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

November 25, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Nov-25 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 25 November 2003 Mardi 25 novembre 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

VENDING MACHINES IN SCHOOLS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

PERDITA FELICIEN

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY AGENDA

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

TAXATION

HYDRO RATES

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRICITY PRICING), 2003

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE DE L'ONTARIO (ÉTABLISSEMENT DU COÛT DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

HYDRO RATES

DEFERRED VOTES

HOUSE SITTINGS

PARTY STATUS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

WEARING OF RIBBONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

TAXATION

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

MEAT INSPECTION

CORPORATE TAX

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

CORPORATE TAX

MEMBERS' QUESTIONS

CORPORATE TAX

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): I'm standing here today in utter disbelief about the comments we heard recently from the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. When asked why his government was breaking yet another one of their campaign promises, he responded, "Perhaps we were too naive." Too naive? That's meaningful insight into the meaningless

workings of this government.

For the Liberal government to simply plead ignorance as an excuse for not living up to lofty campaign promises is simply cheating the people of Ontario.

Take, for example, the Liberal promise to balance the provincial budget. One of the first things Dalton did after being elected was to hire a consultant at

$1,500 a day -- which he promised not to do -- so that he could try to convince Ontarians that balancing the budget could not be done.

Well, I can assure you that the taxpayers of Halton don't buy Dalton's blame-game deficit, and I'm sure the rest of Ontarians don't buy it either.

Based on our government's balanced budget plan and the tax increases that Dalton has promised as part of his fiscal agenda, the Liberal government should

actually be running a surplus. All the Premier and the Minister of Finance have to do is start showing up for work and accepting the responsibility entrusted to them by the voters of Ontario.

Come on, Dalton: You could balance the budget if you had the political will. It can be done. But of course it is always easier for a Liberal to break his word to

Ontarians than to show up for work and make tough decisions.

We really shouldn't be surprised that this government's message is, "Promises made; promises broken."

VENDING MACHINES IN SCHOOLS

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I would like to take a moment, if I may, to talk about junk food in our schools.

There has been a rising obesity problem among children in this province for some time now. In fact, childhood obesity doubled between 1981 and 1997.

Children spend an average of 28 hours a week in front of the TV, and 26 hours a week sitting in a classroom. By taking junk food out of vending machines in

elementary schools, we will be setting a strong example for our children.

We can't promote healthy lifestyles when school boards are encouraged to offer junk food to their students. We should help our children to make healthy choices

at a young age, encouraging a new generation to make healthy choices throughout adulthood.

Not only will keeping people healthy save us billions of dollars in health care; it will improve people's quality of life.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Excuses, broken promises and tax hikes: That is what Ontarians will expect from this Liberal

government.

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

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

Let's be clear. Being the government is not easy. It requires strong political will and the ability to make tough decisions. Perhaps the Liberals across the

aisle should take a long look in the mirror and see if they are prepared to make those tough decisions. It is time for this government to put aside the blame-game deficit and start the task of

balancing the provincial books.

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

stated that the record-breaking Liberal tax hikes, which will be introduced in this House shortly, will result in half a billion dollars of revenue this year. Where will this money be spent?

Mr McGuinty recently announced that he was selling out to his federal cousins by accepting $300 million in SARS relief. This is less than one third of what the

federal government owes provincial taxpayers. Perhaps Mr McGuinty should stand up to his federal friends instead of playing the role of Liberal lapdog and get the rest of the $1 billion Ontarians

are entitled to.

Come on, Mr Premier: No more excuses. Get to work and balance the budget. It can be done.

PERDITA FELICIEN

Mr Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I stand today to congratulate and celebrate a world champion from my riding,

Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge.

On August 27, 2003, a young lady, Perdita Felicien, won a gold medal at the world championships in track and field, the IAF. This was in Saint-Denis, France,

close to Paris. She claimed the world title in the 100-metre hurdles, setting a new Canadian record of 12.53 seconds, at the same time shattering her own personal best.

Perdita grew up in Pickering, attending Glengrove Public School and Pine Ridge Secondary School, and these local public schools were where her track career

began. Perdita is an outstanding example and role model for any young Canadian. She's currently in her senior year at the University of Illinois, but Pickering is still her hometown.

In the past three years, she's attained an outstanding array of honours as a university student. Although we won't be familiar with all of the titles, being a

Big Ten champion, a national female athlete of the year or an NCAA champion puts into context what Perdita Felicien has accomplished during her university career. She accomplished a world title as

a Canadian athlete, proudly displaying the Canadian flag in victory.

With the Olympic Games fast approaching, she's on target for stardom. Perdita Felicien is, and will continue to be, a Canadian hero.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise today to address this government's preoccupation with attempting to, as a Liberal staffer put it in

the Toronto Star, demonize the former government.

I understand that the Liberals have spent some 12 and a half years in opposition, but somebody needs to inform them that opposition tactics don't work when you

actually are in government. You need to stop making excuses and get on with the job that the people elected you to do.

Thus far, the Liberal government has achieved the following successes: You've broken your promise on the Oak Ridges moraine; you've broken your promise to not

raise taxes, with the largest tax increase in Ontario's history; you've broken your promise to not run a deficit, which obviously you're not going to keep; you've broken your promise to not add to

the debt -- another one; you've broken your promise on hiring private consultants, by hiring an expensive consultant to do some creative accounting for you; and you've broken your promise on the

hydro rate cap.

The truth is, this government took office with six months left in this fiscal year. They have plenty of time to turn this supposed deficit into a surplus, but

they have yet to take any real action whatsoever. The people of Ontario elected you to make the tough decisions to get the job done. So far, you've proven that the only job you can really do is

break promises.

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY AGENDA

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I first would like to congratulate you on your accession to the throne. I look

forward to working with you over the next while.

I could not believe my eyes yesterday when I witnessed the New Democrats voting against the repeal of the private school tax credit. It seems they are now in

favour of funding private education. They are in favour of taking $500 million out of our public schools to hand to private schools. They are in favour of a plan that even Mike Harris said would

"fragment and weaken public education." They're in favour of a plan that uses religious schools as a smokescreen to hand millions to elite private and for-profit schools. They are in favour of the

Tory education voucher.

This is also the same party who couldn't make up their minds on the hydro cap. One day, the leader of the New Democrats openly called for a rate cap, and the

next day he criticized subsidized hydro. Yet it was only yesterday when the member opposite said, "People living on low incomes and on fixed incomes will be hit very hard, and many people will not

be able to pay their hydro bills."

The NDP love to paint themselves as perfectly consistent in every way, but they voted against repealing the private school tax credit and they flip-flopped on

the rate cap.

I ask you: How can anyone believe anything the New Democrats say on such important issues as education and energy when they keep changing their position to suit

their own interests?

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise today to draw attention to the fact that this government has failed to fulfill its vision for

Ontario. Its justification for this is to blame the Tories for a deficit, at which it purports to be surprised.

Last June, I sat on the standing committee on estimates and listened to the then Liberal finance critic, who is now Chair of Management Board, state to the

committee, and spell out in some detail, that he and his party felt there was a risk of a $5-billion deficit. That was in June.

In September, the first act of the new Premier was to hire a private consultant, instead of using the acting Provincial Auditor, at a cost of some $1,500 per day

to the taxpayers. They did this so that he could tell them that in fact if his government did nothing over the remaining six months of the fiscal year, there would indeed be a deficit of some $5

billion, something they claimed they already knew.

I submit that this government has deliberately manufactured a crisis to delay implementing its campaign promises. Worse, this government is now embarking on tax

increases that will hurt every sector of the province, from private homeowners to businesses, big and small. Medium-sized businesses will be paying 12% higher taxes now and 27% higher taxes as of

January 1, 2004, than they would have under the past government.

I distinctly remember that the Premier assured Ontarians that he wouldn't raise taxes, but he wouldn't lower them either. What happened to that promise?

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I find Tory criticism of the new park in the Oak Ridges moraine very strange indeed. There's the rhetoric

and then there's the reality. The reality is that we made the best of their bad deal. The reality is that we've improved environmental protection by striking a new agreement for a bigger, better

public park on the Richmond Hill Oak Ridges moraine. The reality is that we were able to reduce the number of housing units on the land by 900. The reality is that we were able to add critical

acreage to this park. The reality is that we wanted to do even more, but the reality also is that, given the financial and legal risks of breaking the Tory deal, stopping all development on the

Richmond Hill lands would not have been a responsible option for the government or the people of Ontario.

In addition to creating a bigger, better park, we've also expanded the corridor and the wildlife routes. We've protected more of the sensitive lands around

Philips Lake, which will be brought into public ownership. We've negotiated a $3.5-million contribution from the developers to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation for the public park. More

importantly, we're going to ensure that this kind of deal cannot happen again.

We are also going to introduce significant new planning reforms to protect the public interest and prevent deals like this from happening again. We're going to

introduce fundamental reforms on the way land use planning is done in Ontario, and we'll boost environmental protection and make planning processes more open to public scrutiny and

participation.

TAXATION

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I want to say to my friends and to the folks of the Niagara and Dunnville area: Hold on to your pocketbooks because

the real Dalton McGuinty has arrived. The man who looked into the camera with a straight face and said, "I'm not going to raise your taxes," must have had his fingers crossed because yesterday we

saw a bill that is the biggest tax increase in the history of the province of Ontario brought to the floor of this Legislature.

Let me tell the folks in Niagara and Dunnville what to expect from the McGuinty tax hike bill. First of all, businesses in Niagara will be facing a tax hike of

27% above what was scheduled for 2004: an ironclad guarantee that jobs will be fleeing Niagara and jobs will be fleeing the province of Ontario.

Seniors who fought for our country, fought for our democracy, helped to build our province and made us the envy of the world are going to get a tax hike jolt of

$475 a household, courtesy of the George Smitherman and Dalton McGuinty tax hike game right before Christmastime.

With respect to the independent school tax credit, parents who choose to send their kids to independent schools will see $3,500 less per child had the tax credit

been fully implemented, and it's retroactive to January 1, 2003. Not only is that a tax hike, not only is it unfair and wrong, it's mean-spirited to go back to January 1, 2003. Hold on to your

pocketbooks; the real Dalton McGuinty has arrived.

