cancer surgery or improve access to

diagnostic services."

Nothing has changed since then except the leadership of Cancer Care Ontario. Waiting times for diagnosis and treatment for cancer patients was a very big issue

when you decided that you were going to merge regional centres with hospitals. So you wonder what happens to the waiting lists now. Do they disappear because you won't be keeping them any more?

What happens to so-called dedicated budgets when the Provincial Auditor can't go in and examine the books?

I received an e-mail from one distraught cancer patient who has heard what is happening. He says, "Cancer patients have a right to know what is being done to

their most important medical asset." I ask, do you agree with that? Will you make public exactly what you are doing with regional cancer centres in this province?

Hon Mr Clement: I'll go one better than what the honourable member suggests. We have appointed an eminent person who is going to be in charge

of making sure that we get quality results for our cancer sufferers. Perhaps you've heard of him. His name is Michael Decter, and he is in charge of that file. So the honourable member can be

assured that we are concerned as much about the quality of cancer care as about the process by which it is done.

I would say to the honourable member opposite, if she's got a problem with Dr Alan Hudson, the most pre-eminent neurosurgeon in the country, who has had

experience at Princess Margaret Hospital, who is now heading up Cancer Care Ontario, she should stand in her place right now and say what her problem is with Dr Hudson, because he is doing the

thing that is necessary to ensure that we have quality cancer care throughout the province of Ontario for all cancer sufferers, in an integrated manner. Better quality cancer care is what this

government is all about.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the active and dynamic Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Helen Johns. I, along

with a lot of my colleagues, have been attending a number of events this week at the annual convention of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The convention, as always, provides farmers with a

series of workshops and seminars on issues of importance to agriculture and rural Ontario.

I am aware that on the agenda for this afternoon, the long gone missing leader of the Liberal Party is scheduled to speak at this convention. Could you

speculate on what the leader might say about agricultural labour?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'd like to thank the member from Perth-Middlesex for the question. I know he has a large

agricultural riding and is always concerned about the issues. It would be interesting today to hear what the leader of the Liberal Party is saying about his position on Bill 187, the Agricultural

Employees Protection Act, which passed in the Legislature last week. As I recall, the Liberals abstained from voting on the first reading, noting that they didn't have sufficient time to make a

decision, even though we had just completed significant public consultations. Last week, the leader of the Liberal Party stated that he would allow full unionization and also that this bill was

only the first step. The right to associate would go one step further: "We're going to allow workers working for large employers in the agricultural sector the right to form a union."

The farm groups have been clear on this issue: a farm is farm is a farm and a Liberal is a flip-flop.

Mr Johnson: Thank you very much, Minister. I enjoyed not only the knowledge you conveyed to me in that, but the way you did it.

I'm also very aware that recently the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora and the president of the Liberal Party, the wannabe leader of the Liberal Party, also made

some interesting remarks regarding Bill 187. Could you comment also on these statements and provide some indication of what these Liberal positions mean for Ontario farmers?

Hon Mrs Johns: Once again the position from the member for Vaughan-King-Aurora is the latest in a series of confusing Liberal statements on

agricultural labour. Yesterday, this member was quoted as saying, "I think we have to repeal it" Bill 187 "and do something different down the road." So now the leader says it's the first step and

the party president says, "No, let's repeal it." Perhaps the party president should be addressing the Ontario Federation of Agriculture today to explain his position.

We on this side of the House have consistently stated that farmers need protection from labour disruption at critical times such as planting and harvesting. We

have also addressed the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada respecting the individual and constitutional rights of the employees.

Once again, in Toronto they're saying one thing; in the agricultural community they're saying something else. It happens in agriculture. It happens in

education. It's happening all the time.

FOREIGN-TRAINED DOCTORS

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): My question is for the Premier. Last Thursday many people were stuffed into a room to listen to your

announcement on foreign-trained physicians. During that announcement, you announced that you would have 656 new doctors practising in Ontario in the next five years. Now that the details are known,

would you kindly stand up and correct the record?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the Minister of Health can deal with this question.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the honourable member should have been aware at the time, we announced an

eight-point, $36.4-million plan that will reduce the barriers to registration and assessment and training for international medical graduates and other non-licensed physicians without reducing our

standard of care. It means improving our physician recruitment and retention, it means creating up to 85 new post-graduate training positions and it means creating a single, integrated, coordinated

system for assessing and training IMGs; it provides further funding for the IMG assessment program and provides funding for the physician-extender, three-year pilot project. That means next year

alone there will be 150 new IMGs for the province of Ontario practising their skills, being part of our community, integrated into our society -- better health care, more health care for the people

of Ontario.

Mrs Pupatello: Well, I wish the Premier had answered this, because he made the announcement. What he said was 656 new doctors would be

working. We have over 1,500 foreign-trained physicians who were desperately seeking news last Thursday. What happened instead, and what we know now, is that 300 of those 600-and-some doctors are

doctors who are already here practising as general practitioners, who are now going to be called specialists. That's not 656 new doctors, is it? That is not 656 new doctors.

You are just stringing these people along, making them believe that you're actually helping them. Your own ministry spokesperson has confirmed that the

eligibility does not change with any of your announcements. Last spring, we had to hear you announce your new fast-tracking. Please explain why again last Thursday you announced a new fast

track.

All you are is talk, Minister and Premier. You are doing nothing to assist these people who have been waiting for a good announcement. You misled the public on

that announcement last Thursday.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member is going to have to withdraw that.

Mrs Pupatello: I withdraw "misled."

Hon Mr Clement: Nothing could be further from the truth. It does not make sense to have foreign medical graduates who do not have the ability

to practise at all when they have the skills and training, nor does it make sense to have physicians who are foreign medical graduates who do not practise to the top level of their skill. We are

allowing both to have access --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. This is the last warning for the member for Windsor West. If she keeps yelling across, she'll be thrown out. The minister

waited patiently for you to ask the question, and it's his turn to answer now. If you don't do it, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to throw you out.

Sorry for the interruption, Minister.

Hon Mr Clement: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We are allowing both groups to have access to the health care system so they can deliver quality, accessible health care for the province of Ontario, and if

the honourable member has a problem with that, let her tell us what she has against international medical graduates who want to practise as specialists in Ontario. Stand in your place and tell us

what you've got against international medical graduates who want to practise their speciality in the province. Tell us now.

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): My question today is for the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Like all the

members on this side of the House, I'm very proud to be part of a government that has demonstrated such a strong commitment to meeting the long-term-care needs of Ontario seniors, both through

unprecedented investment in new and redeveloped long-term-care facilities in my own riding, Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale, as well as across the province, and through our $100-million investment

in nursing and personal care.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Sorry to interrupt. The member for Don Valley East and the government House leader, please come to order.

The member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale has the floor. I apologize, member.

Mr Gill: Last week the Ontario Nurses' Association issued a news release suggesting that long-term-care facilities in our province aren't

using the $100 million in funding to hire new nurses and personal care workers as intended. For the benefit of my constituents, I would like the associate minister to please explain that.

