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

December 10, 2003

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Dec-10 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 10 December 2003 Mercredi 10 décembre 2003

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROBERT BOYER

CHRISTKINDL MARKET

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

YORK RAPID TRANSIT

HYDRO RATES

JAMES GRECO

TAXATION

RED HILL EXPRESSWAY

POLICE SERVICES

QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL

VISITORS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO (PROTECTION DES

SOURCES D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2003 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2003

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

HOUSE SITTINGS

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

TAXATION

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

PETERBOROUGH

REGIONAL HEALTH CENTRE

PREMIER'S VISIT TO NEW YORK CITY

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

AUTISM SERVICES

PROPERTY TAXATION

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

PALLIATIVE CARE

VIDEO CAMERAS IN POLICE VEHICLES

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

VISITOR

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

TUITION

TOBACCO TAX

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

TUITION

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

SCHOOL CLOSURES

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION /

IMPOSITION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROBERT BOYER

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I rise today to recognize Robert James Boyer, a former member of provincial Parliament in this legislature

and one of the original sons of Muskoka.

Robert, or Bob as he is known in Muskoka, was born in 1913 in Bracebridge in the family home. His birth in 1913 marked the third generation of writers and

newspaper editors in Bracebridge. At age 19, he launched his career as a young newspaper editor at the Herald. Bob completed his senior matriculation while working full time at the Herald. Robert

married Patricia Mary Johnson in 1940, and together they raised three children, each of whom has been an accomplished writer in their own right.

During World War II, Bob served with the Canadian Army's Ordnance Corps in Longue-Pointe, Montreal, where in addition to his duties he became the editor of The

Longue Pointer.

In June 1955, Bob began his political life when he was elected as the member of provincial Parliament for Muskoka in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Despite

this, he continued as editor of the newspaper. He represented the people of Muskoka for 16 years.

During his tenure he was instrumental in the establishment of the Pines Home for the Aged, the Ontario Fire College, new buildings for the work of provincial

ministries, the Port Carling locks renewal and new control dams on the river, and the reorganization of municipal and educational governments.

In 1971, Bob retired from public life as the elected representative of Muskoka. He has served the people of Muskoka with honour and dignity, and enhanced the

community of Muskoka through his words and deeds. I would like to congratulate Bob on celebrating his 90th birthday this weekend, December 14, in Bracebridge at the Pines.

CHRISTKINDL MARKET

Mr John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): Last Thursday, December 4, I had the honour of participating in the opening of Kitchener's seventh annual

Christkindl Market. Christkindl markets are held worldwide and trace their origin back to 14th century Germany, when churchgoing farmers would set up stalls to sell farm produce, figurines, toys,

food and clothing prior to Christmas.

Over 1,500 people participated in an opening candlelight procession from Victoria Park to the city hall, where they were greeted by music, speeches and

entertainment. The market itself boasted dozens and dozens of vendors selling an impressive array of food, gifts, toys and clothing, much of it with a German theme. Blacksmith demonstrations,

puppet shows for the kids, choirs and festive Christmas decorations made this a wonderful family event.

Kitchener's Christkindl Market is Canada's original and attracts over 25,000 visitors every year. In 1999, it was named one of the best new festivals in Ontario

and, in 2000 was identified as one the province's top 10 events.

I would like to congratulate Tony Bergmeier, the founder of Kitchener's Christkindl Market, Astrid Braun, his co-chair, and Monica Reid, along with the wonderful

team of volunteers who made the special event possible.

Christkindl Market is held annually in Kitchener, extending over the five days ending with the second Sunday of Advent. I invite all members of the Legislature

and all Ontarians to attend next year's market and help celebrate Kitchener's proud German heritage.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Everyone in this House has heard the Liberals claim, as if it was a holy mantra, that they have

inherited a $5.6-billion deficit. The Liberals are so adamant about this bogus number that the Premier and his finance minister have been heard repeating it time and time again. It appears that

they think the more they repeat the bogus deficit number, the more they will be able to make it stick on the previous government.

Yesterday, John Williamson from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation revealed a more accurate picture for the province of Ontario. Williamson said, "The Liberal

government has overplayed its hand." He went on to say on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that "the Liberals are making the province's fiscal situation appear worse than it actually

is." Can you imagine that, Mr Speaker? The Liberals are trying to make the financial situation appear worse.

There is more. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation was blunt and direct when they said that any deficit over $600 million will be a Liberal deficit, caused by

Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals. What we have here is a Liberal deficit. It is a bogus deficit. We are on to Dalton, and Ontarians are starting to figure out that Liberals cannot be trusted with

our hard-earned money, nor we can trust Liberal math.

YORK RAPID TRANSIT

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): York region is adding 40,000 new residents and thousands upon thousands of new jobs each year. This has resulted in

some major challenges for our municipalities, such as bumper-to-bumper traffic and unprecedented development. For every 100 cars that travel into downtown Toronto each day, there are 80 cars

heading into York region. In my home community of Markham, municipal leaders have recognized the need to plan ahead. Markham Centre has been recognized as a leading national example of sustainable

community planning and should be held up as a model for other rapidly growing communities. I believe that the York rapid transit plan will serve as a cornerstone of the centre's growth

strategy.

The region is building a bus rapid transit system in three stages, with construction on the first phase beginning next year. By 2005, there will be rapid transit

vehicles moving passengers throughout the region and beyond, getting thousands of cars off our roads. The first phase has funding commitments of $50 million each from the region, the provincial and

the federal governments. I think we would all agree that by proceeding with projects like the York rapid transit plan, we can make driving through the GTA a choice and not a necessity. I believe

this to be very wonderful opportunity for us to demonstrate our government's commitment to public transit and sustainable development.

HYDRO RATES

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My constituents are frustrated with the promise breakers and tax hikers in this Liberal government. Not only have

they increased business taxes, which will drive jobs and opportunity out of Ontario, they have increased taxes on those who need help the most. Farmers will be particularly hard hit. The Liberal

hydro rate increase will cost farmers $42 million a year, according to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Murray Porteous, of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association, says of the Liberal hydro rate increases, "This is a huge blow to agriculture."

Allan Gardiner, of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, has written, "Farmers can't pay more for electricity. Our net incomes are dropping -- it just isn't

possible to stay in business when production costs are outstripping the prices farmers get for their produce."

Farmers use most of their power during off-peak hours, when demand is lowest and the power is cheapest. They deserve a price that reflects their use, not one

that will put them out of business.

Conservation is not a practical alternative for them. Milk coolers, poultry barns and greenhouses are just a few examples of power they use that can't be cut

back.

I call on the Minister of Agriculture to start speaking up for Ontario's farmers. Do not join in the McGuinty government's war on farmers and small business. Do

what's right for Ontario's job creators.

JAMES GRECO

Mr David Orazietti (Sault Ste Marie): It's my privilege to recognize the contributions of an individual who has given so much to the city of

Sault Ste Marie. Ontario Court Justice James Greco held court until the day before his 75th birthday this past month, the mandatory age of retirement set by the province. He spent nearly 36 years

on the bench and retired as the longest-sitting judge in Ontario.

Judge James Greco was appointed to the provincial court bench by former Attorney General and Sault Ste Marie MPP Arthur Wishart in 1968. He graduated from

Osgoode Hall Law School in 1959, and was awarded the Queen Elizabeth medal and the Sault Ste Marie medal of merit for his contributions to the community.

Some of his community involvement included being a member of the board of directors of the Sault Ste Marie General Hospital for 24 years; director of the Algoma

Regional School of Nursing for eight years; chair of the Sault Ste Marie Salvation Army; and member of the Algoma University board of governors and senate. He was also a founding member of the

advisory board for the establishment of a native diversionary justice system at Garden River First Nation Reserve.