HYDRO RATES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Another day, another broken Liberal promise.

Already Dalton McGuinty has broken promises to stop private hospitals, balance budgets, protect the Oak Ridges moraine and more. Today our broken-promise Premier

is going to renege on another one of his so-called ironclad commitments. He's going to scrap the hydro rate cap.

Before the election Mr McGuinty said, "The most important thing to do at this particular point in time is to put a cap on those rates through to 2006." What a

difference an election makes. Now our broken-promise Premier says the rate cap has to go.

What does that mean for you, the hydro ratepayer? It means your bill is going to go through the roof, and why? Because Dalton McGuinty isn't going to put a stop

to hydro privatization and deregulation. Deregulation lives under Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals. So that big, fat hydro bill you're going to get in the mail -- remember, it's not hydro at cost;

it's hydro at cost plus a 15% cut for all the private power middlemen who have their hands in your pocket.

New Democrats say it's time to kick the profit-takers, fee-takers and commission-takers off your hydro bill. We need affordable, reliable public power delivered

at cost and a real investment in long-term conservation and efficiency programs, not a Premier who breaks his promises at the speed of light.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I'd like all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving the first session of the

38th Parliament.

We have Anna Bronwyn Birss from Parry Sound-Muskoka; Daniel Brett from Scarborough Southwest; Gabrielle Brunet Poirier from Ottawa-Vanier; Joseph Dykstra from

Stoney Creek; Emma Jane Graham from Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey; Cameron Greer from Kitchener-Waterloo; Vaibhav Gupta from Mississauga Centre; Julie Harmgardt from Oakville; Katherine Hayes from

Don Valley West; Charlotte Heath from Durham; Trevor Kezwer from Thornhill; Laura Konkel from Toronto-Danforth; Gideon Kwinter from Eglinton-Lawrence; Howard Leung from Brampton West-Mississauga;

Christopher McGuire from Lanark-Carleton; Janine Pryce from Leeds-Grenville; Benjamin Skinner from Markham; Umesh Thillaivasan from Scarborough Centre; Olivia Upshur from Beaches-East York; and

Mnrupe Virk from Etobicoke North.

Would you all join me in welcoming this wonderful set of pages we have today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRICITY PRICING), 2003

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DE L'ÉNERGIE DE L'ONTARIO (ÉTABLISSEMENT DU COÛT DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ)

Mr Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 with respect to electricity pricing / Projet de loi 4, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la

Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario à l'égard de l'établissement du coût de l'électricité.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have got it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.

The Speaker: Will all those in favour of the motion please rise.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those who are opposed, please rise.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Witmer, Elizabeth

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 59; the nays are 26.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Introduction of bills?

Statements by ministries?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We haven't done motions yet.

The Speaker: I stand corrected. Motions.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(a), the House shall not meet to

consider private members' public business on the morning of Thursday, November 27, 2003.

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

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), Ms Mitchell and Mr Levac

exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business such that Ms Mitchell assumes ballot item 77 and Mr Levac assumes ballot item 1; and

Notwithstanding standing order 96(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 1, 2, 3 and 4.

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

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1402 to 1407.

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

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 86; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

HYDRO RATES

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On October 30, the Premier asked me to commit to delivering a responsible

approach to electricity pricing, one that better reflects the true cost of electricity in Ontario. He asked for a pricing plan and an overall approach to electricity policy that first and foremost

would protect Ontario's consumers by providing them with fair, predictable and stable rates.

The Premier also wanted a plan that would encourage conservation, promote a cleaner environment and attract new supply. He stressed that a responsible approach

to electricity pricing was one of the government's top priorities, and he gave me 30 days to come up with a plan.

Under the previous government, we saw energy pricing and energy policy treated as some sort of political football.

In the summer and fall of 2002, many consumers, without knowing why, found themselves paying volatile market prices for electricity. Every hour of every day

the price changed, sometimes dramatically. Working families, small businesses and individuals on fixed incomes were left very uncertain by the tension this created.

Then, late last year as an election drew closer, the previous government imposed a cap of 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour on the retail price of electricity. The

price freeze solved the volatility problem but had the effect of obscuring the true cost of electricity and cutting consumers off from information they needed to make better choices.

As Premier McGuinty has pointed out, the electricity price freeze is contributing to the $5.6-billion deficit at a rate of hundreds of millions of dollars a

year. In fact, since the price cap was put in place a year ago, it has cost all of us -- every one of us -- over $800 million.

This policy is simply not sustainable, Mr Speaker, and I remind you it is the taxpayers who will ultimately have to pay that price -- the same taxpayers who

need to know that their government is investing in schools and universities, that their money is being invested in quality health care, that the air they breathe will be safe, the water they drink

will be safe and that they'll have better communities to live in.

If we are to provide the people of Ontario with the services they expect and deserve, the 4.3-cent electricity price freeze simply cannot be sustained.

As we all know, the price freeze provides little, if any, incentive to conserve energy. Today, more than ever, it should be obvious that energy conservation is

of paramount importance. It reduces the demands on our electricity system and our reliance on coal-fired generation, and in so doing helps protect our environment.

On October 2, the people of this province chose change. They chose a government that would be honest, open and transparent in its dealings, a government that

would give them the straight goods.

It's obvious that we need to move quickly away from the current artificially low fixed price to a more sustainable price that better reflects the true cost of

electricity. It is for this reason that moments ago I introduced the Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act for consideration by this assembly.

Under the proposed legislation, our government would get rid of the artificially low price cap of 4.3 cents. The new plan would introduce a responsible pricing

structure that is fair and predictable for consumers, reflects the true cost of electricity, gets rid of a subsidy that is completely unsustainable, and sends a clear and powerful conservation

message to the people of Ontario.

Under the proposed legislation, an interim pricing plan would take effect on April 1, 2004.

The first 750 kilowatt hours consumed in any month would be priced at 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour. Consumption above that level would be priced at a higher

rate of 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour. This would better reflect the true cost of electricity in Ontario.

Approximately 60% of Ontario homes use less than 1,000 kilowatt hours per month. Conservation measures could help reduce that consumption level. There are many

tips available, and later this year we'll be announcing more conservation initiatives that my parliamentary assistant will look after.

The government will be taking action to improve its own conservation performance. In the coming weeks, the Chair of Management Board will be announcing a new

plan to make a noticeable reduction in the government's overall energy consumption.

Since the proposed interim pricing plan would not take effect until April, consumers would have a chance to review their energy use, take conservation measures

and, as a result, limit the impact on their electricity bill.

Under our proposed legislation, the interim pricing plan would stay in place until an independent regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, develops new mechanisms

for setting prices in the future. The OEB's new mechanisms would be in place as soon as possible and no later than May 1, 2005.

If the interim pricing turns out to be higher than the average market rate, all eligible consumers would receive a credit after the OEB implements its pricing

mechanism.

By ensuring that the OEB, an independent body, sets future prices, we can be sure that electricity prices in Ontario will be regulated on the basis of what is

in the best interests of the public.

At the same time, we're also taking steps to allow the OEB to protect and renew our electricity grid by ensuring reasonable charges for the delivery of

electricity.

Furthermore, beginning March 1, 2004, local distribution companies would be allowed to recoup some of the costs that the previous government had put on hold.

This will ease a tremendous financial burden that these local companies, the vast majority of which are owned by municipalities across Ontario, have had to face.

To mitigate impacts on consumers, the Ontario Energy Board would be asked to ensure that these recoveries to local distribution companies are spread over four

years. We estimate that this would have a modest impact on the final price to consumers.

As of March 1, 2005, local distribution companies would be allowed to achieve their full commercial return, but only on the condition that they reinvest the

equivalent of one year's worth of these additional monies in conservation and demand management programs. This represents an investment of $225 million, the largest investment in conservation of

its kind in the history of Ontario.

As well, the proposed legislation would restore the normal regulatory regime for transmission rates immediately. We don't anticipate that this would increase

rates.

This plan would first and foremost protect Ontarians by ensuring a fair and predictable solution to electricity pricing.

Second, it better reflects the true cost of electricity in Ontario today.

Third, it would ensure that our government, and Ontario taxpayers, stop subsidizing electricity consumption and jeopardizing our ability to invest in health

care and education.

Fourth, it would send a clear and powerful conservation message to consumers.

Not only does electricity conservation make sound financial sense; it makes good environmental sense. It reduces our reliance on coal-fired generators, and so

helps improve our air quality. Our commitment to phase out coal-fired generation by 2007 remains firm.

Finally, it would attract new supply by sending a clear signal that Ontario intends to deal with electricity issues in a practical, sensible and transparent

way.

Energy is critical to the safety and comfort of our families and the strength and security of the economy they depend on. It's simply too important to be

continually subjected to political whims and whatever opinion polls show to be popular on any given day.

We're giving the people of Ontario the straight goods. We firmly believe that our plan is in the immediate public interest and that it is a major step toward

ensuring a safe, reliable and sustainable energy supply for the people of Ontario, for the future of our economy, for jobs in this economy, so we can all grow and prosper together.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): To the member opposite, the only real change you brought to this chamber in the last two days is that you've

broken some of the most significant election promises you made to the people of Ontario. You have broken a trust.

On October 29, this government's highly priced and overpaid consultant, Erik Peters, issued his opinion report on this province's finances. Within 24 hours, on

October 30 -- less than 24 hours later -- your Premier had a knee-jerk reaction to this manufactured deficit projection.

Premier, on that day you announced that you had broken your election promise -- you had broken trust with the people of Ontario -- and that you were removing

this electricity cap that a year ago you and every single member of your caucus had voted for. Minister, less than 24 hours later you were making one of the biggest decisions that your government

is going to make this year.

Did you consult with anybody? Did you consult with your caucus in those 24 hours? No. Did you consult with your cabinet? No. Did you consult with your Minister

of Health to ask him what the impact would be on hospitals and whether services will be cut? No. Did you consult with your Minister of Education to determine how many teachers may have to be laid

off to keep lights on in our schools? No, you did not. Did you consult with the Minister of Community and Social Services to determine how many daycare centres might have to close spaces because

you haven't looked at the impact? No, you haven't done any of that. Did you consult with your caucus to ask them if they've talked to seniors, to the disabled, to farmers, to northerners, to people

who will be affected by this decision?