Hon Dan Newman (Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm pleased to respond to the hard-working and always effective honourable

member from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. The Ernie Eves government's historic $100-million investment in nursing and personal care is earmarked into the nursing and personal care envelope for

long-term-care funding. This earmarked $100 million is being used for even better nursing and personal care across Ontario, including the salaries and benefits of registered nurses, registered

practical nurses and personal care workers.

I would also like to point out that there were inconsistencies in the Ontario Nurses' Association's press release from last week, including the statement that

West End Villa nursing home in Ottawa is using half of the money to cover off deficits. The fact is that West End does not even have a deficit, hasn't had a deficit and in fact has hired two

additional full-time personal care workers at their facility.

Mr Gill: I'm glad I asked that question. I want to thank the associate minister for his response. I'm very pleased to hear that our

government's funding is being used, as intended, to provide even better nursing and personal care to residents of Ontario. I know that my constituents will be very happy to hear about that.

I would like to ask the associate minister for specific examples of long-term-care facilities in Ontario that have hired new nursing and personal care staff,

as intended, with the $100 million that we've paid them.

Hon Mr Newman: I once again thank the honourable member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for his question. This summer, the Ontario Long

Term Care Association suggested that our government's $100 million in new additional funding could be used to hire an additional 2,400 full-time-equivalent nursing and personal care workers across

the province, and this still is the case.

This can be seen in Ottawa, for example, where the ministry is aware of roughly 15 facilities that have added nursing staff to their complement to assist in

the provision of care to residents. A multiple-home operator has also added 42 full-time-equivalent positions and another six full-time equivalents in a single home.

In fact, at the Metro Toronto Legion Village in Scarborough, a charitable home for the aged, a nursing supervisor position has been added with the enhanced

personal care dollars. In addition, Metro Toronto Legion Village has added 98 hours a week in health care aide hours and has enhanced evening shifts from a health care aide to a registered nursing

position.

I hope that even the Liberals and the NDP --

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

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Premier. In the west gallery today are adoptees, an adoptive mother and a birth

mother. They represent the thousands from the adoption community who have been working for many years on adoption disclosure. They want the heartbreak of secrecy stopped. They want Bill 77

passed.

As you know, Bill 77 would open up adoption records to adult adoptees and birth parents. There's a contact veto for those who are concerned about privacy.

Premier, will you agree today to call Bill 77 for third reading and a final vote?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, I believe that issues such as the one she's talking about don't

have any place in partisan politics. I believe there are several private members' bills in this Legislature that should go forward on a free vote and a non-partisan basis. The member for

Waterloo-Wellington, for example, has a bill that I believe should go forward and be acted upon.

I have talked to our House leader this morning about this very issue. There are many substantial improvements, I believe, that the Legislative Assembly

committee is on the verge of recommending to the House to make this a more free and open democratic process, especially as far as backbench members are concerned.

I would urge the honourable member to talk to her House leader so there can be an arrangement among all three House leaders so members of all three parties can

bring forward private members' bills that can be voted upon.

Ms Churley: Premier, I appreciate the fact that we've come a long way from where we were before, but I do want to point out to you that it's a

half-yes; we're not all the way there.

There are illnesses and deaths as a result of this bill not being passed. I do not want to see it caught up in the usual negotiations and BS that goes on

around here when it comes to negotiations around the passage of bills.

Please listen to me, Premier. I appreciate what you said, but these people here today want a guarantee that this bill will be called for third reading and a

final vote. Since 1999, it has been sitting there waiting for passage. Would you agree today that, no matter what, you will see to it as Premier that this bill comes forward for a final vote?

Hon Mr Eves: I certainly appreciate the fact that the honourable member believes very sincerely in the cause she's talking about. I believe

there are several other members of this Legislative Assembly who share that same concern and that same belief. I would like to see the bill brought forward, but she knows how this place works. I

think she has a bigger problem, quite frankly, convincing her House leader than she does people on this side of the House that the bill should come forward.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I have a question for the Premier. I want to ask you about your statements made last week to the

parents and the public of Toronto about the funding that your appointed supervisor is providing to them, and to students in particular. You said very explicitly that funding to the classroom in

Toronto will be increased by the supervisor's proposal.

We now know that in fact there's at least a $23-million reduction in funding to the classroom compared to last year. Those parents and those students were

depending on you. You and your minister are the only elected officials who have any influence over the future of their children this year.

It turns out that what you said last week isn't correct. Will you stand today in the House and apologize, and more importantly, will you reconsider the funding

for those students in light of your statements and in light of the facts?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Education will be able to correct the honourable member.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Deputy Premier, Minister of Education): The member opposite knows full well that the only people who abdicated their

responsibility to the students were the trustees, the small majority who refused to balance the budget and present a balanced budget to the Ministry of Education.

The reality is that Mr Kennedy's methodology is flawed. The supervisor's table compares net expenditures in 2001-02 to net expenditures in 2002-03. He did an

apples-to-apples comparison, but not Mr Kennedy, of course. He did a comparison where he took a look and he compared total expenditures in 2001-02 to net expenditures in 2002-03. It was an

apples-to-oranges comparison. Why he'd do that, I'm not sure.

Mr Kennedy: We have the minister opposite who said to us just now that there was a mixture between gross and net figures. They won't release

the gross figures. They are afraid to put out how much money is being spent on behalf of students. Why are they afraid? Because the partial figures we have obtained and that were confirmed by the

school board -- those members over there hope against hope they might be true -- prove the fact that the Premier last week told this Legislature that, first of all, the money spent in the classroom

has actually increased and in fact it has not. It hasn't increased.

Interjection.

Mr Kennedy: For all the laughing members opposite, students in this city have less teacher assistance, have fewer teachers, have less

classroom assistance, and despite your assurance, Premier, and you're afraid to come up and talk about this question, they have fewer textbooks.

I ask you again, Premier, will you apologize to the students and the parents for whom you have provided inaccurate information, but more importantly, will you

instruct your minister now -- it has been proven it's not working. Will you reconsider the funding given out for the students in Toronto? Will you do that today?

Hon Mrs Witmer: If I heard the member opposite correctly, he said he didn't have the figures. Does that mean he made the figures up?

CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a question today --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant has the floor.

Mr Barrett: I have a question today for the Minister of Natural Resources. Many people in the province of Ontario are very concerned about a

troubling disease that has been detected in both deer and elk populations in some of Ontario's neighbouring jurisdictions. It's known as chronic wasting disease. Could you please explain to us

today, first of all, what this disease is and, secondly, has it been detected in either deer or elk herds in the province?

Hon Jerry J. Ouellette (Minister of Natural Resources): Chronic wasting disease, or CWD as it's known, is a progressive fatal disease of the

nervous system detected in deer and elk. It's caused by an abnormal protein called a prion, and there is no scientific evidence to date that CWD, in any way, shape or form infects humans.