He has taught law for 25 years at Algoma University, authored a text entitled Bail-Canada, and written numerous articles, which have appeared in journals such as

the Criminal Law Quarterly.

I want to thank Justice James Greco for his commitment and service to our provincial court system and for his continued participation and leadership in numerous

organizations within our city.

I also want to congratulate Kristine Bignell of Sault Ste. Marie on being selected to replace Judge Greco by our Attorney General, the honourable member from St.

Paul's. Ms Bignell, we wish you well in your new position.

TAXATION

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Today being the inaugural Taxpayers' Day at Queen's Park, it gives me great pleasure to welcome

farmers, small business people, seniors, parents of children who attend independent schools and others sitting in our public gallery. Many have travelled hundreds of miles to bring this government

the message: Keep your promise. Don't raise taxes.

These people are worried in the wake of Bill 2, the largest tax hike in Ontario history. They're worried about the future of their businesses, their farms, their

jobs and their children's education as this government takes more from their wallets and erases the very foundation on which the last eight years of prosperity have been built.

They wonder why this is being done, when only a couple of months ago the present Premier told everyone, "I will not cut your taxes, but I won't raise them

either," over and over again on television. "I will not cut your taxes, but I won't raise them either."

There are too many here today who feel they've been led down the Liberal garden path leading to tax increases that we were told would not be part of the Liberal

agenda. Talk about the Grinch who stole Christmas. Truly, Dalton McGuinty has given new meaning to the terms "tax hiker" and "promise-breaker."

On that note, I welcome people in the gallery: Terry Sannesael and other farmers are here from Norfolk, Oxford, Brant and, I will mention, Elgin county.

RED HILL EXPRESSWAY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise today to bring to the attention of the House another cynical Tory flip-flop, this time in regard to

the Red Hill expressway. While in government, they supported the expressway. While in government they went to the chamber of commerce and to the business community in Hamilton and said, "We support

the Red Hill expressway."

What did we hear last week? The member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant rose in the House to ask the Minister of the Environment for a review of the expressway

project in Hamilton. What has changed, except cynical opportunism by a desperate Tory party, by a Tory party that's out of touch with the people of Hamilton? Why all of a sudden?

We all remember former Premier Mike Harris cutting the ribbon for the east-west portion of the expressway. We all remember the local Tory candidates soliciting

funds in their fundraising letters, saying to the business community, "We support the Red Hill Expressway in Hamilton."

The Liberal Party has been firm and consistent on it. We support the expressway; we have supported the expressway from day one. There has been a full

environmental assessment, and the expressway is in the best interests of the community. I ask the Tories: Why the change of heart? Why the change of mind? Why have you betrayed the people of

Hamilton by telling them when you were in government that you supported it and now, as an opposition party, you find a cheap, political, convenient way out and oppose it? It is shameful. It is a

sign of a party that is out of touch with reality, out of touch with the people of Hamilton, and out of power.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I think they're still in government, aren't they?

I rise in the House today in support of the policemen and policewomen who serve us on the front lines every day in communities across Ontario.

The release of a report on racial profiling by the Ontario Human Rights Commission has unfortunately placed police in a position of defending their very

existence. The Police Association of Ontario has informed me that the terms of reference for the commission's report excluded police from participating. This is disturbing and discriminatory.

What worries me even more is that Monte Kwinter and the Liberal government were so quick to praise this report and make more promises about acting on its

recommendations. I have to ask why.

Minister Kwinter has been in his new portfolio for two months and he's already targeting police. Yesterday, the minister said he will act now on the

recommendations to install cameras in police cruisers, yet other emergency services personnel, including ambulance workers and firefighters, have been spared this Big Brother treatment.

The only reasons that video cameras should ever be installed in police cruisers would be for the safety of our police officers and for investigative purposes.

Any other reason would show a complete lack of trust and discrimination against the very people who allow Ontarians to live in a safe and civil society.

Furthermore, any attempt by the Liberals to pay for the cameras instead of making due on their promise of 1,000 new police officers would be outrageous.

Our caucus will not allow the minister to make whipping boys and girls out of the fine men and women who serve and protect us. They deserve much better from the

minister and from this government.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Fergie Jenkins, Eric Gagne, Roy Halladay: these names will go down in history as some of the best hardball

pitchers Canada has ever produced. But when it comes to pitching softballs, these guys can't hold a candle to Dalton McGuinty and his trained myrmidon in the Liberal backbenches. They're softball

Hall-of-Famers.

Each day, they waste almost half of question period asking questions that cabinet ministers wrote for themselves. Why do they do that? The answer is very

obvious: because Dalton McGuinty fears tough questions. If the Liberals stop the softballs, opposition MPPs would ask McGuinty hardball questions like: You promised to keep hydro public, so why

don't you rule out selling off Darlington and Pickering? You promised dignity for our seniors, so when are you going to mandate more care for our seniors and admit that your strategy of tears and

volunteers just doesn't cut it? You promised to take human rights violations seriously, so when are you going to stand up for visible minorities, admit racial profiling exists and finally take

action?

I say to Dalton McGuinty and his softball Hall-of-Famers: Playing games with public accountability is bad news for good government. Live up to your promise to

make government more effective, responsive and accountable to the people. Stop the softball questions and face the hardball questions Ontarians want answered in this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): There's a lot of talking in the chamber. I would ask members to keep their voices down.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL

Mr Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 20,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to increase the penalties for contraventions of the Act and regulations / Projet de loi 20, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail en vue d'augmenter les peines en cas d'infraction aux dispositions de la Loi et des règlements.

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

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This bill amends

section 66 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act to increase the penalties for

individuals and corporations for contraventions of the act and regulations, and to make directors and officers of corporations liable for contraventions of the act and regulations by those

corporations.

VISITORS

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Members would like to welcome Ms Anne Veres and the grade 5 class from Ormiston

Public School in Whitby, Ontario, Canada.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I'm going to ask all members in the future that when you have a point of order -- that was not a point of

order, to begin with -- we could do that in a much more programmed way.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT

(WATER SOURCE PROTECTION), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU

DE L'ONTARIO (PROTECTION DES

SOURCES D'ALIMENTATION EN EAU)

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 21,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act with respect to water source protection / Projet de loi 21, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les

ressources en eau de l'Ontario en ce qui concerne la protection des sources d'alimentation en eau.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This is a bill I'm reintroducing. I introduced it in the last Legislature. It amends the Ontario Water

Resources Act in regard to availability and conservation of Ontario water.

Specifically, the bill requires the director to consider the Ministry of the Environment's statement of environmental values when making any decision under the

act. The bill also requires that municipalities and conservation authorities are notified of applications to take water, which, if granted, may affect their water sources or supplies. This was the

most important recommendation from the Walkerton inquiry by Justice O'Connor. This bill offers the framework so we can move forward on source protection in this province.

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2003 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2003

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

Ms Martel moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 22,

An Act to promote patients' rights / Projet de loi 22, Loi visant à promouvoir les droits des patients.

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

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): This is the third time I've introduced this bill, which establishes patients' rights for health care in

Ontario. At one point it did pass second reading, but it was blocked by the Conservative majority from further consideration in committee.

If passed, the bill would codify the rights of residents of Ontario to receive health care services. It would provide for the appointment of a health care

standards commissioner, who would be an officer of the Legislature, who would participate in the setting of health care standards and the development of a complaint procedure, monitoring health

care standards and making recommendations to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care for changes to legislation and changes to health policy.

The bill established whistle-blower protection for the employees and providers of health care services, and it requires the posting of the patients' bill of

rights and the whistle-blower protection provisions.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent, without debate or amendment, that the

House not sit tonight, Wednesday, December 10.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is there unanimous consent?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I can hardly hear you with the heckling over there. That's why it's difficult for me to repeat what you said.

Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given that we want the NDP to have their

three questions, and given that we want them to participate in Opposition Day, could we have unanimous consent to move government notice of motion number 5, without debate or amendment.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? I heard a no.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask unanimous consent that the leader of the third party get two lead questions following the

Tories, followed by a third question by a member of the third party.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? I heard a no.

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

there is unanimous consent for all three parties --

Interjection: Deferred vote.

Hon Mr Bryant: Could I just stand down, Mr Speaker. I understand we have a motion from the government House leader and/or a deferred vote.

The Speaker: Would you stay your request until later on. I'll indicate.

DEFERRED VOTES

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have a deferred vote on the motion by Mr Caplan 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.

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

The division bells rang from 1359 to 1404.

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.

Brownell, Jim

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

Dombrowsky, Leona

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

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those against, please rise.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Prue, Michael

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 86; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

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

there is unanimous consent for all three parties to make a statement for up to five minutes each regarding International Human Rights Day.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Are you agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Bryant: Each December 10, Ontario marks International Human Rights Day. This is a day to remember that we all have a part to play in

ensuring equity and fairness in our society. It's a day to recognize the inherent right of all the world's citizens to a life of dignity, equality, tolerance and non-discrimination. It's a day to

remind ourselves how precious these rights are and how they should be never be taken for granted.

Fifty-five years ago today, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations. This was a great Canadian export. A McGill University

professor -- a Canadian -- helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was a picture of Canada's social decency and social democracy that became a model for the world. This

declaration forms the cornerstone of international human rights to which all people are entitled, and it's the basis of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which was enacted in 1962.

Over the past four decades, Ontario has built a record of leadership in this important area. We've become one of the most diverse communities in the world, and

this government will take action to strengthen our international reputation as a province of tolerance, civility and respect. We champion and safeguard the human rights of our citizens, and we

advance these rights and build upon them as times and needs evolve.

When our government took office, we immediately fulfilled our promise to relocate the Ontario Human Rights Commission under the auspices of the Ministry of the

Attorney General. We believe that human rights violations must be taken seriously, and I'm committed to treating human rights issues with the gravity they deserve.

We also seek to celebrate and leverage the diversity of our multicultural community. We welcome steps to address any conflicts or tensions that affect our

citizens. It is surely the very crux of Canadian civility and equality that we all respect equal protection under the law.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission yesterday issued a report detailing hundreds of personal stories --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I regard this as a very important statement. I'm hearing a lot of talk across the hall. I'd rather the member get an opportunity

to finish his statement in that sort of process.

Hon Mr Bryant: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope you'll be a little bit liberal with the time since I lost some time as a result. I'll leave that

to your discretion.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission yesterday issued a report detailing hundreds of personal stories that powerfully illustrate the human cost of stereotyping

and racism. I say in the name of the very quintessential Canadian ideals of civility and equality and social decency that I believe it is important we put behind us this debate about whether or not

racial profiling is perception or reality. It is not about picking sides. It is about making progress. The time has come for us to take action and to tackle these challenges in all parts of

government and in all parts of our society.

Part of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's mandate is to raise awareness, and this report is going to be a powerful tool to that end. This government will

be carefully considering the report and its recommendations. All ministers will be considering the report and its recommendations.

Issues of stereotyping and racism can affect all parts of a government and society. Without vigilance every single day, a government will never be doing

enough. We want all our children to grow up and succeed in a climate of equal opportunity. Our commitment to human rights is just one of the many reasons we are very fortunate to live in this

country. In other parts of the world, we see the constant struggle to gain the rights that should be available to all.

On International Human Rights Day, let us join together in our hope that the universal commitment to human rights is continually strengthened, that every

person in every corner of the globe has the freedom to pursue individual goals and fulfill their potential to the utmost, and that Canada will continue to be a leader in this regard across the

world. It is of course our hope that Ontario will play a leadership role within Confederation in this regard. Let us celebrate the towering respect for human rights that lies at the heart of this

province.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): It's an honour to speak on International Human Rights Day. Fifty-five years ago, the United

Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ontario has a proud record of leadership in protecting human rights. Take, for example, our first Lieutenant Governor, John Graves Simcoe.

Mr Simcoe, acting as a leader of our province, took dramatic steps to prevent slavery from making a home in Upper Canada. His actions paved the way for Ontario to become a refuge for many slaves

through the Underground Railroad. Unlike the rest of North America, we began recognizing and protecting human rights in this province from almost day one of our inception. For this we can all be

proud.

International Human Rights Day is about exposing tyranny, dictatorships and corrupt regimes around the globe, regimes that seek to deny basic freedoms to the

people. We should not be politically correct when we speak of these nations. Let us not be blinded by colour or religion when we seek to promote universal human rights. Countries like China,

Zimbabwe, Iran, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Haiti, Cuba, and many others rank as some of the worst violators of human rights. In these nations, the people do not enjoy freedom of the press, protection of

the rule of law, democratic elections that are open and transparent. They do not enjoy the security of the person from the police or the army who act as henchmen for tyrants.

On this day, let us applaud the actions taken by Canadians to aid in the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Let us applaud our firm position as a nation on

Zimbabwe's role in the Commonwealth. In so doing, let us reflect on our core values, which make this province and this country great, and commit to spreading our democratic values and beliefs to

those regions of the world whose citizens still live in fear.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm pleased once again to speak on behalf of New Democrats here in this Parliament on this celebration, this

recognition, this acknowledgement of International Human Rights Day. It's so easy to speak about this in platitudes and clichés, and to speak in the broad and the general, and to speak about

ourselves as somehow so superior to jurisdictions, nations and regimes in other parts of the world.

Let's talk about human rights. Let's talk about the human rights of thousands of children and young people in this province, children with autism who have been

denied their right to treatment for that autism for over eight years by the Conservatives, and now by this government too, by this Liberal government in Ontario. My goodness, had the Attorney

General wanted to speak meaningfully about human rights, he would have stood up today and stated clearly that the government, which he is the Attorney General of, is going to abandon the litigation

that is forcing 29 families to spend in excess of $1 million litigating to get treatment for their kids with autism here in the province.

Indeed Ms Eberts, counsel amongst others for those 29 people, says that this government's position, the Liberal government's position, is, if anything, more

heated up than it was under the Ernie Eves government. Thousands of young people in this province with autism, kids that people in our caucus know well, children of families that New Democrat Party

caucus members know well, whether it's the Walsh family in Welland -- they were here at Queen's Park with their boy, exposing this province as one that does not recognize the human rights of

children like the Walsh boy, like young Conlan McKee, who turned six on November 24. His family has been notified by this government that because of Conlan reaching the age of six, he's going to be

cut off his IBI treatment.

Oh, the family has options. The family could invest $50,000 or $55,000 a year in private sector treatment. I tell you, there are families, and we know them,

who attempt to do that, and they manage to do it for a year or two. They sell off their house, take whatever equity they have in their homes and cash in all their RSPs, but then at some point they

simply run out of money. This province and this new government have abandoned them as much as the previous government did for over eight years.

We have a Premier in this province who acknowledges that while there are but 500 children or so in programs receiving IBI treatment, there are another 1,000

kids on waiting lists, and there are a good 2,000 over the age of six who are going to be denied their right to a legitimate, valid treatment regime; the same Premier who before the election, he

with his colleagues, some of them now ministers in his own cabinet, promised those same families that their children would be getting IBI treatment. Rather than keeping that promise, this

government and this Attorney General, who stands up today and speaks somewhat pompously about human rights in Ontario, have ratcheted up the heat in the litigation that the 29 families of kids with

IBI are being compelled to participate in. There are now over a hundred cases before the Ontario Human Rights Commission by families with children with autism, over a hundred cases of families

seeking relief before the Ontario Human Rights Commission; families declaring that their children's human rights have been violated by this government.