The fact is that they can't even look to your throne speech for any relief. What did you tell them in the throne speech? You said that they had to temper their

requests for more. Why do you keep loading more and more costs on to these people? You're providing no help or assistance. The reason you didn't consult with anyone is that you knew all along you

were going to change this cap.

There's no way you'll convince this province that you had some revelation after Erik Peters's report. You knew all along. This was deliberate, this was

deceptive, and it was wilful on your part to make this change. You knew that new energy supply and production are coming on stream in this province.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I have two observations: The points you are making must be directed to the Speaker, not across the

floor itself, and I'd like you to withdraw the word you used.

Mr Jackson: I will withdraw the word. But I still believe it was deliberate.

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: "Deliberate" has been approved in this House.

The Speaker: Order. You know the word that you used. I'd like you to withdraw it without any debate.

Mr Jackson: I have withdrawn it.

The Speaker: Thanks.

Mr Jackson: This decision, Mr Speaker, by the Premier was wilful. There's no question. Make no mistake. You have fooled no one, Premier.

You knew that the energy supply and production were coming on stream in this province, that the previous government's mitigation strategy was beginning to

work, that our ambitious green energy program was going to work. You chose this 30-day time frame simply so that your new Minister of Energy could deliver a major speech to the Independent Power

Producers' Society of Ontario in Toronto tonight. He will receive the largest applause a Liberal cabinet minister is going to get for this government in the next four years. Why? Because you are

clearly signalling today that profiteering is the only way that you're going to save hydro, and that the privatization of some parts of hydro is the only way you're going to be able to save it.

Today's announcement may be good news for investors or for generators or for profiteers. All these people want you to go full steam ahead with your

reforms.

Premier, you were forthcoming on November 9, 2002, when you said -- you promised the people of Ontario a year ago that you had an immediate plan to get

electricity prices down, including immediate price relief, and your new Minister of Energy, Mr Duncan, said in this House, "Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals will protect consumers, protect

average Ontarians, and put the interests of average people ahead of the big corporate interests." That's not what you've done. As recently as six weeks ago, Premier, you promised voters and

taxpayers that the cap wouldn't be lifted. Your first act was to sell out voters, and your next act will be to sell off parts of Hydro. You have taken care of your new, special friends.

Mr Premier, you gave speeches in this House -- you made a mythical promise that you were listening to people on Main Street, Ontario. It seems to me that all

you're interested in is the shortcut you took through Main Street to find your way to Bay Street as the new Premier of Ontario.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to reply to the minister's speech

today.

Hon Mr Duncan: For up to five minutes, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Do I hear consent? Agreed? For up to five minutes.

Mr Hampton: Here is --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could we have the member respond without any heckling. And could you direct your response to the Speaker. Thank you.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, we find ourselves in another very interesting day in the Parliament of Ontario. You see, Speaker, we knew in May of last

year, we knew in June, in July, in September, that the rate cap was going to cost $800 million hidden off-book. We knew that. Everybody in this Legislature knew that. What did the Liberals say at

that time? Mr McGuinty said, "I think the most important thing to do at this particular point in time is to put a cap on those rates through to 2006." That was Mr McGuinty on Focus Ontario,

November 23, 2002. Then, "We will keep the price cap in place until 2006." That was the Liberal campaign document, Hydro You Can Trust, released September 2003. From the London Free Press,

September 30, 2003: the Liberals are going to keep the rate cap at 4.3 cents a kilowatt hour until 2006.

I ask, what's changed? We knew in May, in June, in July, in August, in September, that the rate cap was costing $800 million a year off-book. But at that time,

the Liberal position was that the rate cap must stay in place until 2006. Nothing has changed. It's just that now it's after the election; now the promises that were made before the election can be

broken.

I want people to clearly understand what's involved here. The Minister of Energy talks about 5.5 cents a kilowatt hour. I happened to bring a little book with

me. The weighted price for electricity in this province before the rate cap was imposed last November was 5.6 cents a kilowatt hour. I think the consumers of Ontario ought to know what that means

for them. A hydro price of 5.6 cents a kilowatt hour means $2 billion more taken out of consumers' pockets. That's what it means.

People better also understand that it isn't just the cost of generation of power that's going to go up. As I read the legislation, transmission costs are also

going to be allowed to rise, distribution charges are also going to be allowed to rise. So for those people who have that hydro bill now with nine different bills on it, virtually every one of

those figures is going to increase. What does this mean? Well, it means that people had better be ready for a hydro bill that at the bottom line is going to double.

The minister talks about people paying the true cost of hydroelectricity. I simply want to remind people at home that in fact you're paying much, much more

than the cost of producing electricity.

Let's just take a couple of power dams on the Mississagi River that used to belong to the people, which produced electricity for about a half a cent a kilowatt

hour. Right now, the private company that owns those, because they're peaking plants, is charging about 10 cents a kilowatt hour, 20 times what it costs to produce the power. That's what the

consumers of Ontario are being asked to pay.

Are there true conservation measures here? The only conservation measure is this: This government hopes that if they drive up the price, some people will not

be able to pay the hydro bill. Let me tell you, that will happen because the reality is --

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Is that what you recommended in your book?

Mr Hampton: No. What I recommended is that we stop the farce and get rid of the privatization and deregulation of our hydro system.

What you're trying to do is virtually the same thing the Conservatives tried to do, only you're going to try to hide it another way. At the end of the day,

privatization and deregulation of our electricity system is going to charge people far more than they should be paying for electricity, it's not going to result in conservation and it's going to

kill tens of thousands of jobs in this province, and you're going to hear from the small business sector very soon.

DEFERRED VOTES

HOUSE SITTINGS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have a deferred vote on a motion by Mr Duncan that, notwithstanding standing order 6(a), the House shall

continue to meet until Thursday, December 18, 2003, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until Monday, March 22, 2004.

This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1432 to 1437.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Eves, Ernie

Flaherty, Jim

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 81; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

PARTY STATUS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There's been an unfortunate and regrettable phenomenon of referring to the

seven New Democrats in the Legislature as independents. I rise today on a point of order seeking your intervention and resolution of this matter.

In a very brief set of submissions today, I first want to preface my comments by a short reference to the classic work by C.E.S. Franks, The Parliament of

Canada, page 3: "Within the House of Commons, the basic structure of proceedings is the adversarial format of contest and debate between the government and opposition parties. Issues,

representation, elections, and proceedings are all structured around, and dependent for their functioning on, the existence and strength of the political parties." That is from page 35.

I expect you and others who may comment on this point of order to make reference, of course, not only to the standing orders but to the Legislative Assembly

Act, specifically subsection 62(5) of the Legislative Assembly Act, and standing order 2, the first paragraph of the standing orders. I want you, sir, to reflect on the history of these two

provisions.

One, let us note that the provisions in the Legislative Assembly Act have as their origin the amendments made in 1974 and once again in 1999, when the number

was reduced from 12 to eight.

Similarly, the standing orders, according to the information that I've been able to glean, contained for the first time in 1999 the provision defining

so-called "recognized party."

It is the irresistible conclusion, when one reads the Camp commission, particularly report number 2, that the provisions in the Legislative Assembly Act flow

directly from the recommendations of the Camp commission. That, you'll recall, was Dalton Camp, Farquhar Oliver and Douglas Fisher who, in the last intensive study of the function of this

Parliament, did extensive work and made extensive recommendations in five reports.

For instance, in report number 2 of the Camp commission's recommendations regarding House leaders, dated 1973, Camp and the commission recommend that "Formal

recognition be given to the House leader of the official opposition, to be seen as such by Mr Speaker, and to the House leader of the third party," and in yet a subsequent recommendation -- this is

important -- that "Salaries be established in the legislature estimates ... for the House leader of the official opposition, and ... for the House leader of a qualified third party."

In other words, the Camp commission recommendations were for the creation of the status of "recognized party" for the purpose -- if you read the Legislative

Assembly Act, you note that "recognized party" is the threshold which creates access to the predetermined set of salaries, additional pays and budgetary allowances.

Take a look at the standing orders and you'll see that "recognized party" is defined in standing order 2, there are also frequent references to independent

members. In particular, take a look at standing orders 111(b), 31(c), 36(i), 96 and 22.

I put to you, Speaker, that the creation of a class of persons of "recognized party" does not imply that anyone or any group that is not a recognized party is

not therefore a party, nor are they necessarily independents, because you also retain the consideration of particular rights and opportunities for independents.

I submit to you, Speaker, that the ruling of Speaker Parent on June 14, 1994, in the federal House of Commons is one that is highly relevant. I had occasion to

make brief reference to it yesterday and Speaker Parent, in response to a point of order raised by one Mr Bill Blaikie, who was, and remains, a New Democratic Party representative, a member of the

NDP, was in that Parliament of 1994, elected on October 25, 1993, one of nine New Democrats elected. At the federal level there are no considerations of "recognized party" in the standing orders,

but there is in the comparable legislation to our Legislative Assembly Act. Indeed, that dates back to 1963, and what began in that House was the adoption of the 12-person threshold by the House

procedurally.

Notwithstanding that the New Democrats, having elected only nine, did not meet the threshold either under the legislative provisions or under the common-law

standing orders, Blaikie appealed to the Speaker (1) for him and his colleagues to sit together as a caucus rather than be arranged as independents, and (2) for them to be identified and

acknowledged as New Democrats, as New Democratic Party members.

I take you to Speaker Parent's ruling of June 16, 1994. Speaker Parent, who was at the time the federal member for Welland-Thorold, said, "Let me now address

the two other matters: the designation of members as members of the New Democratic Party and their wish to be seated together....

"Let us review the current situation. The members of Parliament belonging to the New Democratic Party are identified as such in the debates and on the

televised proceedings of the House. They are designated as `others' in the back row to the left of the Speaker on the seating plan."