Scientists are not sure how the disease is transmitted. I've heard various aspects come forward such as bald eagles transmitting it, and it's not quite sure how it is found. Also, there is no

detection of the disease in Ontario, and the MNR will continue to protect Ontarians and Ontario's deer and elk herds.

Mr Barrett: Thank you for that explanation. I am relieved to hear there has been no detection of chronic wasting disease in the province.

However, given the harmful potential for this disease, it's important that our province continue to not only remain vigilant but remain watchful for any indications of its spread. What steps have

you been taking to ensure there has not been any incidence of this disease in the province, and what are you planning for the future?

Hon Mr Ouellette: That's right. You can't wait until the last minute until a disease is actually detected in your area. So what the MNR has

done is launch a pilot project this year during deer season. This was designed to develop a process on how to collect data, to review that data, to analyze it and to implement a program to deal

with the situation should it arise in Ontario. To date, we've had over 140 samples collected, with no positive results in any of the animals that were brought forward.

I want to thank the outdoor community for a program that has been well received and has been very supportive. I want to assure everyone that the MNR and

outdoor partners will continue to bring this program to a closure so that we can establish a comprehensive, permanent safety measure to ensure the protection of Ontario's deer and elk herds.

LOBBYISTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier, and the question is about the return of the prodigal son, Guy Giorno,

who has obviously returned to call the shots for this government.

Yesterday, you were in Ottawa discussing the Kyoto Protocol with the Prime Minister, and you said that you were not persuaded by the arguments he provided. But

obviously you --

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: -- and the backbencher who's so yappy and the rest of the government are persuaded by Guy Giorno, who is lobbying on behalf of the

oil barons, on behalf of the opponents of the Kyoto accord.

When I try to get any information, all I get are blackened pages like this. That's all I get from your government.

I want to ask the Premier why he is listening to a major lobbyist who worked for the former Premier of the province of Ontario who is now back advising you?

Why have you been persuaded by Guy Giorno to oppose the provisions of the Kyoto accord?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have never had a discussion with Guy Giorno about the Kyoto accord.

Mr Bradley: That's one of those statements where, whether it's true or not, nobody believes it. That's one of those statements.

Let me talk about perhaps the ethics of Guy Giorno lobbying you, holding this reception where he trotted out his friend, the Minister of Energy, John Baird, to

speak, and brought together chief Tory operatives downstairs on October 15.

Subsection 30(

b) of the conflict of interest and post-service directive states: "For 12 months after leaving the service of the crown, a former senior public

servant is restricted from lobbying for or on behalf of any person, entity or organization to any ministry or organization of the crown with which the individual worked in the 12 months prior to

leaving the service."

Could you tell us whether you think it's appropriate that Guy Giorno was doing so much of the lobbying against the Kyoto accord and trying to persuade your

government not to agree with the Kyoto accord, when clearly he is violating the provisions of this particular act?

Hon Mr Eves: I would refer this supplementary to the Chair of the Management Board.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Culture): One of the concerns we've had in terms of this type of

purported conflict of interest was that we've created an independent office of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. We've appointed the Honourable Lloyd Houlden to be the commissioner.

We're very concerned to make sure that upon leaving the government, not only civil servants but also senior staff in ministers' offices and the Premier's

office are expected to meet with the commissioner, who provides them with clear directions about the activities they may engage in, in accordance with the post-service directive.

Last fall, we in fact revised the conflict-of-interest rules to ensure they're up to date and meet the government's commitment to accountability and

transparency to the public.

In short, Mr Giorno was required to meet with Mr Houlden and was required to indicate to him the direction he was going to take, and obviously that has

occurred.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last week I was thankfully invited by Gord Carey to

attend a National Housing Day open house at Faith United Church in my riding of Durham. The event included organizers who are looking toward the issues facing affordable housing, not just in Durham

region but indeed across the province, members like Len Perkins and Lynn Teatro, and John Jensen, president of Project Next Step.

They provided me with a very good reference point on the issues facing us in terms of housing supply. Consequently, I was impressed with the housing supply

working group report released this week.

Minister, I wonder if you could tell us what needs to be done to get people building more rental and affordable housing in the province of Ontario.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I appreciate the question from the member for Durham, a hard-working MPP. I can

tell you that the housing supply working group issued two reports. I received last week the second one. It talks about how to make the numbers work for affordable housing.

We're having huge success in the province of Ontario in terms of home ownership, condos and apartments at the top end of the rental scale. Eventually the

supply will work, but in the short term, what needs to be done to get the numbers to work for affordable rents for working families in this province? They've identified a number of barriers that

need to be removed. The top of the barriers we've already removed since 1996, undoing the damage of that lost decade of Liberal-NDP mismanagement.

On top of that they've recommended some further things that need to be done: full rebate of the GST, a deferral of the capital gains tax, increasing the

depreciation allowance on rental housing and restoration of the soft costs deductibility. These are all things they're recommending to make the numbers work so it's economically viable for the

private sector to build affordable housing.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for your response on this important policy issue, Minister. I commend you for your leadership and for making

it clear about the lack of commitment by the federal government on the issues you've mentioned, the CMHC transfers, the municipal tax rate on multiple residential, as well as our initiative on the

PST tax relief.

The Tenant Protection Act amendments and proposals brought forward by the Liberal McGuinty government plans to establish rent control on vacant units. We

understand that the market usually determines this. That plan, in my view, has failed to address the fundamental question. Minister, what's your response to that suggestion?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I think everyone knows that was a failed policy. In any jurisdiction in the world it has been tried, it doesn't work. The

federal government has announced a federal program to try to kick-start 10,500 units. We're working with them; I was on the phone again this morning with Minister Collenette. We expect to be

rolling that out in the near future.

Going back to the future of rent control, you can look at any jurisdiction; it fails. The supply is what you need to concentrate on. You need to have

incentives to make the numbers work to get more supply. There is a huge success story taking place in Ontario with home ownership: 67.9% of the public now have ownership of their residences. That's

up from 64%. That's at historic highs.

The CMHC report that was just released is great news. It shows a huge, dramatic improvement in the vacancy rates, 2.7%, from 1.7% just a year ago. That's the

highest vacancy rate since 1975, the year rent controls were brought in to stifle any further investment in this field. Even Vince Brescia, president and CEO of the Fair Rental Policy --

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

SMELTER OPERATION IN TIMMINS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Premier. Globex, a mining company in northern Ontario, has discovered a large

magnesium-talc body just south of the city of Timmins. This could represent the largest mining project in Timmins since the strike of Texasgulf in the early 1960s. Part of this project could

include a refinery and smelter that would create some 500 jobs in the community of Timmins.

Premier, I don't need to tell you how badly we need those jobs for the province of Ontario. What are you prepared to do to make sure Globex builds that smelter

in the city of Timmins?

Hon Ernie Eves (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer the question to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I thank the honourable member for the question. As you know, I've met with the

company on a few occasions, as have officials of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. We've rolled out the welcome mat as best we can.