Does this government respond by supporting those children and acknowledging their right for treatment? No, this government challenges them and turns its back

on those kids and their families. Oh, we can point the finger to so many places throughout the world, but we'd better reflect on what this government, these Liberals, are doing to young people here

in this province.

VISITORS

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask you to join me to welcome the law and

politics students from St Theresa Secondary School in Belleville, and their parents and teachers. Many of these students come from Tweed, which is my home.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): To the Premier: I would like refresh his memory with a picture of himself and John Williamson of the

Canadian Taxpayers Federation on September 11 of this year. We need some memory-refreshing, I'm afraid, I say with all due respect, to --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. This is just the start of question period.

Mr Eves: This was on September 11 of this year, Mr Premier, some three short months ago. You and your new best friend of the day, John

Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, signed this pledge together saying that you would protect the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, that you would not raise taxes, that you would

live up to your commitment to balance the books of the province. Are you going to live up to that commitment in this fiscal year, Mr Premier?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We've been very straight from the outset with the people of Ontario. We

have, for example, made it very clear that this year's budget under that government would not be balanced. We maintained that throughout the course of a provincial election. I can tell you that we

stand by the report of Erik Peters, a man who served this province well for over 10 years as its Provincial Auditor, as a much more credible analyst of the information than, with all due respect,

my good friend Mr Williamson.

Mr Eves: Premier, while you were in New York on Monday of this week, trying to ring the bell at the New York Stock Exchange, John Williamson

was busy here ringing your bell with a reality check. You were embracing the Canadian Taxpayers Federation literally and figuratively on September 11 of this year and on September 23 of this year.

Why would you not accept their

interpretation of public accounts today, recognize that Mr Peters's opinion was just that, an opinion at that point in time, and recognize that the Ontario economy,

as you told the people in New York on Monday, is performing very well and you will be able to balance the books of the province this year?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition that there's nothing wrong with the Ontario economy. People of Ontario are

working hard and are very entrepreneurial. The problem is the financial situation you've left in their government.

Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition that we stand by the report of Erik Peters. I understand that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has its own

particular view on these matters, but its analysis lacks credibility because it has made a number of fundamental errors. I'll be pleased to describe those. The federation relies on unrealistic

revenue projections. It includes transfers from the federal government that are unlikely to be realized this year.

We're not going to be playing accounting tricks. If we receive money next year, we're going to include it in next year's receipts.

Mr Eves: Mr Williamson is quoted as saying, "The Liberal government has overplayed its hand. The Liberals are making the province's fiscal

situation appear worse than it actually is."

The reality is that there is going to be, by the end of this fiscal year, an additional $3 billion in revenue that Mr Peters did not account for. There is

going to be --

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): He was wrong, Ernie; he was just wrong.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I was just trying to help out.

The Speaker: You're not helping me at all. You're not helping the House. I would like to hear the leader of the official opposition and his

final supplementary.

Mr Eves: There is going to be an additional $771 million made available to you by your good friend Mr Manley in this fiscal year. Even Mr

Manley himself has indicated that under the PSAB system of accounting -- which every single government in this country adopts, except for yours, apparently -- you have to bring that money in -- not

"may," but "have to" -- in this fiscal year. You can balance the books if you want to, so will you roll up your sleeves and, instead of washing your hands of responsibility, actually go to work and

balance the books for the taxpayers in this province?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Maybe we should suspend question period. No one wants to listen; no one wants to give questions.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition, but more important, I want to reassure the people of Ontario that we will not be

playing tricks with the government's accounting. We will record the money upon its receipt, and not before then.

I also want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that we have been doing much to clean up the mess they left the people of Ontario. We have rolled back the

latest portion of the tax giveaway to large corporations. We have eliminated the seniors' education property tax credit. We have eliminated the tax giveaway to private schools. We're beginning to

raise the tobacco tax to the national average. We are getting to work, we are rolling up our sleeves and we are doing everything we can in a responsible way to clean up the mess left to us by the

Leader of the Opposition.

TAXATION

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Premier, today in the members' gallery we have senior citizens of this province, we have parents

and students who belong to independent schools, we have tobacco farmers, we have taxpayers. They are concerned that your government has embarked down a road of retroactively raising taxes, taking

away somebody's legally entitled-to rights, and you're doing it retroactively. Would you not agree that this is bad public policy and one that this government or any other government should not be

following?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. I can tell you that

we on this side of the House have an abiding confidence in the wisdom of the people of Ontario.

Moments after the Leader of the Opposition, as part of the previous government, introduced a budget some two years ago that contained this provision, which

this party had never ran on, moments after that provision was introduced, I stood up and said no. We've been clear for over two years in our party that we do not support that measure. We brought

that to the people of Ontario in the election, and they said no to that provision.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I'm going to start naming members who have been warned about interrupting question period. I'm sure the

supplementary coming from the official opposition leader will be something they would like to hear and all of you would like to hear.

Mr Eves: My supplementary is to the Premier again. On September 11 of this year, you made quite a little photo op of Dalton McGuinty keeping

taxes down, balancing your budget for a bright future. Very simply --

The Speaker: This is about the second time the Leader of the Official Opposition has shown these posters. I'm going to warn him that the next

time I may have to name him. Would you finish, please.

Mr Eves: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can assure you I have no more photos to introduce into evidence.

Mr Premier, you signed this pledge. You said that you would not raise taxes on working families in the province of Ontario. You have a finance minister who

doesn't seem to think that cancelling a legally entitled-to, by law, tax credit that is raising someone's taxes. Can you explain to these people in the gallery today, to Frank and Olive Russell,

who now will have to pay the property taxes that they were legally entitled to a credit for; to fathers and mothers of young people who go to independent schools who had counted on and budgeted on

an equity in education tax credit this year; to tobacco farmers in the province of Ontario, can you explain to them how making them pay more is not raising their taxes?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Again I say, we ran on this. We made a very clear choice. We have ambitious plans for public education in the province of

Ontario and we will not apologize for that. We have too many children going to school in crowded classrooms. We have schools that are crumbling around their feet. We have teachers who don't have

the morale that they really should have in order to get the job done. We have great plans for public education. That is our priority. We ran on that in the last election. The people of Ontario said

yes to public education. We continue to pursue our commitments in that regard and we continue to say to the Leader of the Opposition, who at one point in time called his own plan ludicrous, that we

do not adopt or support that plan.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Today being Taxpayers' Day, there are many people in the galleries today to express their

disappointment at the series of Liberal tax hikes we find in Bill 2. Many tobacco farmers are here today, and are coming to a mass meeting Friday evening in Tillsonburg. They are concerned about

your tobacco tax hikes that will put them out of business. I joined tobacco farmers from my riding in the galleries here today in looking forward to a delivery of the promise of compensation that

was made by your party during the election. These farmers were promised reparations to help buffer the impact of your tobacco tax hike, the impact it will have on them as families. These farmers

will be expecting that at least this promise will be upheld. Premier, you announced tobacco tax hikes. Will you now announce farmer compensation?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer the matter to the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'm very happy to address this issue, and with the tobacco farmers that are here as well.

I look forward to meeting with you on Friday night, and I hope the honourable member is there Friday night too. I hope the honourable member is going to do the honourable thing and stand behind the

tobacco board. By going outside the tobacco board, and undermining the board, you're not helping the interests of these individuals over here. We need to do everything we can. We need to come to

the federal round table. The federal round table is extremely important. That's going to be our opportunity. This is an industry that's at a crossroad right now. Our transition fund that we

campaigned on is going to be part of what we bring to the round table, because we need to ensure that we have one plan for the tobacco industry. I hope that you're going to support that round table

that meets on December 15 and 16, and stand behind the tobacco board and not undermine the tobacco industry.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Premier. During the election campaign, you promised to bring real and meaningful

public input into bills. Yesterday, the standing committee on finance heard from the Canadian Jewish Congress; we heard from the B'Nai Brith; we heard from the Muslim community; we heard from

representatives of Christian schools in Ontario and thousands of families and children that all of these groups represent. They were unanimous. They didn't just disagree with your government's

decision to scrap the equity in education tax credit; what they felt was that the decision to make that retroactive was wrong.