In conclusion -- and I should indicate I searched for a June 1, 1994, issue of Hansard, where, in contrast to the Hansard of this Legislature of November 19,

which lists as is customary all the elected members, again regrettably New Democrats are identified as independents. However, I put to you in the federal Hansard a practice that should be

persuasive and guiding, indeed conclusive for this Legislature, the New Democrats elected to the 35th Parliament: All nine are identified in the Hansard of that Parliament, even prior to the ruling

of Speaker Parent, as members of the NDP, as New Democrats.

Parent concludes, "The honourable members of the New Democratic caucus will ... be seated together and be identified as such on the plan." A little bit of

additional, but of great, interest: "The honourable member for Beauce will be identified as Independent and the honourable member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville will be identified as

Independent Liberal" stand-alones.

He goes on to say, at the final two paragraphs, "Members of the same party will be identified and seated together, with the precedence of their respective

leaders determining their place in the sequence."

I demonstrated to you yesterday the history of this chamber in identifying the party label of as few as one member -- the case of Joe Salsberg -- when he sat

as the sole member of the Labour-Progressive Party in the opposition benches, not separated from other opposition members by a disruptive Liberal rump. I referred you to seating plans which had two

CCFers identified as CCFers. I demonstrated to you seating plans in which five CCFers were identified as CCFers.

I'm closing my comments by making reference to the Hansard of Monday, November 24, 2003. I find the Speaker, for instance, at page 24: "I'll now recognize the

member from the independents, Mr Hampton." I don't point that out to criticize; I point it out to indicate to the Speaker the need for a determination of this matter.

I then look at the Hansard later in the day, page 35: "Hon Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to allow the independent NDP

members...."

So here we are "independents," then, according to Mr Duncan, "independent NDP members." Although not having access to the formal Hansard transcript of

yesterday evening's proceedings, once again we heard references to New Democratic Party members, among others, from members of the assembly.

Anticipating the government House leader's response, I would like to refer to some comments by Mr McGuinty which I believe have laid out the government's

position in this matter: a Toronto Star article, November 8, 2003, by one Theresa Boyle, a Toronto Star journalist. I recall the last time in this House that a member of the government challenged a

journalist as to the veracity of the quote that was printed: That minister not only was, in short order, no longer a minister, he is no longer a member of this assembly.

Theresa Boyle, in her

article of November 8, 2003: "In Kitchener yesterday, Premier Dalton McGuinty said he had `no difficulty whatsoever' with New Democrats

using the party's name in the Legislature and on office doors, insisting the Liberals `don't have an issue with that,' Canadian Press reports."

I appreciate the Liberal support for my point of order. I wait to see whether the Conservative caucus and their House leader will oppose us or support us, but

I put to you that the Parent ruling is very clear. We weren't elected as New Democrats --

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): As independents.

Mr Kormos: We weren't elected as independents; we were elected, clearly, as New Democrats. We weren't elected as independent New Democrats; we

were elected as New Democrats, members of a political party registered and campaigning as such. An independent is precisely that, and this House has seen incidents of independents.

I recall, and you'll take a look on the seating plan of the period from 1990 to 1995, Dennis Drainville, when he left the government caucus to sit as an

independent, his seat was in the opposition benches. He sat as an independent. Peter North: another independent. When Madame Boyer was expelled by her caucus, she sought no other party affiliation

and sat as an independent. There has been the rare time -- one Peter North, who ran and was elected as an independent. We didn't.

I submit to you, sir, that the Parent ruling is binding and that that ruling should guide this Speaker in consideration of these matters and in ruling that New

Democrats in this House are to be identified as New Democrats on the seating plan, when we're referred to by other members and on all other official documents of this chamber.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I recognize the House leader for the government.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I will try to keep my response short.

First of all, what is binding on this House is the standing orders, which we all agreed to and voted upon, including, I believe, six of the seven current

independent New Democrats. We have put forward and tabled a motion which will deal with 27 aspects of the standing orders in order to facilitate the participation of them. With respect to the

seating issue which was raised by Mr Parent, I would note that that has already occurred here.

With respect to what we call them, again, in this House normally we don't refer to a party. I recognize that he raised specific issues around Hansard and

around the television screen which we are quite willing and prepared to look at and likely will be able to agree to. I've asked Mr Kormos to meet to discuss these and to discuss this informally

with the official opposition. It would be our intention to try and meet those. I should also point out that Mr Kormos and I are scheduled to meet tomorrow morning. These are the sorts of things the

Premier was very clear about.

I respect the fact that they ran as New Democrats and were elected as such by the people they represent. I should also remind you, Speaker, in your

consideration of this, that you never recognize a member in this House based on his or her party affiliation. In the case of the official opposition, it's the leader of the official opposition.

That's because the history of this place and the history of Parliaments is such that they're designed around individual members. In fact, party organizations didn't come into Westminster-model

Parliaments until probably 200 or 300 years after they had begun. They're a means by which we organize. I respect their need to organize along the lines that they were elected. I believe, sir, that

we will be able to resolve these issues in fairly short order, to the satisfaction, hopefully, of all members.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to briefly comment on the comments made by my friend from

Niagara Centre. The whole issue of what constitutes a party for procedural purposes is certainly a big issue that has confronted Parliament. Changes have been made with respect to this. You can

look at the standing orders, at the Legislative Assembly Act, at the policies, practices, motions of the Board of Internal Economy; you can also look at precedent.

In 1963, 1966 and 1979, when smaller parties were recognized in various ways for the purposes of procedure and practice federally, there were changes made.

Speaker Macnaughton said, "It is not one where the Speaker ought by himself to take a position where any group of members might feel that their interests as a group or party have been prejudiced."

But different from Speaker Macnaughton, in our standing orders 1(

b) and (c), which was put into the standing orders in 1997, authored by me, it says, "In all contingencies not provided for in the

standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, and in making the ruling the Speaker or the Chair shall base the decision on the democratic rights of members referred to in

clause (b). In doing so the Speaker shall have regard to any applicable usages and precedents of the Legislature and Parliamentary tradition." I'll briefly continue. The spirit of protection of

minorities of the House should not be entirely based on the generosity of the House.

In my judgment your central role, Speaker, aside from being a parliamentary referee, is to protect the interests and rights of individual members, and in the

case of this issue a group of members, albeit small, but nonetheless important. It's your job to be the guardian of the rights of minorities in this place. Our standing orders, specifically in

1(c), give you new powers, authority and ability to enter into such a debate when that generosity has not come about, so it's not a case of unilateral action that's being asked to be acted upon by

you.

Speaker Fraser said in a ruling on September 24, 1990: "I also think members should understand that as your Speaker, I have some discretion in dealing with the

rights of every person in this House who is in a minority position. I think we have a great tradition of protecting the rights of minorities, and I can assure the honourable member that the rights

of minorities will be protected by the Speaker in a way that is both fair and equitable for all other members." And of course there is the Parent ruling, which I won't repeat, given by the member

for Niagara Centre.

I'm not one, and I don't think many in my caucus are, who wants to identify our party affiliation on our letterhead, on our Web sites, on our doors --

Interjection: Or on the ballot.

Mr Baird: -- or on the ballot, nor do I think New Democratic Party members do.

Fundamentally, this issue is about respect. I think it's regrettable that the member for Niagara Centre has to stand in this place and raise this issue,

because it should be dealt with based on the generosity of all three parties. I say to the Premier, who's here today, that all this party, this group of seven members in our Legislature, is asking

for is respect, not just for them as individual members of the Legislature but for the people who sent them to this place and for the people who supported their party in all of our communities. So,

Mr Speaker, we ask you to intervene to protect the rights of the minority and to allow what is a very small and reasonable request.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, member for Niagara Centre, for putting forward your point of order. I have listened very carefully to all

three, and I'm very encouraged that I'm hearing you will be meeting with the government House leader. That is a rather progressive move, because it helps me in making my decision. If you can

resolve these problems before they get to me, as you know, my job is much easier. However, if that is not so, then I'll hear all the arguments put forward and come back to you at a time that is

reasonable enough to have that decision. Thank you very much.

Hon Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have unanimous consent coming forward on women and domestic violence today. Before we seek

that unanimous consent, I would seek unanimous consent to allow question period to be one hour, so that question period can happen, and also that the normal amount of time be allotted for

petitions.

The Speaker: Do I have unanimous consent for an hour for question period? I heard a no.

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr Speaker, I rise today to seek unanimous consent to recognize that today is the International Day

for Elimination of Violence against Women and to make a statement and to allow my friends opposite, the members from Toronto-Danforth and Kitchener-Waterloo, each to make a statement for up to five

minutes in recognition of the day.

Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to follow up the comments by the government House leader and again ask for unanimous

consent for question period to be considered for the full hour and petitions for --

The Speaker: Order. I thought I had dealt with that already.

The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has asked for unanimous consent. Agreed? OK.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): I rise in the House today in recognition that November is Wife Assault Prevention Month and today,

in particular, is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

First introduced almost 20 years ago, Wife Assault Prevention Month is, sadly, still needed today. Anyone who has recently read the headlines of our province's

newspapers will be only too aware that we must continue to work each and every day to take action to prevent violence against women.

These headlines have been bleak reminders that this terrible crime continues to haunt us all. And it is not only the women in these stories who become the

victims; it is their children, their families and their communities. Everyone suffers, and that's why everyone must be part of the solution, not just women.

Our leader, Dalton McGuinty, knows that. I am proud to say that Dalton McGuinty and this government are thoroughly committed to doing more to protect women and

children from violence in their own homes and in their communities. So committed, in fact, is our leader that in his first month as Ontario's Premier he met with representatives of agencies who are

on the front lines in the fight against domestic violence. So committed is our leader that he has asked me to work with a number of government ministries, and in particular with our minister

responsible for women's issues, on an action plan to address violence against women.

Our government will not turn its back on women and children who are fleeing domestic violence. We will work hard so that women have safe, secure options that

enable them to escape these threatening situations. We will work hard so that men who assault their partners are held accountable for their actions. We will make improvements in the provision of

second-stage housing. We will work with the federal government to amend the Criminal Code and to make it more difficult for accused abusers to make bail, and we will work with police to develop

risk assessments for those accused of domestic violence.

Governments alone cannot prevent violence against women. Everyone must become more involved. We will be working with our partners to get their advice on the

best ways to address domestic violence issues, and that work has already started.