Globex has been given a pretty good -- at least they tell us, both privately and in the media -- subsidized power deal from the province of Quebec. It's

perhaps a deal that's very generous, and I would say the taxpayers are going to be subsidizing that company. Right now the debate is, can Ontario match it? We're certainly looking at it, but it has

not been the policy of this government, nor should it be, to give money directly to business. We've created a million net new jobs in this province since 1995, and we've done it without corporate

welfare. We don't want to go down that road.

We're dealing with Globex. I think it makes eminent sense to have the smelter near the mine but, as you know, the province of Quebec is also in these

discussions.

Mr Bisson: That says a lot about your hydro policy, but back to the Premier and my original question. I hope, Premier, when you visit Timmins

tomorrow you'll have something better to tell the citizens of Timmins, because a year ago Globex wanted to meet with your government to talk about how your government could assist them in

developing a bankable feasibility study in order to not only build the mine but build a refinery and smelter.

The only way they were able to meet with your government was by way of a fundraiser, and when they showed up they were basically told what the minister just

said: "We don't provide any loans or grant programs directly to the private sector. We're not in that business whatsoever."

Now where are we at? Twelve months later Globex is in a situation of being lured over to Quebec by the province of Quebec and not only are they looking at

building the refinery smelter over there but they're prepared to participate in a bankable feasibility study.

My question to you is really simple. It's clear at this point that you dropped the ball on this. When you go to Timmins tomorrow, Premier, what are you

prepared to tell the citizens of Timmins about what your government is going to do to make sure that that smelter, if built, will be built in the city of Timmins, Ontario, and not in the province

of Quebec?

Hon Mr Wilson: I want to give the member an opportunity to correct the record. He knows very well, because he was with the company when we met

in my office, and I've never met the company at a fundraiser. I extended the courtesy of his coming to that meeting, he extended the courtesy of accompanying the company and I thought it was a very

good meeting. We've had follow-up meetings.

It occurs to me it's difficult to compete with Quebec because in our Confederation, Ontario is the economic engine of Canada and we give far more tax dollars

to Quebec -- actually to the federal government, and they give them to Quebec -- than we get back from the federal government. This is one of those cases where being the economic engine of Canada

is perhaps working against us.

Having said that, this Premier, the previous Premier and this government have created a million net new jobs in Ontario. These jobs can be created in Timmins.

We want to keep working with Globex. We have the most competitive mining jurisdiction in North America. We're number one in the world this year for low mining taxes --

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the minister.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to clarify the record. It wasn't the current minister setting up that meeting; it was

a previous minister.

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question today is to the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. People receiving

ODSP tend to have higher-than-average medical needs. They often need to travel in order to get specialized services. They receive 18 cents per kilometre for their trip. That's about half of what

you and I get.

You have now brought out a new process that requires their doctor to submit on what their expenses will be for the next year. They must determine what their

doctors' visits, dental visits and medical supplies will be for the coming year. Doctors have said to me that they have to either be liars or clairvoyants to fill out this form.

Minister, without this form being completed, our citizens are unable to get their medical services. You have created a major new barrier to citizens with

disabilities. I ask you now, today, to withdraw this process and pay them for the trips they incur as they do them.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I thank my colleague opposite for the question. We have worked

very hard to make changes to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act to improve the lives of those who are disabled. It's our government that introduced the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It's

our government that removed those who are disabled from the welfare act to give them a new plan, the Ontario disability support program, with great improvements.

We have been concerned with some of the processes in the Ontario disability act and we've tried to improve them. I'm not exactly sure what the questioner is

referring to. We have made some changes to simplify the application process in creating one consistent form, and we did that with extensive advice from the Ontario Medical Association to improve

the form that the physicians were asked to complete. If this is the form in question, then I'd be happy to speak to my colleague further about this.

Mr Parsons: Let me explain to you what you have done. You have created a form called the mandatory special necessities benefit request. People

receiving ODSP cannot receive funding for their trips as they incur them. They now must submit for the following year, well into 2003, and then they receive a certain amount on each cheque.

No one knows what's going to happen in the next year. This is a bureaucratic nightmare. If a citizen receivng ODSP makes some money, within 15 days you can

claw back that money from their cheque. Surely within 15 days you could process a travel claim and pay it. Rather than an airy-fairy best guess of what's going to happen in the next year, let's do

it right. Let's do it financially soundly, and let's remove the barrier. Doctors are refusing to fill out this form, and we have citizens on ODSP who are not getting the medical treatment they

require because of your new, ridiculous barrier.

Hon Mrs Elliott: We've worked very hard on this side to improve the lives of those who are disabled. We've worked very hard to make the

process easier, straightforward and improved in every way. If this form or any other form is a problem, it's a form I will be examining and improving.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to immediately call the orders for second and

third readings of Bill 211 today, notwithstanding standing order 69, and that the Speaker put the question without debate.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT

(SIMCOE MUSKOKA CATHOLIC

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RETOUR

À L'ÉCOLE (SIMCOE MUSKOKA

CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD)

Mr Clark moved second reading of the following bill:

Board / Projet de loi 211, Loi visant à régler le conflit de travail opposant l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants catholiques anglo-ontariens et le conseil scolaire de

district appelé Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board.

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

BACK TO SCHOOL ACT

(SIMCOE MUSKOKA CATHOLIC

DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RETOUR

À L'ÉCOLE (SIMCOE MUSKOKA

CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD)

Mr Clark moved third reading of the following bill:

Board / Projet de loi 211, Loi visant à régler le conflit de travail opposant l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants catholiques anglo-ontariens et le conseil scolaire de

district appelé Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

VISITORS

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to welcome Peter Callaghan and a group of students from

Loyalist College in Belleville. I hope they have not been too disillusioned by their experience here.

PETITIONS

ALUMINUM SMELTER

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is a petition to clean up the abandoned aluminum smelter in Georgina, and the petition reads as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the abandoned aluminum smelter located on Warden Avenue in the town of Georgina has been deemed to have heavy metals exceeding Ministry of the

Environment guidelines; and

"Whereas the site is adjacent to a wetland that leads to the Maskinonge River feeding into Lake Simcoe;

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

"The Ministry of the Environment should immediately conduct a full environmental assessment and cleanup of the site."

I affix my signature. I'm in complete agreement.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): If we could stop the clock just for a quick moment. It's a little noisy as some of the members leave. We'll just

take a quick moment here.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "Whereas the government has cut over $2 billion from public education over the past seven years;

"Whereas the provincial funding formula does not provide sufficient funds for local district school board trustees to meet the needs of students;

"Whereas district school boards around the province have had to cut needed programs and services, including library, music, physical education and special

education" and more;

"Whereas the district school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto refused to make further cuts and were summarily replaced with

government-appointed supervisors;

"Whereas these supervisors are undermining classroom education for hundreds of thousands of children;

"We, the undersigned elected leaders of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, call on the government to restore local democracy by removing the

supervisors in the Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto district school boards."