Premier, will you listen to the groups that came forward and provided input at the committee? Will you listen to the hundreds and thousands of families and

children they affect? Will you do the right thing and end the retroactive nature of this tax grab?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Again, I don't want to diminish the importance of the issue, but we had

a very important consultation process that took part by way of the election. We listened to the people of Ontario. They were very, very clear in regard to this matter, and I know my friend opposite

understands this. We've been forthright about this issue from the get-go. We made it perfectly clear that we are choosing public education. The member opposite talks about a provision that was

described by his leader as "ludicrous," a provision that would send over $3 million to Upper Canada College. We choose instead to invest in public education.

Mr Baird: Premier, I don't think anyone campaigned in the last election campaign on making this tax grab retroactive. What do I tell a family

in Metcalfe, Ontario, with two kids at the Christian school in Metcalfe, this family with an income of less than $50,000 who made financial decisions based on what the statute books of the province

said?

Premier, some people are calling this decision unprecedented; others are calling it mean-spirited and vindictive. Premier, you're retroactively raising

corporate taxes; you're retroactively raising income taxes. Will you stand in your place and do the right thing and listen to the hundreds of families this decision is going to affect, whether they

be Muslims, whether they be Jews or whether they be Christians or others who send their children to independent schools, and end once and for all the retroactive nature of this tax grab?

Hon Mr McGuinty: For us, this is an important matter of principle. We support public education in Ontario. It's not particularly complicated.

We think that public education at its very best --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I would ask the member from Whitby-Ajax to control himself in a way that we can have question period.

Thank you.

Hon Mr McGuinty: We believe that public education at its very best can and should be the foundation for social cohesion. We want a magnificent

public education system. We want it to be attractive to all our parents, to all our children, and we will continue to allow that ideal to inspire our efforts and inform our thinking. Again I say,

we choose public education over funding for private schools.

PETERBOROUGH

REGIONAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, and let me congratulate the minister on his

appointment.

During the recent election campaign, it was suggested that a vote for Liberals would cancel the funding for the new Peterborough Regional Health Centre. Can

the minister assure the people of Peterborough riding that funding will flow for the construction of this new hospital?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to thank the member from Peterborough for his question and for the

good work he's doing on behalf of his community. In fact, his community has done a good job on their own, raising the necessary funds to support a long overdue hospital in that community. I'm happy

to say today to the member from Peterborough and to all members of this House, and especially to the people from Peterborough, that Peterborough Regional Health Centre will proceed as planned.

Mr Leal: We thank the minister for his assurances. The people within my riding are anxiously awaiting the construction of the new Peterborough

Regional Health Centre. Now that we've been assured that the hospital will go ahead, can the honourable Minister of Health and Long-Term Care tell us if the hospital will be completed in 2007?

Hon Mr Smitherman: I can confirm that the hospital will be built on time, as planned, in 2007. I'd urge the honourable member to play the

important role in his local community of helping to make sure that costs are contained so the project is completed on budget as well. But in 2007 the residents of Peterborough will have the benefit

of a new hospital facility, a new public hospital in the province of Ontario to meet their future health care needs.

PREMIER'S VISIT TO NEW YORK CITY

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a question to the Premier. In an

article entitled, "McGuinty says NYSE Snubbed Him for China," you told

the Ontario media the following: "I had been lined up to give the honour of ringing the bell, but I was displaced when the Premier of China showed up with a 18-car cortège and pre-empted me."

Premier, were you telling the truth?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Would you withdraw the comment.

Mr Hudak: I withdraw and ask the Premier if his comments were fully accurate.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I was honoured to visit New York City on behalf of the people of Ontario

and to express to the financial community there the strength of our economy, some of the challenges that we face as a government, how we are going to be tackling those head-on, how we have already

introduced legislation which addresses some of the revenue side, how we intend to consult the people of Ontario with respect to the difficult steps we're going to be taking early on in the new year

that will form the basis for our first budget.

Let me just say to the member opposite -- and I know that the Leader of the Opposition has some familiarity with this -- yesterday, quite frankly, I attempted

to use a little bit of self-deprecating humour within the confines of a scrum and it was blown out of proportion.

Let me just confirm this, if I might.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): I know exactly how you feel.

Hon Mr McGuinty: You know how I feel, eh?

I was treated with the utmost respect, accorded warm and gracious hospitality by the folks at the New York Stock Exchange and everybody else I encountered. I

look forward to returning, whether or not I get to ring the damn bell.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hudak: I appreciate the Premier's answer and claim that he was misunderstood. I want to give him the opportunity to do the right thing.

Later in that

article it said, "A McGuinty aide later conceded Mr McGuinty knew ahead of time he would not be the one to yank the exchange bell."

Premier, I would think a good way to develop a strong trading relationship with the Americans is to develop that relationship on honesty and truth-telling. I

understand that the Consul General --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let me hear the member for Erie-Lincoln. I think he was coming to a very --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member from Erie-Lincoln.

Mr Hudak: I think members know the importance of the trading relationship that goes throughout the province, including the representation from

the people of Niagara. We contacted the New York Stock Exchange, who informed us that the Canadian Consul General has sent an e-mail apologizing for the embarrassment that this has caused.

Mr Premier, will you do the right thing and apologize to the NYSE, and make it clear that your comments were not meant the way they were construed in the

media?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the members opposite don't want to talk about the Epp report, why they don't want to talk about the

$5.6-billion deficit, why they don't want to talk about the recent auditor's reports. But let me just say once again how proud I was to visit New York City, on behalf of the people of Ontario, to

reassure our American cousins that we have a strong and abiding economic relationship, that we look forward to building ever stronger economic ties, that we've got a government here that is rolling

up its sleeves and getting down to work.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. During the recent election

campaign, our party acknowledged the importance of building a more innovative economy. Cluster development has been identified as a way to spur economic growth. This was recently acknowledged by

the Roger Martin Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress. One of the many important clusters in the province is certainly the automotive sector. Minister, can you provide

us with an update on the auto sector and initiatives being undertaken in your ministry to promote the development of this cluster?

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): It's an important question, because the Roger Martin task force did single

out clusters in our economy as being an important element. In fact, what he pointed to was the strength of these clusters and how many we actually have in Ontario, which would lead to greater

economic growth in the future. Innovation is the key. In fact, our government is taking initiatives to help companies innovate by focusing on research and development. By focusing on strategic

skills development, we can make certain that these clusters lead the way in terms of economic growth.

The auto sector --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Hon Mr Cordiano: I would just add, with respect to the other part of the member's question regarding the auto sector, that the auto sector is

in fact one of the most important clusters in Ontario.

The Speaker: Any supplementary? Thank you.

Hon Mr Cordiano: Our government has taken initiatives with respect to the auto sector. The Canadian Automotive Partnership Council was an

important forum which I attended --

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Ms Broten: In my riding, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the Lakeshore community partnership, formerly named the South Etobicoke regeneration project,

has undertaken a significant amount of leading-edge work to identify cluster development opportunities in our community. They have identified major emerging clusters in the media, automotive and

food service industries, and these represent important growth and economic development opportunities for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. How will your ministry support the development of clusters in

communities such as the one I represent?

Hon Mr Cordiano: Let me tell you how important the auto sector is to Ontario's economy. One out of six jobs is dependent on the auto sector,

and it would be important for members to pay attention to this. In fact, with respect to the other clusters, we are taking initiatives to support those clusters: key investments in strategic skills

development; working with our post-secondary institutions to fund research projects like MaRS, like the biotech industry. We are doing all of those things because we will build a technology

corridor in Ontario which I think can lead the world.