I would like to draw your attention today to two campaigns dedicated to preventing violence against women. The White Ribbon Campaign, which runs today through

December 6, started 12 years ago. The white ribbon is now nationally recognized as a symbol of men's opposition to male violence against women. Wearing a white ribbon is a personal pledge to never

commit, condone or remain silent about violence.

On December 6, we will also observe Canada's national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women to commemorate the terrible day that 14 young

women's lives were so tragically taken at École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989. Each year, in commemoration of this tragic event and in remembrance of the 14 young women, the YWCA annually

mounts its Rose Button campaign. I have both the white ribbons and the rose buttons with me today and I would ask unanimous consent that the members be allowed to wear these ribbons and buttons

during the month of November through December 6.

We have a long way to go to end violence against women, but we are committed to working each and every day to ensure women's safety in their communities and in

their homes.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I am pleased to participate on behalf of our caucus, in recognition of the International Day for

the Elimination of Violence Against Women in this Wife Assault Prevention Month.

Violence against women is a crime and it must be eliminated. Regrettably, each year, thousands of children see or hear violence in their homes. These children

are at risk, and unfortunately, they often continue the legacy of family violence. Through prevention programs, we must continue to help children and young people learn how to recognize the signs

of an unhealthy relationship. We must continue to make improvements to our system of support for women experiencing violence. There is always more to do.

I'd just like to review at the present time what the outcome of violence sometimes is. Sexual assault: According to Stats Canada, one in three women surveyed

nationally, or 39%, have been sexually assaulted. The majority, over 51% of sexual assaults, are committed against women between the ages of 16 and 21 years. This means that by the time these women

reach adulthood, far too many women will have experienced this form of violent sexual assault. This is unacceptable.

The physical, emotional and psychological toll of these assaults on women is immeasurable. The impact on their families and on society as a whole is enormous.

Violence tears families apart, targets the vulnerable and destroys our communities.

I'd like to share with this House what has been done in recent years to eliminate violence against women, keeping in mind that the job is never done. I've

stood in this House since 1990 and heard us all make a commitment.

In 2002-03, we spent over $160 million on programs and services to combat violence against women. This was an increase of 75% since 1995.

We established the Office for Victims of Crime, the first of its kind in Canada.

We worked with many community organizations and experts dedicated to preventing violence, supporting victims and educating Ontarians to end violence against

women, and we put in place more than 40 programs.

We took action to ensure that the justice system treats victims with the respect and support they need.

We allocated $4.5 million in funding over five years to create a crisis line for assaulted women so abused women across the province would have access to

24-hour, seven-day-a-week crisis services.

We've made important strides to address domestic violence, including increasing the number of domestic violence courts, and we created the most extensive

domestic violence court system in Canada. There will be 54 courts by 2004 providing enhanced prosecution of abusers by crown attorneys specially trained in domestic violence issues, providing

support for victims and specialized processing of these cases.

We increased shelter funding by $26 million over four years to add 300 new shelter beds and to refurbish 136 others, and $9 million annually was provided in

new funding for counselling, telephone crisis service and other shelter supports.

We developed a province-wide, toll-free, bilingual victims' support line that offered referrals to victims' services, information about the criminal justice

system and information about the status and scheduled release dates of offenders.

When addressing violence as a learned behaviour, we developed a new feature on the Ontario Women's Directorate Web site called, "Let's talk about it." Created

for young men and women, "Let's talk about it" helps teens to learn how to recognize the signs of unhealthy relationships, identify potentially dangerous situations and learn what constitutes

sexual assault.

However, the job is not done, and I was pleased to hear that the government is going to commit to make more improvements to serve women in our province. I

would ask all of us, since it is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, that we not only consider women in this province but that we reflect on the global fight of

women who endure violence every day in many forms in many nations on earth.

I ask, in conclusion, that we include these women in our thoughts, discussions and actions on violence against women, because violence against women is a crime

against all humanity.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I am proud once again to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the New Democratic caucus on Wife

Assault Prevention Month 2003. For those of you who have been in this House for a while, you have seen me stand on many occasions to speak on this issue.

What I would like to say is this: We have the knowledge and the power now to press for change. We know now what needs to be done. Expressions of goodwill and

hope go a long way, and I know that the members from the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses who were here the other day to talk about their needs and their demands and to issue

this report were also very hopeful after a meeting with various ministers in the Liberal government. They expressed that hope, and they were very pleased that they had the opportunity to sit down

and discuss the needs that they have to put in place to stop this horrible violence and murder of women and children in our province.

They issued this report. It's not new for us, but it has to remind us once again -- when we stand on our feet and talk about these issues, we have to remember

that we are talking about real women and children who are now dead. They're listed on this page, and this is just a partial list of the women and children who have died since 1995, which is what

this report specifically talks about: "161 women, 21 children, 10 family and friends murdered; a 33% increase in murders of women between 2000 and 2001 -- virtually all in Ontario."

We have a daunting task ahead of us, and we must have no more excuses. We must put the resources into the programs that will literally save lives and save the

future agony of women and children who are battered and abused for years.

Two of the most important recommendations and advice in this report are this: Women say that they have nowhere to go when they're trying to flee from violence,

that there isn't enough affordable housing. Women are saying over and over again that they're forced to go back and bring their children back to their abusers because the affordable housing isn't

there. Women say that if they do leave their abusers and do find somewhere to live that they're forced to live in poverty, which they cannot climb out of.

I want to say to the government that we applaud the move to increase the minimum wage to $8, but I also want to say that it has to be speeded up, that $8 over

a four-year period, as these women analyzed, will not allow these women and children to escape poverty.

So the two most important things needed, as I'm sure all members in this House are aware -- housing, affordable housing now.

I want to say to the Premier that I was very pleased to read in this report a statement by him that will go a long way in improving the lives of these women

and children, should the government proceed. He was questioning on April 29, 1997, the then Tory government, and in this question about the budget, the Premier said this, and I think we would all

agree: "There is a massive human deficit that is mounting in this province. You have become fixated in an unhealthy way with the fiscal deficit at the expense of people in this province. When you

cut 24-hour crisis intervention hotlines, human costs add up. When you cut community counselling services, human costs add up. When you cut programs to help women from returning to abusive

situations, human costs add up."

As long as we all move forward together in one voice on this issue, we can make a difference. We know what we have to do.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has asked for unanimous consent that members could wear the white ribbons

in the House during the months of November and December. Do I have unanimous consent of the House to do so? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr Ernie Eves (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Mr Premier, this afternoon your Minister of Energy in his statement included these words, that

the people "chose a government that would be honest, open and transparent in its dealings -- a government that would give them the straight goods."

How can you stand there as the Premier of this province today and tell the people of the province that you've been open, honest and transparent when for

months, for over a year now, you've been telling the people of this province that they could count on a 4.3-cent rate cap until 2006? Do you think you've been honest, open and transparent with the

people in the last year?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I think

one of the questions that the people of Ontario have been asking is, "Why is it that this rate cap was not in effect and in fact revenue-neutral, because the Leader of the Opposition as Premier

maintained that in fact it would cost us nothing?" Mr Peters made it abundantly clear in his report that that price freeze is costing hundreds of millions of dollars and it's compromising our

ability to adequately fund health care and education. To keep that price freeze in effect would be irresponsible. One of the things the people of Ontario said on October 2 is to bring a responsible

approach to Ontario government for a change, and we are doing that.

Mr Eves: With all due respect, there is nothing in Mr Peters's report that provided any new information to you or the government. You may

choose to use that as an excuse.

Mr Premier, did you mean these statements when you said them? "What price would Bruce Power get for the electricity that they generate? Four point three?"

McGuinty: "Four point three would be the price cap that we keep on." "But you said you'd get rid of the competitive market." "Four point three cents is the price that we are going to keep on our

bills. Four point three is what we are going to keep on the price cap. We're going to keep that price." "So are you running on a promise then to raise hydro rates?" This is on August 21st of this

year. "No."

Today, your Minister of Energy stood in his place. He has introduced a minimum 10% increase in the actual price of producing the product of electricity in the

first place, up to 25% for families that use more than 750 kilowatt hours a day. I would suggest that that will include nowhere near the majority of families in the province. You haven't talked

about the extra cost that you're allowing distributors, pointed out by Mr Hampton, to consumers as well --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Premier?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We are acting decisively and responsibly. We're bringing a pricing regime to Ontario that is fair and balanced. It will

encourage conservation. It will discourage waste. It will encourage private sector investment and ultimately the construction of more generation. We are not going to shrink from this

responsibility, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. This is not an easy thing to do, but we're doing it because it's the right thing to do for the people of Ontario.

Mr Eves: The Premier just got through saying that he's open, transparent and that's how his government is dealing with this issue. A few

moments ago we checked the Liberal Party Web site on this issue, so as of about two minutes ago, this is what your party stands for. You're saying that you're open and transparent. "We will keep

the price cap in place until 2006 ... But the cap cannot last forever. You deserve a government that will plan ahead, so that when the price cap is lifted in 2006 you will have the ability to

control your costs." Now, which statement is right? The one that he made in here today or the one that's on your Web site as I speak?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to remind the members of this Legislature that the Leader of the Opposition, when he served in this capacity as

Premier, changed his mind 11 times on hydro. We have acted decisively and responsibly. We're bringing fair, balanced and appropriate pricing to electricity in the province of Ontario.

I am convinced that the Leader of the Opposition as well as the members of his party would agree in their heart of hearts that this is the right thing to do;

it is the responsible thing to do. It encourages conservation. It protects those who use little electricity, those in lower income groups. It will encourage private sector construction of

generation. It does all the right things for all the right reasons. I'm sure they would agree with that.

TAXATION

Mr Ernie Eves (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): Do you believe, Mr Premier, that you have kept your promise to the people of the province of

Ontario with respect to taxation? Do you believe that you are delivering, in the omnibus taxation bill introduced in this House yesterday by the Minister of Finance, what you promised before the

election on October 2?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes, I do.

Mr Eves: When you signed the taxpayer protection promise with your new best friend, Mr Williamson -- I should say your former new best friend

-- you said, "I, Dalton McGuinty, leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, promise that if my party is elected as the next government, I will not raise taxes or implement any new taxes without the

explicit consent of Ontario voters and will not run deficits. I promise to abide by the Taxpayer Protection and Balanced Budget Act."