I support that.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): In light of the government's latest announcement last Thursday in Sudbury about their agreeing to four-laning

Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound, I will continue to introduce these petitions into the Legislature until in fact that four-laning is done.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

""Whereas modern highways are economic lifelines for the north; and

"Whereas the stretch of Highway 69 from Sudbury south to Parry Sound is a treacherous road with a trail of death and destruction; and

"Whereas the carnage on Highway 69 has been staggering; and

"Whereas the Harris-Eves government has shown gross irresponsibility in not four-laning the stretch of Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound; and

"Whereas immediate action is needed to prevent more needless loss of life; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of a government to provide safe roads for its citizens, and the" Harris-Eves "government has failed to do so;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the" Harris-Eves "government to begin construction immediately

and four-lane Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry Sound so that the carnage on Death Road North will cease."

I affix my signature to this petition and give it to Annelise to bring to the table.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions that have been sent to me by Lisa Gregory, by the YWCA of St Catharines and by the Jubilee

Heritage Family Resources program in Sudbury. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas 70% of Ontario women with children under age 12 are in the paid workforce;

"Whereas high-quality, safe, affordable child care is critical to them and their families;

"Whereas the Early Years Study done for the Conservative government by Dr Fraser Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain concluded quality child care

enhances early childhood development;

"Whereas this government has cut funding for regulated child care instead of supporting Ontario families by investing in early learning and care;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Ontario government adopt the NDP's $10-a-day child care plan and begin implementation by reducing full child care fees to

$10 a day for children aged two to five currently enrolled in regulated child care by providing capital funds to expand existing child care centres and build new ones, by funding pay equity for

staff and by creating new $10-a-day child care spaces in the province."

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

PROGRAMME D'ALPHABÉTISATION

ET D'INTÉGRATION COMMUNAUTAIRE

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier): « Attendu que les 44 personnes qui assistaient au programme d'alphabétisation

et d'intégration communautaire de la Cité collégiale perdent en moyenne 2,5 jours par semaine de services directs et d'appui dans leur communauté dû à la fermeture de

ce programme;

« Attendu que les agences de services du secteur de la déficience intellectuelle ne peuvent offrir de services de remplacement à ces

personnes, compte tenu que leurs programmes sont déjà remplis à capacité;

« Attendu que les 44 personnes qui assistaient à ce programme seront maintenant insérées sur la liste d'attente à coordination

des services, qui comprend déjà plus d'une trentaine de personnes francophones et que certaines d'entre elles attendent déjà depuis plus de deux ans;

« Attendu que nous considérons inacceptable de laisser les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle et leurs familles sans ou avec

trop peu de soutien, de programmes et de services;

« Nous, parents, familles, amis et intervenants, demandons au gouvernement Eves de collaborer afin d'assurer un financement adéquat pour la mise

en _uvre d'un modèle de services aux personnes francophones ayant une déficience intellectuelle qui répondra aux besoins, favorisera la mouvance dans le système de

déficience intellectuelle, réduira la liste d'attente et reconnaîtra le droit à l'éducation pour les personnes ayant une déficience intellectuelle. »

It's my pleasure to put my signature on it.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition by several hundred people from the Ottawa area. It says:

"Whereas the government has cut over $2 billion from public education over the past seven years;

"Whereas the provincial funding formula does not provide sufficient funds for local district school board trustees to meet the needs of students;

"Whereas district school boards" across "the province have had to cut needed programs and services, including library, music, physical education and special

education;

"Whereas the district school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto refused to make further cuts and were summarily replaced with

government-appointed supervisors;

"Whereas these supervisors are undermining classroom education for hundreds of thousands of children;

"We, the undersigned members of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario, call on the government to restore local democracy by removing the supervisors

in the Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carleton and Toronto district school boards."

I'm happy to place my signature along with these others.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

SAVINGS OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition sent to me by people from Holland Centre, Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Province of Ontario Savings Office was created in 1922 by United Farmers and labour as a unique banking facility that allowed Ontarians to invest

in their province; and

"Whereas the Province of Ontario Savings Office enjoys a strong popularity among Ontario residents, with over 100,000 accounts and over $2.8 billion on

deposit; and

"Whereas the Province of Ontario Savings Office offers customers attractive interest rates, generous checking privileges and personalized, efficient service,

and every dollar deposited is guaranteed by the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas POSO has 23 branches serving 17 communities across Ontario including Hamilton, Windsor, Ottawa and small communities in northern Ontario not served by

other banks or trust companies, places like Pickle Lake, Armstrong, Killarney, Gogama and Virginiatown; and

"Whereas the Tory government announced in its latest budget that it will put the Province of Ontario Savings Bank on the auction block even though it is a

consistent revenue generator and even though this revenue could help Ontario's crumbling infrastructure after years of Tory neglect;

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

"To save the people's bank, the Province of Ontario Savings Office, so that it can continue its historic role of providing excellent banking services to

families in communities across Ontario, so that people in small towns will not be forced to go further afield for banking services and forced to go to private, for-profit banks."

I agree with the petitioners, and I sign my signature as well.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas some motorists are recklessly endangering the lives of children by not obeying the highway traffic law requiring them to stop for school buses with

their warning lights activated;

"Whereas the current law has no teeth to protect the children who ride the school buses of Ontario, and who are at risk and their safety is in jeopardy;

"Whereas the current school bus law is difficult to enforce, since not only is the licence plate number required but positive identification of the driver and

vehicle as well, which makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the measures contained in private member's Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to protect children while on school buses, presented by Pat

Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent-Essex, be immediately enacted. Bill 112 received the unanimous all-party support of the Ontario Legislature at second reading on June 13, 2002.

"We ask for the support of all members of the Legislature."

I too have signed this important petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition sent to me by Catherine Callaghan of Cambridge, Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Conservative government increased fees paid by Ontario's seniors and other vulnerable people living in long-term care facilities by 15% ...

instead of providing adequate government funding for long-term care; and

"Whereas the Conservative government has therefore shifted the costs of long-term care on to the backs of the frail, elderly and their families; and

"Whereas this increase is 11.1% above rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas in 1996 Ontario abandoned its minimum requirement of 2.25 hours of nursing care per nursing home resident; and

"Whereas the government's own contribution to raise the level of long-term care-services this year is less than $2 per resident per day; and

"Whereas according to the government's own study, government cutbacks have resulted in Ontario seniors receiving just 14 minutes a day of care from a

registered nurse ... and

"Whereas the report also found that Ontario residents receive the least nursing, bathing and general care of nine other comparable locations;

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

We demand "the Conservative government eliminate the 15% fee increase for residents of long-term care facilities, increase the number of nursing care hours for

each resident to a minimum of 3.5 hours per day and provide stable, increased funding to ensure quality care is there for Ontario residents of long-term-care facilities."

I agree with the petitioners. I have affixed my signature to this.

NATURAL GAS RATES

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"...

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act

disallowing the retroactive rate hike granted to Union Gas; and we further demand that the Legislature examine the Ontario Energy Board, its processes and its resources, and make changes that will

protect consumers from further retroactive rate increases."

I am in full agreement and will affix my signature hereto.