Innovation is the key to economic growth. We will do the right things in this government by investing in those key sectors and investing in innovation, making

our economy grow in the future.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is again for the Premier. I'm going to give the Premier an opportunity to reflect on the response he

gave me yesterday, when he refused to even suggest to his member from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge or to his Minister of Finance that they repay the $135,000 worth of severance that the former mayor of

Pickering got from the taxpayers of Ontario and that Mr Sorbara, now the Minister of Finance, received from the taxpayers of Ontario.

You were so clear a year ago, in May 2002. Your now-Minister of Health spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party at that time. He even went so far, for many days,

as to accuse Mr Eves of a lot of nasty things. He said Mr Eves was in a trough, that he was never in, and feeding at that trough; that what was good for the goose was good for the gander; and that

the rule you would uphold is that severances had to be repaid when you got another government job after leaving a government job.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question?

Mr Wilson: Mr Eves did the honourable thing and repaid $78,000 worth of severance. Why won't you bring some integrity to your government and

require your --

The Speaker: Premier?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can appreciate the member opposite's usual vigour and enthusiasm which

he brings to his responsibilities there. He can ask the question as many times as he likes, but I'm not going to change my answer. I support the Minister of Finance; I support the other member to

whom he makes reference --

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Morley Kells.

Hon Mr McGuinty: -- and who happens to have done something along the lines of a former member on the other side, Mr Kells.

There's an important distinction, as I said yesterday, to be drawn between these cases and the case of the Leader of the Opposition. He returned to public

office very shortly after leaving. Mr Sorbara returned some six years later. That's an important distinction. The Leader of the Opposition was in breach of the broader public service rules; Mr

Sorbara was not. And therein lies the difference.

Mr Wilson: Part of your refusal to do the right thing, I gather, is, as you said yesterday, "My members have followed the rules."

Jamie Wallace of Osprey News pointed out on December 8, and I think he speaks volumes for how the people of Ontario feel about this: "When the Liberals damned

Eves, even though he was entitled to compensation under the Legislature's rules, they changed the rules themselves."

Secondly, I think Christina Blizzard, in one of her excellent columns in the Toronto Sun on November 9 --

Interjections.

Mr Wilson: -- they're always excellent except when she's rating me -- pointed out: "After all a severance package is something you give to an

employee who faces unemployment. Surely if you choose to move to another level of government and you are successful in that bid, you shouldn't qualify for the severance."

Those statements speak volumes about how the taxpayers feel. They speak about integrity, which you could acquire if you gave the right answer to this question

for your government. You're retroactively raising taxes; you're fleecing the taxpayers; you're taking money away from senior citizens. This is an opportunity to do the right thing, once and for

all. Get up and do the right thing.

Hon Mr McGuinty: I lack the audacity to question the writings of Ms Blizzard or Mr Wallace, but I can question the member opposite. Again, I

simply do not agree with him. I am convinced that if the people of Ontario were to have this matter brought to their general attention, they would agree that there's an important distinction to be

drawn between the situations on this side of the House and those on that side of the House.

At the end of the day, the Leader of the Opposition recognized that what he did was inappropriate. He did the right thing, I say to him. The members here,

under consideration, are doing the right thing at present. There is not need for them to do anything else.

AUTISM SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Premier. The former government discriminated against autistic children by cutting

them off IBI treatment when they turned six. During the election you wrote to Nancy Morrison, whose son Sean is autistic, and you said, "I believe that the lack of government-funded IBI treatment

for autistic children over age six is unfair and discriminatory." The election is over, and now your government is in court defending ongoing discrimination against autistic children. You're now

fighting 29 Ontario families more aggressively than ever before.

Premier, you made a specific promise to families with autistic children, so why are you continuing to fight these families and children in court, defending a

policy which is unfair and discriminatory?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the member opposite for her question. I know she has a

genuine, long-standing and very sincere commitment to that issue, and I congratulate her for that.

Let me just say that we do have a responsibility to help families into which are born children afflicted by autism. We are going to be working with those

families to address some of the issues they have to grapple with day in and day out. We're going to have to look for some innovative solutions.

With respect to the matter before the courts, there is something broader here at stake. The fact of the matter is that what the parents are asking the courts

to do is to force the government to make certain kinds of expenditures. This has far-reaching effects beyond this particular issue.

Again, I say to the member, we understand the difficulties faced by these families, we look forward to sitting down with these families, we look forward to

tackling the greater issue of human resources as well, because there's a shortage of skilled people. We're going to do everything we can to help these families.

Ms Martel: I say to the Premier, there's no need to sit down and chat with these families. You need to keep your election promise; that's what

you need to do.

You see, Premier, in that same letter to Nancy Morrison you also said, "The Ontario Liberals support extending autism treatment beyond the age of six." It's

time for you to keep your word, because autistic children who need medically necessary IBI treatment shouldn't have to go to court to get it, they shouldn't languish on waiting lists, hoping to

receive it, and their families shouldn't face financial ruin trying to pay for it when you refuse to fund it. Premier, drop the court case now. Fund IBI for every autistic child who needs it. Will

you keep your word today?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I know the member knows that there's also a waiting list for those children who are under the age of six years. What we've

got to do is take the time to properly address this issue, including to better manage our human resources. The member opposite knows that we simply don't have enough people right now with the

skills to help those children under six, let alone those over the age of six.

I do not want this member to underestimate our commitment to help out those families into which are born children suffering from autism. I'm simply asking her

to give us a bit of time.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Speaker, my question is also to the Premier.

The Speaker: It is with the government now.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With respect, it is not for the Chair to tell people when their turn is in

question period. The Chair's job is to recognize people who stand, and if somebody fails to stand, it's too bad, so sad.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. As a matter of fact, it is a rotation. I turned this way and I saw --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If I caused any confusion for the member for Oak Ridges, I'm sorry, but the question is now with the member for

Sarnia.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, in 1999 a new property assessment system was set

up. I have had hundreds of letters, e-mails and phone calls regarding continual increases in residential property assessment, some as high as 70%. These increases are out of whack with the real

estate market in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton. Thanks to the Tory legacy, staffing in our local assessment office has gone from 35 to three in recent years, and now that office has little ability to

respond to the concerns of the citizens. The horror stories of this reality abound. What is our government going to do to address the problem we are seeing in property assessment, which is unfairly

impacting thousands of homeowners in this province?

Interjections.

Hon Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Some of my colleagues on this side of the House are saying "good question." I agree with that because

each of them, each of us and everyone in this House has heard, I think, from hundreds of constituents, now that property assessment notices are coming out from MPAC, the Municipal Property

Assessment Corporation. I share her concern. In fact, there are some very serious problems in her riding of Sarnia-Lambton where, as it appears from the correspondence that I get, assessments do

not seem to be consistent with actual valuations by way of resales. All I can tell her at this point is that we are taking a very serious look. The Premier described this system once as a spare

tire with 11 patches on it. I can assure my friend that there is some work to do here on the property tax assessment system.

Ms Di Cocco: It's reassuring that we're going to look at it. I have to say that from evidence, both from my constituents and front-line

workers, it appears that there's a systemic problem with the way MPAC is handling assessments. Increases in assessments are often questionable, and we are seeing record numbers of requests for

reconsiderations across the province. As you know, Minister, many individuals are struggling with the tax implications of this assessment process that's now perceived as dysfunctional by many of my

constituents. How are we going to deal with this growing problem of property assessment in Ontario?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I wish I had a comprehensive plan for her today. I can tell you that we consider this a very serious problem. I don't want to

go back into the history of the seven bills and dozens of amendments that led to the current patchwork of our property tax system. What I can say to my friends in the House and to the member from

Sarnia is that her clarion call for some attention here is not going to be unheard.