According to Mr Williamson today, you didn't come close to keeping that promise. You have already violated that promise as well. What do you have to say about

that?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We were very, very clear in the election in terms of what we were going to do with respect to rolling back your irresponsible

corporate tax. We were very clear about what we were going to do with the private school tax credit. We received a very clear message -- loud and clear, in fact -- from Ontario seniors who said

they were not going to be bought with your education property tax credit, who want to invest in public schools instead. We've been very clear.

Unfortunately, what Erik Peters discovered for us and made painfully clear to all the people of Ontario is that you left us with a $5.6-billion deficit.

Mr Eves: In your taxation bill introduced by the Minister of Finance yesterday, one of the most disconcerting impacts is that on modest-income

Ontarians, those at the very bottom of the income-taxpaying scale. There has been a program in this province for years, called the Ontario tax reduction program, which removes literally tens of

thousands of people from the taxation rolls in this province every year at budget time. Your bill is going to see that those people at the very bottom end of the scale, who are making $16,000 and

$17,000 a year, are going to get zapped by your bill. Their taxes are going up. Do you think that's fair? Is that what being a Liberal is all about in the province of Ontario today?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will want to take the opportunity at some point to correct the record. Taxes are not

going up on those people.

Here's the truth: The reality of October 2 is that one of the messages the people of Ontario sent to us was that they want to us to improve the quality of our

public schools; they want us to improve the quality of our health care; they want us to provide better protections for our environment; they want us to provide greater strength to our communities.

That's the reality of October 2. That's our priority, and that's what we're moving ahead on.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday's tax-hike bill and today's hydro rate-cap scrap will

have a significant impact on farmers and small agribusiness across the province. We have to assume that the government has done research to project the impact these measures will have on Ontarians,

seeing as the Premier promised not to raise this cap until 2006.

Will the minister let the House know what type of analysis was done to study the impact that both the tax hike and the hydro hike will have on agribusiness,

such as the many greenhouses and small farms in my riding and all across Ontario?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The Minister of Energy was very clear and upfront. He had the opportunity to meet with

representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to let them know that this unsustainable hydro cap was going to be lifted. We're going to work with the agricultural community to ensure

that the impact is as little as possible.

I've assigned my parliamentary assistant, Carol Mitchell, to work as a liaison with the agricultural community so that we can start to look at how agriculture

can be part of the solution to the problem we've got. We're going to look at biodigesters, methane pumps, wind and solar power, and on-farm generation that's going to help eliminate line loss.

We're going to work with the agricultural community. Unlike you, we're not going to leave them behind. We're going to work with them because agriculture can be

part of the solution.

Mr Hardeman: How can the Minister of Agriculture stand in the House and admit that absolutely nothing has been done to assess the impact on

our agricultural community?

I would like to quote from Hansard, November 7, 2002, when you said to the minister of the day, "Minister, you should know what's happening on the farms. Do

you know what electricity bills are looking like for Ontario farms right now?... We're not talking about hundreds of dollars; we're talking about thousands and thousands of dollars. You should know

that farmers have been hit by two years of drought, and you turn your back on the farmers of Ontario right now. ...and now you're zinging the farmers again when it comes to the distribution of

hydro in this province."

Minister, I think those comments relate directly to the bill introduced by your government. Is this is the type of advocacy rural Ontario can expect from the

new McGuinty government?

Will the minister commit today to not allowing these changes to go forward until a proper analysis has been done of the impact it will have on rural Ontario?

Will you do that for the farmers of this province?

Hon Mr Peters: I made that commitment to the farmers of Ontario this morning at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture banquet, that we're

going to work with them, that we're not going to leave them behind.

We're not going to do like the previous government did in 2002, trying to hoodwink the farmers of this province. When we talked about a 150,000-kilowatt-hour

cap, this government didn't listen.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Minister, do you want to continue?

Hon Mr Peters: They tried to put something through at the very last moment.

We went to bat to advocate for the farmers of this province. The Minister of Energy has done a full cost analysis of this, so you can't say that hasn't been

done. As to your comments about tax increases, we're not increasing taxes, former minister. What we're doing is making sure that we're going to make investments and we're going to stand up for the

farmers of this province.

MEAT INSPECTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The people of my riding, along with the rest of the

province, were shocked by revelations about meat inspection practices in the province. No one wants to have to second-guess the quality of the meat they put on the table.

Under the previous government, the number of meat inspectors was cut from 103 to 10. We have heard allegations of dead stock being used to produce beef for

public consumption and about cattle too sick to stand up being taken to meat-packing plants.

Our cattle farmers have suffered greatly and have had to cope with the mad cow crisis and now with this uncertainty among consumers about the safety of our

beef. What will you do to improve the trust in Ontario beef?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I thank the honourable member for his question. I'm as unhappy as anyone in this province

with the state of meat inspection. The previous government let this system degrade, and now what we have to do is go forward and expose any and all of the problems in this system.

I have today instructed the Ministry of Agriculture to adopt a policy to post on the Web site all abattoir audit ratings and licence hearing summaries. The

government is committed to openness and transparency.

Our government is about action. We're not going to sit around and do nothing like the previous government did. In 2001, they passed the Food Safety and Quality

Act. They passed it. They never proclaimed the act; they never put the regulations in place. We're going to take action, unlike that government, that stood back and let this industry take all kinds

of abuse.

Mr Hoy: I'm sure Ontario farmers and consumers will be encouraged by those positive changes, Minister.

Food safety should be a priority for all governments. I understand that your ministry should not conduct an investigation into its own practice. That could be

seen as a conflict of interest. However, we as a government are determined to finally take responsibility to ensure the safety of the food we eat. Perhaps, Minister, you could tell me and the

people at large what process will be used to investigate problems in meat safety. We need to know.

Hon Mr Peters: I thank the member for the question, and I'll refer this to the Attorney General.

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I thank the

member for Chatham-Kent-Essex. Yes, you are right: The review of our meat inspection practices in Ontario must be fully independent. We made that commitment. This government is going to keep that

commitment in order to ensure that the review is at arm's length.

The Ministry of the Attorney General will be taking on responsibility for this review. Ontarians need to have confidence that the review is independent.

Ontarians need to have confidence in their meat inspection practices, so that Ontarians can have confidence in the food they eat. We made that commitment, we said we'd get to the bottom of it, and

we will get to the bottom of it.

CORPORATE TAX

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I'm tremendously concerned about job

creation in Ontario. We're all concerned about our ability to attract new jobs, to attract investment and to attract opportunity. Both the federal government on this side of the border and the

federal government south of the border are cutting corporate taxes this year and next, and they're doing it because tax cuts create jobs.

With the big tax-raising bill that your government's bringing in, and as the person responsible for our economic competitiveness around the cabinet table,

after your bill becomes law, I'd like to ask the minister: Who will have lower corporate income taxes than Ontario?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I know the business community wants to make sure they have a fiscally

responsible government at Queen's Park, and that's what we're doing. The business community wants to be reassured that they're not going to face these constant fiscal imbalances in the future.

That's just not sound policy. It doesn't create a good business climate for attracting investment.

But let me be clear about tax rates. The Minister of Finance, even after he brings in responsible measures to ensure that we no longer have a fiscal imbalance

-- Ontario will continue to have one of the most competitive combined income tax rates for corporations in North America. That compares with the national US weighted average, which is about 39.7%.

In Ontario it's 36.12%. So we're going to be very competitive. And I'll tell you, we're going to be able to attract even more investment because we're focusing on the right things.

Mr Baird: The reality is, Minister, we don't have to compete with the average; we have to compete with individual jurisdictions with more

favourable taxation environments. We can't compete on being a right-to-work province. We can't compete on a whole range of initiatives. The fact is, you couldn't stand in your place and, with this

big tax-raising bill, name jurisdictions with lower taxes than we would have in Ontario, and that's disturbing. The reality is that both Alberta and Quebec will have lower tax rates than we have in

Ontario. The reality is that Alberta, British Columbia and New Brunswick all have small business tax rates that are lower than Ontario in 2003 and now in 2004 and 2005.

How can industry in Ontario depend on you to be their advocate when you don't know which jurisdictions have lower tax rates than Ontario? How can industry in

Ontario compete when our taxes are now going up rather than going down? How can we compete with jurisdictions south of the border where they're seeing economic growth rates revised to 8% because

tax cuts are fuelling job creation? Can you stand in your place and defend that?

Hon Mr Cordiano: Let me give you some numbers. Ontario, as I said, is at 36.12%, the combined federal and provincial rate. Combined state and

federal taxes in Illinois, for example, are 39.7%. Let's pick another jurisdiction: New York, just across the border, 39.9%. Let's pick Pennsylvania: 41.5%.

The reason we're going to succeed is because we're going to make sure that we're investing in the right areas. We have a strategy, a cluster approach to

growing the economic pie. We're going to make sure we're investing in higher-skilled training; we're going to make sure we have key investments in our post-secondary institutions and that in fact

we take the great work that's being done in our post-secondary institutions with respect to research and development and we're going to commercialize that research. We're going to make Ontario a

leading jurisdiction in the world to attract investment. I'll tell you, that's a lot of confidence that we're putting forward for the people who are looking to invest in Ontario.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. It's a follow-up to a letter I wrote to you, Minister, shortly

after you were sworn in. In my letter, I reminded you that during the campaign, the now Premier and I made a commitment to the constituents in my riding that the Highway 3 bypass from Leamington to

Windsor would be improved to the point of four-laning. I thank you, Minister, for your joint announcement with the federal government on Friday for improvements in my riding to Highway 401. But

Highway 3 still remains a significant problem. I wonder if you can provide assurance to the residents of my riding that our commitment to improve Highway 3 will be kept.

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member from Essex for his question and also for his letter. I know

how diligent the member from Essex has been in his efforts to improve the safety of Highway 3 and I commend him for his efforts. I can assure the member that the government is committed to

improving highway safety throughout Ontario. Yes, we will improve safety on Highway 3. A planning study is underway for Highway 3 from Windsor to the Leamington bypass. This study is examining

safety concerns and will identify any necessary improvements, such as the widening of Highway 3.