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions that have been signed by many people in my riding, and they read as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's plan to privatize and deregulate Ontario's electricity system will lead to higher rates because private owners will sell more

power to US customers whose rates are typically 50% higher than Ontario's; and

"Whereas selling coal plants like Nanticoke to the private sector will lead to more pollution because the private owners will run the plants at full capacity

to earn a profit; and

"Whereas electricity deregulation in California has led to sky-high rates and blackouts; and

"Whereas Ontario needs a system of public power that will ensure rate stability, environmental protection and secure access to power;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the undersigned call on the government to scrap electricity deregulation and privatization and bring in a system of accountable

public power. The first priority for such a public power system must be incentives for energy conservation and green power. Electricity rates and major energy projects must be subject to full

public hearings and binding rulings by a public regulator instead of leaving energy rates to private profit."

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

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I continue to receive dozens upon dozens of petitions containing hundreds of names from places

like Newmarket, Burlington, Hamilton, Kitchener, Guelph, Orangeville and Parry Sound, among others, dealing with the long-term-care situation. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario.

"Whereas the Eves government has increased the fees paid by seniors and the most vulnerable living in long-term-care facilities by 15% over three years, or

$3.02 per diem in the first year and $2 in the second year and $2 in the third year, effective September 1, 2002; and

"Whereas this fee increase will cost seniors and our most vulnerable more than $200 a month after three years; and

"Whereas this increase is above the rent increase guidelines for tenants in the province of Ontario for 2002; and

"Whereas, according to the government's own funded study, Ontario will still rank last amongst comparable jurisdictions in the amount of time provided to a

resident for nursing and personal care; and

"Whereas the long-term-care funding partnership has been based on government accepting the responsibility to fund the care and services that residents need;

and

"Whereas the government needs to increase long-term-care operating funding by $750 million over the next three years to raise the level of service for

Ontario's long-term-care residents to those in Saskatchewan in 1999; and

"Whereas this province has been built by seniors who should be able to live out their lives with dignity, respect and in comfort in this province;

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

"Demand that Premier Eves reduce the 15% increase over three years in accommodation costs to no more than the cost-of-living increase annually and that the

provincial government provide adequate funding for nursing and personal care to a level that is at least at the average standard for nursing and personal care in those 10 jurisdictions included in

the government's own study."

I agree with the petition, and I've signed it accordingly.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have some more petitions. They are sent to me from the Welland campus of Niagara College and from a Child's

World, which is also located in that area, in Port Colborne specifically. It reads as follows:

"Whereas 70% of Ontario women with children under age 12 are in the paid workforce;

"Whereas high-quality, safe, affordable child care is critical to them and their families;

"Whereas the Early Years Study done for the Conservative government by Dr Fraser Mustard and the Honourable Margaret McCain concluded quality child care

enhances early childhood development;

"Whereas this government has cut funding for regulated child care instead of supporting Ontario families by investing in early learning and care;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Ontario government adopt the NDP's $10-a-day child care plan and begin implementation by reducing full child care fees to

$10 a day for children aged two to five currently enrolled in regulated child care, by providing capital funds to expand existing child care centres and build new ones, by funding" proxy "pay

equity for staff and by creating new $10-a-day child care spaces in the province."

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

OPPOSITION DAY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): The Legislative Assembly of Ontario directs the Ernie Eves government to commit to directing two cents of

the existing provincial gas tax to municipalities, which will double the provincial investment in public transit.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Mr Colle has moved opposition day number 4.

Mr Colle: I'm happy to be here talking about the need to have an ongoing dedicated portion of the gasoline tax collected by the province that

goes toward the funding of public transit throughout the province. This would come out of the existing gas tax, of which the province collects about $2.6 billion a year. We would like to take a

portion of that and apply it to the operation and funding of capital projects for transit.

I think this is necessary, because we can see that right now Ontario is basically the only jurisdiction in North America which doesn't have an ongoing,

full-time commitment of funding for the operation of transit. Even in Europe, there's a regular, ongoing commitment of funding. This used to be the case in Ontario up until 1997, when the Harris

government decided to walk away from that commitment and essentially downloaded the cost of funding public transit to the municipalities. Right now, transit in Toronto is funded by the property

taxes -- it's the same in Ottawa -- and the fare box. So you have an incredible situation where property taxpayers who have already reached the limit are now also asked to fund transit out of their

property taxes. That is not sustainable, because transit is an extremely expensive operation to maintain financially. It's not only the capital requirements of subway cars, buses, streetcars, bus

stations, bus garages; it's also very labour-intensive. You have to hire mechanics to maintain and operate the system, and drivers. So we need ongoing funding.

We can see what has happened in recent years: for instance, the TTC in Toronto is now carrying 45 million fewer passengers per year than it did in the late

1980s, despite an increase in population of over 20% in the Toronto area. We always think that with all these population increases, and I think this is similar for the whole GTA -- we see increases

in population, yet we see a decrease in the number of people using transit. The reason for that is that the basic way of attracting new ridership is increased service.

I remember I was talking to the city manager of Oakville one time a couple of years ago, and he said they had to reduce the frequency of the bus routes because

of the cutbacks, so the bus would only come at half-hour intervals. If you're waiting a half hour, you're not going to wait. It's not going to be a viable alternative to taking the car. You have to

increase and maintain service.

By giving them funding, these transit systems will be able to put more buses on the road, provide more services and then at the same time attract more riders.

The benefit of this is that in the long run it gets rid of one of the major causes of economic loss, certainly in the Golden Horseshoe area: loss through congestion and gridlock. We all witness it;

we all see it. We lose person-hours waiting in traffic. We waste fuel. Therefore, deliveries take more time. By getting more people on transit, we not only benefit the transit users, we benefit

those who have to use the roads to deliver goods and services or make sales calls during the day. It benefits everyone, even though you're not a transit user per se.

It's critical not only for the economy of the province and the GTA, but for the environment too. Because with all this added gridlock, people sitting in

traffic on the QEW or the 401 and there's continual emission of all kinds of noxious substances that diminish air quality. So this is another benefit of putting this amount of money, which will

amount to about $300 million a year, toward the funding of transit in Ontario. Whether it's in Ottawa or Windsor or Kingston, it will go toward improving the level of service.

There was a very detailed study released a couple of years ago by David McCleary, who was the manager of policy planning in Halton region. He did this for the

GTSB, where he looked at the challenges here. He said that right now, GO Transit is running to capacity. In fact, the Lakeshore line is running at 160% of capacity. We have to do something.

"Municipalities," Mr McCleary said, "are spending about $570 million a year on transportation infrastructure. But if cities hope to reduce congestion and

handle the expected growth, they should be spending $1.37 billion a year, almost three times that, to make our roads less congested." That's what the director of policy and planning of Halton

said.

Property taxes or development levies can't be expected to make up this $800-million shortfall, so you aren't going to do it by raising property taxes. You

can't fund transit that way; nowhere else in the world do they fund transit on property taxes, only in Ontario. The province can, however, by tapping into the $1.1 billion it collects each year in

gasoline taxes and vehicle and driver licensing fees within the GTA and the Hamilton-Wentworth regions.