I do, however, want to assure property taxpayers that a rise in the assessment value that they are receiving now does not necessarily mean a property tax

increase. I don't want to explain the complexities of the system, but just simply assure her and property taxpayers that we are looking after this matter.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. I'm going to follow up on the same theme as the member for Nickel Belt: the theme

of broken promises -- although I must say, Premier, that you haven't broken this one yet. You and your Minister of Energy are on the brink.

On page 7 of your election platform, you stated very clearly, "We will give more independence and power to legislative committees." Those committees have now

started their work. The committee on justice and social policy is hearing from representatives of stakeholders on Bill 4. They have made a number of recommendations for amendments to that bill. We

were told this morning in committee that your Minister of Finance charged the parliamentary assistant not to bring forward one amendment to that legislation.

Will you take the shackles off the members of that committee and direct them to be empowered, listen to stakeholders, and take on those very straightforward

and helpful amendments to improve this legislation?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I believe the Minister of Energy wants to speak to this.

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Earlier in question period the member for Nepean-Carleton talked about all

the groups that came to committee to give their views against government policy. Coming from that side, talking about committees, a government that routinely sent budget bills without committee,

passed them with time allocation without an opportunity to place amendments at all, it's just a little bit passing strange. Let me say this: Number one, the first three major bills of this

government are getting committee hearings; number two, there are delegations being heard, which didn't happen very often under your government; number three, there's clause-by-clause on these

bills. This never happened in an amount of time that was agreed to by the opposition, with rules that were agreed to by the opposition, rules that you, sir, voted in favour of, going into these

committees.

Mr Klees: With all respect -- three hours of hearings, six representations from stakeholders -- the minister has not answered the question.

Your election promise, which you're on the brink of breaking now, this afternoon -- the Premier will once again be accused of breaking one more promise -- has to do with empowering legislative

committees. You, Minister, have directed your parliamentary assistant not to bring forward one amendment and, I venture to say, and we'll see this afternoon, to vote down every amendment we put

forward. We will see at the end of the afternoon whether or not you will have broken one more promise to the people of this province. If you do --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr Klees: -- it will not be to the benefit of this House or to the integrity of your government.

Hon Mr Duncan: We turned down your amendments because you basically wanted to reinstate your policy, which was a grotesque failure and has

cost the people of this province $800 million. That's number one. Number two, I note you didn't note the groups that came in support of the government's bill and said to pass the bill as it is,

because unlike the members opposite --

Interjection.

The Speaker: One second. Member for Nepean-Carleton, you've done enough damage already for the day. You've broken a mike and you are breaking

the sequence of question period. Could I hear the House leader?

Hon Mr Duncan: To summarize, you neglected to talk about the groups that came to committee and said, "Listen, pass this bill." The policy of

the previous government was a bad policy. It cost the public $800 million. It was a policy that couldn't possibly have worked. It didn't encourage conservation. It didn't encourage future growth of

energy supply in this province. My parliamentary assistant has done an excellent job in piloting through government legislation at committee and deserves credit for taking the lead in ensuring that

we do away with a policy brought about by your government that could have destroyed energy in this province for years to come.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: in accordance with the standing rules of this House, the House is empowered

to conduct business through standing committees. The minister opposite just said that he has rejected the amendments of a committee meeting that has not yet met. I want to stress that this matter

should be examined. The minister has suggested that he and his government and his committee members have rejected amendments that have yet to be placed before the committee. I would like the

Speaker to examine this issue. What is the purpose of having standing committees and what is the purpose of having public hearings if in fact we are not allowed to even table our amendments?

The Speaker: I did not hear the member state that.

Mr Jackson: Well, he said it.

The Speaker: Order. I did not hear the member state that. If, on checking, that is the case, I'll let you know.

Where was I now? New question, the member for Etobicoke Centre.

Before that, let me just take this point of order from the member from Oak Ridges.

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it is on the same point of order my colleague raised earlier. What I'm concerned about is this is a

very serious issue. It's being laughed off, and I want a commitment that, in fact, after you do check Hansard, this matter will be looked into with seriousness. There are implications --

The Speaker: Order. I hope that I made myself clear. I said I will look into the matter and then I'll get back to you on this.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mrs Donna H. Cansfield (Etobicoke Centre): I thought I may have a

preamble to my question, which will be to the Minister of Health. I'd like

to state first of all to my colleagues, yes, I scripted the question. Secondly, it's not softball. Thirdly, it's of utter importance to me personally and to my community. I am currently a

palliative care worker and formerly a director of the Dorothy Ley Hospice, which is a palliative care centre for terminally ill people in Etobicoke.

The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has indicated, and it's much appreciated, his revolution of the issue of long-term care. Hospice palliative care is

of equal importance, and my question to him is, how will he address this for not only my community but other communities in Ontario?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think we all learn lessons all the time about the challenges of making sure

people have the opportunity to live out their lives in complete dignity. Palliative care is a very essential piece of that, whether it's delivered in a hospital environment, in a long-term-care

setting or in our homes.

We look for opportunities to expand palliative care, and I would be happy to report to members that yesterday we had the opportunity to fulfill the promise of

the health accord of the national health council, and soon, with resources that are coming in part from the federal government, we'll have the opportunity to expand home care and particularly home

care that addresses the member's concern. We look forward, in the term of our government, to be able to expand home care for individuals and to expand palliative home care as well, so that people

can live out their final days with all of the dignity that our society can provide.

Mrs Cansfield: As the minister indicated, palliative care occurs at end of life. It's an important, critical part for families in terms of

respite as well as end-of-life care.

Interjection.

Mrs Cansfield: It is, you know. Sorry, it's important to me, Mr Kormos.

One of the things that is happening currently is that when people go to hospitals they are charged a surcharge to die if they are in palliative care and it

doesn't have a palliative care bed. That's wrong. We need to expedite palliative care in hospices across this province. I'd like your assurance, Mr Minister, that that will occur as soon as

possible.

Hon Mr Smitherman: I wish that in my answer I could offer the member a date when we'd be able to remove that kind of injustice. What I can

commit to her today and to all members of this House is that we take the issue of palliative care seriously. To be able to expand our capacities in palliative care is an important objective of our

ministry and our government, and we will undertake to establish, through the term of our government, a much stronger capacity in our province to offer palliative care in whatever setting, in a way

that reaffirms our commitment to give people living out their final days a greater dignity at that stage of their lives.

VIDEO CAMERAS IN POLICE VEHICLES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, yesterday

you announced that you will act to install video cameras in police cruisers as recommended in the racial profiling report by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Please inform the House how much

this program will cost the taxpayers, both as a pilot in this fiscal year and upon full implementation. How will it impact the so-called election promise to hire 1,000 new police officers across

our province?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member for the question. I find it strange that you're

asking me that question. You should be addressing that question to the former minister, because this was an initiative of your government. This is something that you initiated. I should tell you

that, at the present time, this pilot project will provide cameras in OPP vehicles, 12 of them up in Kenora, 22 in the Toronto area and two for research and development. This has nothing to do with

the commitment we have made to put 1,000 new police officers into the police services across Ontario during this mandate.

You should know that today Brian Adkin, the president of the OPPA, issued a press release saying that he supports this. He thinks this is great. You should

also know that the RCMP have 400 video cameras, and they've had them for eight years. The military police in Canada have had them for three years. Peel, Durham, the Quebec Provincial Police are all

looking at putting in video cameras.

Mr Dunlop: Minister, our caucus believes that the only reasons video cameras should ever be installed in police cruisers would be for the

safety of police officers and for investigative purposes -- we do agree with Mr Runciman on that -- not as a Big Brother tactic for spying on our officers. Any other reason would show a complete

lack of trust and discrimination against the very people who allow Ontarians to live in a safe, civil and secure society.