Mr Crozier: Thank you, Minister. Just prior to the recent election, the previous government of the day said that they would make Highway 3 a

priority. I don't know what that meant, but I'm certainly pleased to hear that you and I can work together on the improvement on the Highway 3 bypass and that I can be sure that another four years

won't pass before that work is done.

Hon Mr Takhar: Once again, I thank the member for his question and I want to assure the member that I will work with him and we will work with

the people in your region to make sure that the improvements to Highway 3 take place. The ministry has already made some recent improvements on Highway 3 and installed new traffic signals at

Highway 3 and Division Road. Also, we made improvements on Highway 3 and St Clair College in LaSalle. Further safety improvements are currently being examined. We will continue to work to enhance

the safety on Highway 3. I want to thank the member again for his question.

CORPORATE TAX

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Why do you support an economic policy that

promotes a faltering economy, falling corporate profits and loss of jobs for the province of Ontario?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I want to assure the member that what we are putting in place -- by acting

fiscally responsibly, by putting in place the necessary ingredients to help this province succeed and help businesses succeed, we're going to make sure that they have a very positive business

climate. The measures that were introduced by the finance minister will ensure that this province is put on the right footing.

We cannot sustain this deficit. It hurts the business community; it hurts the business climate. We're going to get that deficit under control. That's going to

create a positive climate for investment throughout the entire province.

Mr Chudleigh: I find the minister's response somewhat contradictory to the actions this government has taken here in this House today.

Your Minister of Finance introduced a piece of legislation yesterday that we all know will significantly increase taxes. In fact, it's the largest tax increase

in Ontario's history. November 24 will go down as a day of infamy to the taxpayers in this province. Specifically, taxes on job-creating businesses will be increased, hurting job creation and

starting the new year on a grim note for Ontario's economy.

The people of Ontario need to know why you, as Minister of Economic Development and Trade, support tax increases on job-creating businesses.

Hon Mr Cordiano: We support fiscal responsibility for this province, something you failed to offer the people of this province, something you

failed miserably to do. That's why you find yourselves over there, and we're on this side, because the people of this province knew better.

I'm going to repeat what I said to your --

The Speaker: Order. The member for Halton has asked a question. I presume he'll need an answer.

Hon Mr Cordiano: I'm going to send this table over to the member for his edification. It clearly demonstrates that Ontario corporate tax rates

are some of the lowest in North America. When we compare to Pennsylvania, for example, Pennsylvania has a combined corporate tax rate of 41.5%. The US weighted average, the combined tax rate, is

39.7%. Ontario's tax rate, I repeat, is 36.12%, one of the lowest in North America.

We will compete, we'll attract new investment and we'll keep Ontario's economy growing and vibrant. That's what we're going to do.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): There's an independent member I must recognize. As you understand, you were recognized earlier on, Mr

Hampton.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I request unanimous consent of all New Democrats to ask a question on their behalf.

The Speaker: I think you can get unanimous consent from the independents, but let me see if I get unanimous consent from the entire House.

Have I got unanimous consent to Mr Hampton --

Interjection.

The Speaker: I heard a no.

MEMBERS' QUESTIONS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: At the beginning of this week we received advice from the Clerk of this

assembly, who indicated that the Speaker would be acknowledging a New Democrat at the eighth question. I appreciate that as an interim approach to the matter, which of course, as you can

understand, is going to be addressed.

However, Speaker, I put to you that it is our choice as to who asks that one question, and New Democrats are clearly indicating that it's our leader, Howard

Hampton, who is to ask the question today.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I did not send a message like that around. I said I'd recognize an independent member in advance, but only

one person per week, in the sense that we should not repeat that individual.

Mr Hampton had a question earlier on. I am prepared to receive another independent member at this time. If you have none, I shall go to the rotation.

Is there someone from the independents who would like to ask a question?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Speaker, I asked for unanimous consent to ask a question on --

The Speaker: You did not get unanimous consent. I'm sorry. Order.

Questions from the opposition?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. In the rotation, it's the government side now.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to raise this point with you because this is getting to be a

little bit hard to take, to a certain extent.

When you recognize a member from the Conservative Party or a member of the Liberal Party, you refer to them by their riding, and that is appropriate according

to the standing orders of this Legislature. But you choose to identify us as independent members, which I am not. I'm a New Democrat, but more important, the rules say you call the member by his or

her riding or by his or her title within the cabinet of Ontario. I'm saying, for you to come out and identify us strictly as independents and not call other parties by their party quite frankly is

wrong.

The Speaker: As you know, I have endeavoured to identify all members by their riding and of course we're struggling at the moment to recognize

each one by their riding. I will do so and I have been doing so all day. If that's not the case, I will continue to improve my performance by getting the ridings. I hope, however, that we don't

impede this process by getting back to this continually.

CORPORATE TAX

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Minister, we have fulfilled our campaign promise to

roll back corporate taxes in order to reinvest in public services. That is what we promised to do during the election campaign and we were elected on that promise. However, there are many

businesses in my riding, and my constituents are concerned about the impact of corporate tax on jobs. For many years, the opposition has been hooked on the outdated mantra of tax cuts for the

wealthy as a quick-fix solution for creating jobs. We now know that trickle-down economics simply doesn't work any more. How can we ensure that the economy remains competitive in the absence of

further corporate tax cuts?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank the member for Northumberland for the question. Again, I would say

that what the previous government did was entirely irresponsible. We're trying to fix the fiscal imbalance that they had left us. But I want to repeat: We will continue to have one of the most

competitive tax rates in North America. Again, I want to point out that the tax rate at 36.12% in Ontario will continue to compete very favourably with US states. The national weighted average is

39.7% across the United States. Great Lakes states -- their average will be 40.3%. So there is no doubt that Ontario will continue to be a very competitive tax jurisdiction.

Mr Rinaldi: Thank you, Minister. It is appalling that the former government wanted to lower the tax rate, down to 25% below our American

competitors -- this at a time when our public service is suffering. The tax levels are not the main factor in attracting quality jobs in the 21st century. Business executives point to other

factors, like high quality of life. They stress the competitive edge of public medicare. Mostly, international investment requires a highly educated workforce. Minister, how are we going to advance

our international competitiveness?

Hon Mr Cordiano: I couldn't agree with the member more, but let me point out that today the Roger Martin task force on competitiveness and

productivity released its second annual report. I want you to hear this, because it's very important. He indicated that there are a number of factors that contribute to competitiveness beyond tax

cuts.

"Let's focus on key industry clusters," he said. "Let's promote ongoing skills training. Let's make sure our post-secondary education is more accessible. Let's

make sure that we're capitalizing on the skills and experience of foreign-trained professionals" -- very important to our economy. I can assure you that our government is committed to working on

all of these fronts. We're going to bring in changes that will see to it that we increase our productivity and that we make Ontario an even better place to live based on quality of life, based on

these things that I think Roger Martin has pointed out in his task force.

Let me just add that I congratulate him on the fine work that he's doing for the entire province. Thank you for that question.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): Thank you, Speaker, and congratulations on your appointment. My question is for the Minister of Education, and

congratulations on your appointment as well.

As part of the largest single tax increase in one day in the history of the province of Ontario, yesterday you and your government proposed to increase the tax

burden on some parents of school-aged children in the province. Not only do you plan to repeal the equity in education tax credit but to do so retroactively, and that goes back to January 1 of this

year, which would mean for those families that they would be denied that tax credit not only for the last half of the last school year but for this entire school year, for which they've done their

budgeting and their planning for their children based on their choice of education.

The minister knows, or should know, that the vast majority of families that use independent schools are of modest means. They have budgeted their expenses. Two

thirds of those families send their children to religious or culturally based schools in the province. There is a cap on the tuition allowance and on the tax credit, as the minister knows. Five

other provinces have this type of credit; in fact, the majority of Canadians have it.

What it means for these families is $1,400 and more each, Minister, and you propose to do this retroactively to these families of modest means in the province

of Ontario. How can you justify that?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The member is talking about a measure put forward by the Minister of Finance. Just to speak to the

principle of it: This is a very poor piece of public policy that you engineered as the chair of the education policy committee. Any five children can constitute a school to get money from the

government with no accountability whatsoever. It's a very poor piece of public policy. It's being rescinded after having been discussed in the last election campaign.

It should surprise no one that that's taking place, and for the member to allege otherwise is simply to capture as hostage some people's claims. Seventy per

cent of the dollars being put forward in this were going to people in secular schools. Frankly, as a piece of public policy, every other jurisdiction that considered this rejected it in referendum

after referendum and said this was bad policy, and the people of Ontario said the same thing in the election just finished.

Mr Flaherty: The minister didn't answer the question, of course, about the effect on families of retroactive tax legislation. On this point,

84% of Ontarians in a recent poll agreed that parents should have the right to choose a school for their child that best reflects their personal values and beliefs. A majority of the people of

Ontario felt that all schools would improve where school choice was applicable. As I say, two thirds of the independent schools in this province are religious and culturally based.

You and your government believe in religiously based education; you fund Catholic schools beyond Grade 10, beyond the constitutional requirement. The argument

with respect to cost in the public school systems is inapplicable because the situation for a child going from an independent school to a public school adds $7,000 a year in expenses to those

schools.

Other than your indebtedness to union leaders, who supported you during the election campaign, how can you justify discriminating against Jewish schools,

Muslim schools, Christian schools and other schools of religious denominations in the province of Ontario and our multicultural and multi-faith society?

Hon Mr Kennedy: I'll tell you what: We on this side of the House make no apologies for standing up for public education in this province. What

we're offering for all the parents in this province is a circumstance that they haven't seen for eight long years, which is improvement in public education. You were proud of your record, a record

of increasing private school enrolment by 50%. Not only do I stand with the aspirations of parents who want excellence to be right there in their neighbourhood publicly funded school, but I stand

with your leader who called your proposals ludicrous in the leadership contest that you went through.