As I said, the province collects $2.6 billion every year in gas taxes; it collects over $1 billion in GTA region alone in gas taxes and related fees, so

there's money there that could be used to not only improve public transportation but also get our roads freer for goods and services to move. Because it doesn't matter how many roads we build, if

we really want to improve the mobility of Ontarians, we have to get people, if they have the option, to go to the public transit. That's the key. Whether you go to Munich, London, Paris or New

York, that's the way they make those cities work.

We, in the last number of years in Ontario, have walked away from our commitment, so we, as Liberals, believe there should be a commitment back to public

transit. That's why we announced yesterday in our Growing Strong Communities plan that we would put this two cents, which amounts to $300 million a year, into funding transit on a regular basis. We

would also, to better coordinate transit planning and to make sure we spend dollars properly, establish a Greater Toronto transit authority that would act as a planner and comprehensive allocator

of resources to the GTA, making sure things move smoothly, making sure resources aren't spent that are contrary to the movement of goods and people across the lines -- especially transit, across

the regional lines.

We all know transit should not stop at an artificial barrier at the Mississauga border or at Steeles Avenue. We in the GTA go across these borders continually,

so we need a coordinating body, and that's why Dalton McGuinty, yesterday, supported the concept of a GTA authority to better plan and allocate our resources more properly. We also think that there

should be an easy pass across the GTA so people who use GO Transit or maybe Mississauga Transit or Toronto Transit can use one transit pass instead of buying different tickets etc, so you'd have an

easy pass across the GTA.

I remember Lou Parsons, 15 years ago, tried to get this going. It's really a no-brainer that has to happen if we're going to treat transit and transportation

as a serious issue that affects our economy and environment. That's why you have to make this commitment that is not just on an ad hoc basis. This government will make announcements about transit,

but there is no plan, there is no serious year-after-year, long-range commitment. That's what you need. You need this.

I know the Minister of Transportation and the Premier speculated the other day about privatizing transit to make it better. Well, it doesn't work. They

mentioned Australia. Privatization of transit in Australia, in the state of Victoria, has been a total failure. In England, they tried to privatize some of the railway there; another failure. You

can't really use the private sector to act as a panacea here because you don't really make money on transit; it really is providing a service. That's been the case all over the world. There's

marginal privatization of transit throughout the world; it's really unheard of.

We also need to look at ways of ensuring that transit is not just a municipal responsibility. You have a strong province and you have strong cities and towns,

and that's why this investment is not so much, as some people would say, an extra amount of money; it's a reallocation, it's a reinvestment in things that make cities work. If we're talking about

planning the GTA better -- the government likes to use the term "smart growth." Well, you can't have smart growth without transit.

This government has tried to say they're for planning things in a sustainable way, yet they haven't put any money into transit. You can't have good growth

unless you have good transit planning; you can't have proper sustainable planning in Ontario unless you have invested in transit. So this government, as I said, has to come to realize that there

will be more wastage of fuel, more congestion, more gridlock and more pollution and smog unless you support this concept of putting provincial money back into public transportation.

In Montreal that's how they fund their transit, partially, through a gas tax -- in British Columbia; in Alberta. In Alberta they do the same thing: subsidize

Calgary Transit and Edmonton Transit. It's really unusual that a province as wealthy and as advanced as Ontario does not fund public transit on a regular basis. We walked away from that. We've

taken millions of dollars out, and subsequently we've relied on the fare box. For instance, in Toronto about 80 cents of the funding of transit comes out of the fare box. It's unheard of. Most

places in the world 50 cents is by fare -- in most other places, states and provinces. Traditionally, constitutionally, this is the responsibility of the province. Up until 1997 we used to do this.

We've got to get back in the business of transit. It's good for the economy, good for the environment and something that makes eminent sense if we're going to save our air and save a lot of money.

By doing this, we could also get the feds to match this two cents. Can you imagine? If we put in $300 million and the feds put in $300 million, we could do some great things in transit. So please

join us in doing something that's good for the air, good for the economy and good for everybody in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the opposition day motion today. Once again our

government is being asked to dedicate a specific tax to a specific program, and once again, for the benefit of our province, we must staunchly refuse to do so. Certainly, it doesn't seem to matter

-- when it comes to taxes, a Liberal always likes it. They really love to get involved with tax, spend and borrow. And here's another example where they want to nail down the two cents. I question

the kind of research they've carried out on this. Is two cents per litre really going to be the amount of money that's needed by municipalities? Is it too much? Is it too little? I've heard of very

little, if any, research on this. But I certainly welcome this opportunity to tell you why earmarking taxes is not a prudent course of action and not in the best interests of the people of the

province. I also want to tell you what our government is doing to address the infrastructure needs of Ontario's communities.

But first things first: we're being asked to direct two cents from Ontario's gasoline tax to municipalities for investment in public transit. On the surface, I

can follow some of the thinking. But this is a very simplistic response to a very complex issue indeed. Tax revenues currently are deposited into the province's consolidated revenue fund; some

people refer to it as CRF, although there are other acronyms, CRFs, that refer to community reinvestment funds. It's then up to the members of this Legislature, who after all were indeed elected to

represent the people of this province, to decide how that money is best allocated.

I think of a circumstance in the riding next door to mine, the riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. When a new hospital was being built in

Bancroft, that particular member voted against each and every budget bill that was to provide funding for that hospital. I really have difficulty understanding why people would be voting against

funding for a hospital in their own riding. But that's an example, and as I say, they must decide how that money is best allocated. Obviously that person did not want to have the hospital built in

their riding.

Public transit, like other programs and services supported by the provincial government, is funded from the consolidated revenue fund. This method of program

funding is flexible. It is efficient. It allows our government the best means available to address the changing needs of our province.

By not linking certain taxes with certain programs, we're better able to respond to the challenges inherent in governing a province as diverse and dynamic as

Ontario. By having this flexibility we can compensate, for example, when the federal government, which is supposed to be coming through with 50% funding for health care, drops it all the way to

14%. More recently they dropped it right down to around 9% or 10% and it's back up to 14% now. That gave us the flexibility so we could fill the void the federal government was not filling. I

understand from the Romanow report that this may actually go up to something like 25%. It's halfway to the original agreement, but that's a heck of a lot better than it is now. It points out that

it gives that flexibility to the province to fill those gaps where the federal government is not prepared to properly look after health care in Ontario.

Earmarking money from the gasoline tax for municipalities to use on transit services would take money directly out of the consolidated revenue fund. This would

leave the consolidated revenue fund with less money and less able to meet the funding requirements of other priority programs and services, such as health care and education. From some of the

speeches we've heard from the opposition benches about health care and education, you would think they would want that flexibility there and would want the funding available for those programs. But

obviously they've been successfully lobbied by municipal governments and they've bent to those pressures. This would leave the consolidated revenue fund in a weaker position to cover all the

needs.