I am glad to stand in this House and say to parents that what they can look forward to from this government is improvements in education, increasing confidence

in public education and all the reason in the world to have their children being part of our publicly funded system.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): As you will observe, it is 4 o'clock, and pursuant to standing order 30(

b) I am now required to call orders

of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Hon David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I move government notice of motion number 9, standing in the name of Mr

Duncan.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Could you wait a bit until the members settle, then I'll take your point of order.

Very quietly, please, so we can proceed with the House.

The member for Niagara Centre on a point of order.

Mr Kormos: Speaker, I've read government notice of motion number 9, and I put to you that it is not in order. I refer you to the motion

brought on November 20, 2003, which has the same effect and intent as notice of motion number 9. I also refer you to standing order 51: "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has

been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session."

The decision made by this government, its House leader, was to adjourn debate on the motion brought on November 20. That motion is the one that is the

operative motion, and this motion is out of order until that motion is withdrawn or resolved. With respect --

Failure of sound system.

Hon Mr Caplan: On that point of order, Mr Speaker: In fact, the debate was adjourned. This motion would simply renew that debate and make it

operative. So it is entirely in order that we should be debating this. The debate was only adjourned on that particular day and can be renewed by this House at any time, and the government so

chooses to call this notice of motion for debate on today's date.

The Speaker: My understanding is that no decision was made on this motion to dismiss it, so it's still in order. So I'll accept it, as the

motion is in order.

Hon Mr Caplan: Speaker, thank you for your ruling. I want to first of all congratulate you on your position as the Chair -- oh, sorry, do I

need to move the motion?

In the name of Mr Duncan, I move that the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor to this House be taken into consideration as early as the first

sessional day, following passage of this motion. I so move, Speaker. Can I speak to it now?

The Speaker: Mr Caplan has moved government notice of motion number 9.

Hon Mr Caplan: As I mentioned at the outset, Speaker, I do want to congratulate you on your ascension to the chair, and I know that you'll do

an excellent job.

The people of the province of Ontario spoke very clearly on October 2, that they wanted the government of the day to get on with the business of this province.

That is precisely what the speech from the throne did; it elaborated a very broad vision, an excellent one, and the people of Ontario overwhelmingly said we should be moving in this direction. His

Honour the Lieutenant Governor read that speech.

By the way, Speaker, I want to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Economic Development, the member from York South-Weston, with the

member from Prince Edward-Hastings, with the member from Sarnia-Lambton, with the member from Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, with the member from York West and with the member from

Scarborough Southwest. I will be sharing my time.

In the very brief time that I'm going to have to address my comments, the people have asked us to get on with their business, and we are doing precisely that.

It is really critical that we do this. There are important and pressing matters that this Legislative Assembly has to get down to. Whether it's to roll back the irresponsible corporate and personal

tax cuts, whether it's to roll back other irresponsible measures, or whether it's to remove the unsustainable Hydro cap, there is a very heavy and serious legislative agenda.

It is also important that this body, this House, take into account the vision and the words from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor as he so eloquently put it

and, I must admit Speaker, as you put it for a second time on that day, an unusual occurrence. Nonetheless, it is important to the people of Ontario that this Legislative Assembly get on with the

business of governing this province, of making the positive changes that the people said, with a very strong mandate and a very strong voice, need to happen for our province to move forward, for

positive change, for a positive future, and for us to be the best that we can be.

I'm very excited about our legislative agenda over the next short weeks and over the next several years, because there are going to be some wonderful things in

this province. I want to give a chance to my colleagues to speak a bit today about some of their thoughts, some of the issues that their constituents talked to them about as they went knocking door

to door over the course of the 30-day election campaign.

As I wrap up my comments, I want to give a very special thank you to the people of Don Valley East, who provided me with a renewed mandate to come here on

their behalf. I want to let you know, Speaker, that it is for precisely that reason, to represent the people in the great riding of Don Valley East and to do the very best that I can. They said to

me that they wanted to see our schools fixed, they said to me that they wanted health care fixed, they wanted a strong community, they wanted investments in transit and housing and clean air and

water. They wanted a government with those kinds of priorities. They wanted an end to the irresponsible fiscal polices of the previous government. They wanted an end to the chaos and rancour. I say

humbly to the people of Don Valley East that that is precisely what I'm going to do on their behalf in this Legislative Assembly each and every day I am here. It is an honour to serve them and to

serve their interests. I do so with my utmost vigour and my utmost concern.

Thank you very much, Speaker. At this point, I'm going to turn the floor over to my colleague the member for York South-Weston, and the rest of my

colleagues.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): The Chair recognizes the member for York South-Weston.

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): First of all, I want to congratulate the Speaker, who is not in the chair at

the present time. I was remiss in not congratulating him. As well, I want to congratulate my colleague who is in the chair at the present time for being re-elected. I do want to pass those regards

along.

I think this motion is absolutely critical to us, this Legislative Assembly, and not just for the government. It is important that this assembly move forward

with significant and important work that it must debate. After all, that is what members are elected to do in this chamber. They are elected to review the matters that are put before this assembly

and review the legislation that is processed by this assembly. Each and every member in this assembly must be given the right to express their views on behalf of their constituents. That's what

they're elected to do in this assembly.

I believe the stalling tactics do not advance the interests of the people of this province. We were elected with a clear mandate to bring about responsible

change, responsibility in terms of our fiscal situation. We had some discussion about that this afternoon. It's absolutely critical for this province to move forward and deal with the fiscal

imbalance that was left behind by the previous government. It's not acceptable that we have a $5.6-billion deficit that goes unchecked. It's not acceptable that we continue to pretend there isn't a

problem that we must deal with. On so many fronts that is the case. That is why it is important for this assembly to begin to debate particularly the speech from the throne, because all members

want to be heard and all of their constituents want to hear what they have to say on these important items.

This government must move ahead with its agenda. As I say, there's a sense of urgency around which this stalling does nothing more than to waste precious time

in dealing with the fiscal imbalance that we face and a number of other areas. The sooner we deal with this, the quicker we can deal with the real questions that Ontario wants us to deal with, the

real investments that we need to make in education and in health care and in protecting our environment. Those are the things that I think improve our quality of life. Our economy sustains that.

Our economy allows us that standard of living, that improved quality of life.

What we have before this assembly at the present time is a throne speech. Then we move on to other matters. The fiscal measures that have been brought forward

by the finance minister must be dealt with in this assembly. We can't put those things off; it would be irresponsible of us -- almost as irresponsible as the previous government, which left us with

this imbalance. We've got to deal with that, and we've got to move forward with great speed, because if we fail to do that, it makes it that much more difficult to deal with the items and the real

issues that people want us to deal with in health care and education.

We have urgent and pressing matters to deal with on the health care front. I don't need to tell everyone that we had a very important debate during the

election campaign with respect to health care and how important it is to deal with the waiting lists, to deal with overcrowded emergency rooms. That continues to be the case, and the sooner we get

to deal with the fiscal matters at hand -- eliminating the irresponsible tax cuts that were brought forward by the previous government, the tax measures that were entirely irresponsible of the

previous government, tax cuts that in many respects resulted in that deficit, in many respects were completely without regard for what had to be done while the province's other priorities went

pressing, went forward, and they turned their backs on it. They turned their backs on the matters that we had to deal with, the urgent matters in health care. They turned their backs with regard to

what was happening in education.

I would repeat that without dealing with the pressing matters that we had before us -- education; let's talk about that for a moment. If we fail to invest in

post-secondary institutions, in our post-secondary system, if we fail to meet those needs as we've proposed, then I think we will fall further behind on the competitiveness scale.

Roger Martin, as I pointed out today, brought forward his task force report. It had some very interesting observations. One of them was, as I said earlier in

question period, dealing with the matter of investing in post-secondary institutions, in ensuring that we have more opportunities for people to become as highly educated and as highly trained as

they possibly can, because that is going to lead to further investment. Around the world, there are 1,200 competing jurisdictions -- 1,200 -- that are looking for the same things we are: more

investment, attracting that foreign direct investment to our province to create jobs. We're competing with 1,200 jurisdictions.

Tax cuts are not the cure-all; they are not the panacea. It's not the only item that matters. There are critical matters that are priorities in terms of when a

company makes investment decisions that go well beyond tax cuts: research and development at our post-secondary institutions and the spinoff that provides for companies; skilled and highly trained

workers, who are very, very important. We need to deal with those matters. We need to move on with this debate and deal with what's in the throne speech, because the throne speech, I can tell you,

highlights those areas. It's all about improving our quality of life so that we have a higher standard of living. The only way we sustain that standard of living is by making the right investments.

In order to do that, we have to deal with the fiscal imbalance that is before us. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that reality. We can't just hide our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't

exist.

This measure today is nothing more than a stalling tactic. It deals with items that are not a priority for the people of this province. It attempts to put off

that very important debate that we must have around the throne speech. The throne speech informs the people of this province about this government's important agenda. It lists what it is that the

government is going to make a priority -- and, I might add, the speech was so good that it was read twice in this House.

I say to you that the throne speech debate, particularly for all of the new members in this assembly, is a very important one for this House to have. It's very

important not only for them, but for their constituents to hear the views of the member that they elected. I know that the members of this House want to do the best that they can for the people who

elected them and entrusted them to be here in this assembly. But, again, if we have this kind of stalling tactic that's before us, it doesn't allow us to get on with the responsible approach to the

matters that are before this House.

I know that there's quibbling from time to time, a great deal of debate around the standing orders of this Legislative Assembly and how they work. The rights

of individual members ought to be protected, and certainly they will have their say on that side of the House. The opposition will have their say. Every single member in this assembly will have his

or her say. I honestly believe that no member should be denied the right to speak, the right to express himself or herself. That's what a debate of this kind does. It allows members to express

themselves. I don't think that these stalling tactics that we see before us are doing anything constructive in that regard.

I say, let's get on with the debate. Let's get on with the important agenda that the people have elected us to deal with. Let's get on with that, because it's

very important.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I would like to agree with some of the comments from the minister and just say that this to me is a

sad state that we have to debate whether we can debate the throne speech.

This is the throne speech itself. We had the pleasure of hearing it twice. I, quite frankly, have read through it and found more in it each time. But to some

people, politics is a game. Unfortunately, to some people, politics is a game. It's viewed as, "Can we win points in the Legis