Earmarking taxes is also unadvisable for two opposite but equally negative reasons: it can provide more money to a program than is actually needed, or it can

provide not enough money to fund the program properly. As I mentioned in my introduction, I haven't seen any research to indicate that two cents is the right amount that's needed there. Should it

be five cents, one cent or a half cent? The Liberals have conveniently picked out of the air something that sounds good, like two cents, and plugged that in.

Overfunding a program is inefficient and grossly irresponsible fiscally. I am sure everyone in this House will agree that watching a surplus grow in one

program area at the expense of another is completely unacceptable. Similarly, the potential that a program being funded through earmarked taxes may not receive adequate funding is a chance we will

not take. The only way to ensure adequate funding for all program areas is to allocate money from the consolidated revenue fund. The allocation of funds is then reviewed each year as part of the

budget process, at which time there is also a review of government priorities.

I'm impressed with that budget process, with the finance committee touring the country, with the Minister of Finance receiving a very large number of

stakeholders. The amount of effort that goes into the preparation of the budget, the opportunity for stakeholders, the opportunity for opposition members, the opportunity to consult with the

minister and his staff is, I think, exemplary for our government, and many other governments could follow this style.

This way of funding programs, including the annual review process, ensures government accountability. We will continue to fund the province's programs in this

manner. It is flexible and it is fair. It is efficient and it is accountable. It ensures that the programs important to all Ontarians receive the funding required to provide the services on which

we all depend.

In addition, the logistics of earmarking money from the gasoline tax to municipalities may require an overhaul of the current collection system and result in

an undue administrative burden on Ontario's gasoline retailers. Currently, Ontario's gasoline tax is pre-collected by about 23 refineries or wholesalers on behalf of the retailers. This is the most

administratively efficient method of collection. It offers the biggest bang for the buck. To be able to allocate taxes on a local or a regional level, taxes would have to be remitted directly by

each of more than 3,000 retailers here in the province of Ontario. Just think about it: collecting taxes from about 23 refineries or wholesalers, or collecting taxes from over 3,000 retailers. It

is clear which is the better, more efficient use of government resources.

Our current funding methods are the best way to meet the needs of Ontarians. This applies to programs and services in communities right across the province. In

fact, our government is already making significant investments in communities all over Ontario. For one, we are committed to investing in the infrastructure on which our quality of life depends.

I'm referring, of course, to infrastructure projects such as highways, transit, universities and colleges, hospitals, water systems and community facilities. Our infrastructure investments mean

that the people of Ontario will have the services they need, where and when they need them.

To meet these investment objectives, our government created the Ontario SuperBuild Corp, which plays an important role by coordinating capital investments in

Ontario and promoting new projects that build for the future. SuperBuild also identifies needed investments and develops new partnerships to ensure taxpayers' dollars go further.

Investments are extensive. SuperBuild is committed to investing at least $20 billion of public and private investments in infrastructure over five years. This

is the largest infrastructure building program of its kind in the history of the province of Ontario. SuperBuild investments cross all sectors of the economy: renewing and building new hospitals,

improving highways, expanding sports and recreational facilities, upgrades to water and waste water infrastructure, colleges and universities and more. These investments will ensure that our

communities have the foundations to promote new growth and new jobs. Through SuperBuild and its partners, the province will stimulate local economies, improve the quality of life in our communities

and create construction-related jobs in every area of the province. To date, SuperBuild and its partners have committed to invest over $13 billion in more than 3,300 projects.

In the budget of 2002, the Minister of Finance announced an allocation of $2.7 billion for infrastructure investments. These important investments include $1

billion for highways. Just as I mention $1 billion for highways, I think of the 401 going east from Toronto, going through the great riding of Northumberland. When I came to office in 1995, one of

the big concerns in my area was crossover on 401, especially on snowy, slippery days. My phone used to light up with people concerned that there was not a centre barrier on the 401 through there.

I'm pleased to report that almost all of that barrier has been completed. Not only that, we've six-laned 401 from 115 well into Northumberland. Several bridges are being changed and updated.

There's just a tremendous amount of investment in Highway 401, which is good for all of eastern Ontario.

We have also invested some $342 million to build or expand hospitals and other health care infrastructures in communities across Ontario. I think in my riding

of two hospitals: the Trenton Memorial hospital has been built, and over half of the construction is done on the Northumberland Health Care Centre for west Northumberland. Two hospitals in my

riding are being built since we've taken office. From 1985 to 1995, there were only two hospitals built in all of Ontario. That is the kind of turnaround we're seeing.

We've committed to 20,000 long-term-care beds. The associate minister, the Honourable Dan Newman, is very familiar with this project. Two of those are in my

riding: one in Cobourg, which is now open and operating, and another one under construction in the Port Hope area. What happened from 1985 to 1995? Not one single long-term-care bed was built in

Ontario. Over and above that, many acute care beds were closed at that time. I think both parties can understand how that happened. I find it really difficult to understand, but that was what

evolved.

Continuing, there's $143 million for the renewal and construction of courts and jails, and $135 million for projects to improve and modernize cultural and

tourism facilities. Construction will begin this year on a number of major highway projects in the GTA to address gridlock and improve safety.

When I think about gridlock around Toronto, I can tell you in 1995 there was no gridlock coming into Toronto. I could drive into Toronto any time and there was

no gridlock and there were no traffic problems. There were very few people going to work. That, in fact, is why there was no gridlock. We're now at 1.8 million net new jobs in Ontario created over

the last seven years. I think that's pretty remarkable. No wonder there's some gridlock. With all these people going to work, it's not surprising. Do we need to develop more highways to accommodate

them? Absolutely. You look at five people going to work, and one of those five got one of the net new jobs since we took office. That's why we have some gridlock. When I, for one, get caught in it,

I reflect on what has happened with our government in the last seven years and I don't object all that much to getting caught in that gridlock. I see these people driving home with a job. One day

they went home and said, "Hey, guess what? I got the job." Some 1.8 million people went home and said that during the last seven years. Their kids are proud of them, that they have a job. They're

proud of the fact that mom and dad are going to work. That's the kind of pride that's inculcated in some of our homes, because 1.8 million people are now working who wouldn't have been working if

we had continued in the same vein we were in in the early 1990s and the late 1980s.

I got a little sidetracked here, but we've also moved forward with upgrades to our major highways. This includes improvements to Highways 7, 400, 401, 427, the

QEW. I just reflect back and think about the condition of highways when we took office: potholes. The Honourable Al Palladini was out there, committed to filling every pothole if he had to do it

himself. There were stories about potholes across this province. They were phenomenal. Even the CBC had a humorous program about the size of the potholes they were reporting from all across

Ontario. Do we see those potholes on 400-series highways, the ones the province is looking after? Not at all. As a matter of fact, I have a daughter and son-in-law who lived in Sioux Lookout.

Driving from Dryden to Sioux Lookout, they hit one pothole so badly that it not only ruined two tires, it ruined the two rims as well on that side of the vehicle. That was just one pothole that was

left there by previous governments. That's the kind o