Minister, your announcement immediately following the recommendations of the commission clearly shows that you want video cameras installed in police cruisers

for discriminatory and spy tactic reasons. Do you trust the police officers of Ontario to do their jobs, or do you not trust the police officers to do their jobs?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I totally reject the assumptions you have made. I should quote from OPPA Brian Adkin's press release, in which he says, "OPPA

supports cameras in police cruises to allow for monitoring the interaction between police and the public." That is the purpose. That was an initiative that we had in the works. The only reason why

it came to light yesterday is because there was a recommendation in Commissioner Norton's report saying we should do it. All I was confirming is that we are doing it. There is no motivation other

than that. This is an initiative that, as I said before, began in your administration. We are carrying it forward. It is a good police tool, and I can assure you that it will serve the people of

Ontario well.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

Ms Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): This question comes from the constituents of Don Valley West, through my office, and it's for the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's about the Ontario Municipal Board.

Among the issues of greatest concern during the election and since I was elected has been the quality of neighbourhoods in Don Valley West in light of proposed

developments. Over the past two months I have received many concerned inquiries about at least four different proposed real estate developments. Each of the situations is different, but there are

commonalities. The commonality is that in each case area residents are concerned that the quality and character of their neighbourhoods will be injured by these developments. In each case, they

worry that the body that is supposed to review developments like these, the OMB, is little more than a rubber stamp for developers that won't take their situations into account. Mr Minister, how

will the government's forthcoming OMB reforms provide for more democratic and community involvement?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs, minister responsible for seniors): I'd like to thank the member very much for her question.

Our commitment to the people of Ontario in our platform document was to give them a real and meaningful voice in the decision-making and planning process. As you well know, the Ontario Municipal

Board reform basically has two aspects to it: the Planning Act reforms and the reforms within the OMB itself.

Before the end of this session, we hope to introduce legislation that in effect will deal with the Planning Act reforms:

(1) We want to protect the public

interest by preventing developers from forcing developments upon urban expansions. We do not want to see that happen.

(2) We want to give the members of the public a much stronger voice in the

planning decisions that affect their communities by extending the time frames that are available for them to deal with development and to react to developments. Finally --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary?

Ms Wynne: I'm working with the councillors in my area, Cliff Jenkins and Jane Pitfield. It's really important that the councillors and the

mayors across the province understand the changes that we're making. Can you tell me what the response is from the municipal elected officials across the province?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: I can tell you that the AMO, which speaks on behalf of the municipalities of Ontario, is greatly in support of this. As a

matter of fact, Ken Boshkoff, who until recently was the president of the association, said, "Giving councils the due credit to make decisions for their communities is an important step in

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

We want to ensure that the provincial planning policies are being adhered to. One way to do that is to change the terminology in the act so that decisions that

are made are consistent with, rather than simply having regard to, the provincial policies. That will make a big difference to the people of Ontario and will greatly improve our planning process

and the ability of the individuals to be involved in that.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): It's the end of question period.

In the government members' gallery is a former member, René Fontaine, also former minister from Cochrane North and former Minister of Northern

Development. Welcome.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm proud to read a petition that says, "Ontarians Deserve Choice in Education." It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves government respected the right of parents to send their children to independent schools; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves government passed a law providing parents with a tax credit of up to 50% of tuition to a maximum of $3,500 once fully

implemented; and

"Whereas the Dalton McGuinty government has now introduced a bill that will cancel this important credit that provides working-class parents with the ability

to send their children to a school of their choice;

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

"To protect the equity in education tax credit and stop the Liberal tax hike bill from becoming law."

I sign my signature in support

TUITION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Increases in tuition fees cause a real hardship for students at all levels. That's why the Canadian Federation

of Students is continuing to send petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I have this petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas average tuition fees in Ontario are the second-highest in Canada; and

"Whereas average undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have more than doubled it the past 10 years; and

"Whereas tuition fees for deregulated programs have, in certain cases, doubled and even tripled; and

"Whereas Statistics Canada has documented a link between increasing tuition fees and diminishing access to post-secondary education; and

"Whereas four other provincial governments have taken a leadership role by freezing and reducing tuition fees;

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

"Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels; and

"Take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs, post-diploma programs and professional programs for which tuition fees have been deregulated

since 1998."

Since I'm in real favour of this petition, I'm delighted to put my signature to it.

TOBACCO TAX

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It's my distinct pleasure to read a petition on behalf of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. It reads as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty has stated that he will increase tobacco taxes by $10 a carton, forcing store owners to hide cigarette and tobacco displays behind a

curtain, and make a smoke-free Ontario; and

"Whereas history has proven that increases in tobacco taxes cause increases in the smuggling trade for illegal black-market tobacco whose contents are neither

regulated nor inspected; and

"Whereas forcing store owners to hide their tobacco displays unduly punishes both store owners and consumers for the purchase and marketing of what remains a

legal product;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario reject the increase in tobacco taxes and the ban on the display of tobacco products, and protect the rights of consumers to

purchase a legal, regulated product -- tobacco."

I'm pleased to present this on behalf of the member from Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Mr Toby Barrett.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm presenting this petition on behalf of thousands of people from the adoption community in Ontario.

It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 14, regarding the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, has been introduced between 1998 and 2003; and

"Whereas one of the aforementioned bills received committee hearings in November 2001; and

"Whereas Bill 14 addresses privacy concerns for those who wish to avoid or delay contact; and

"Whereas adoptees are dying from genetic diseases in the absence of their family medical history; and

"Whereas birth mothers were never promised confidentiality;

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

"Immediately call Bill 14, the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, for second reading, third reading and final vote."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas many Ontario families choose to send their children to alternative schools; and

"Whereas the United Nations has condemned Ontario for funding Catholic schools and not alternative schools of other denominations and religions as

discriminatory; and

"Whereas many Ontario families have made their children's educational plans on the basis of the educational tax credit that is a legal and existing law in

Ontario and its retroactive abolishment by the Liberal government will result in considerable hardship;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Liberal government of Ontario support Ontario working families by maintaining the Ontario educational tax credit for alternative schools and

rejecting any proposal to reverse this tax relief."

TUITION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition:

"Whereas average tuition fees in Ontario are the second-highest in Canada; and

"Whereas average undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have more than doubled in the past 10 years; and" --

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Doubled?

Mr Brown: Doubled.

"Whereas tuition fees for deregulated programs have, in certain cases, doubled and even tripled; and

"Whereas Statistics Canada has documented a link between increasing tuition fees and diminishing access to post-secondary education; and

"Whereas four other provincial governments have taken a leadership role by freezing and reducing tuition fees;

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

"

(1) Freeze tuition fees for all programs at their current levels; and

"

(2) Take steps to reduce the tuition fees of all graduate programs, post-diploma programs and professional programs for which tuition fees have been

deregulated since 1998."

I agree with this petition and affix my signature.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas this government promised to help needy students with tuition waivers; and

"Whereas your government promised to create a rapid re-employment and training project; and

"Whereas your government promised to create an employee training tax credit;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the provincial government to stop playing politics and campaigning for the next election and start working for the taxpayers of

this great province. Please keep at least some of your promises to the people of Ontario."

I'll sign that as well.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): As I promised to my constituents, I stand in my place today to represent the good

citizens of the former town of Dundas, some of whom are here today, who are petitioning the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Whereas in a democratic society, governments are elected to represent the wishes of their electors; and

"Whereas more than 95% of the citizens of the town of Dundas who cast ballots in the citizens' referendum of February 8, 1997, expressly opposed amalgamation

with the city of Hamilton; and

"Whereas the council of town of Dundas voted in opposition to amalgamation within this city of Hamilton, and the council of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth

voted to eliminate regional government and return its responsibilities to local municipal councils; and

"Whereas the corporation of the town of Dundas received its municipal charter in 1847 and served its citizens well throughout its proud history; and

"Whereas the corporation of the town of Dundas was being run efficiently, effectively and in a fiscally responsible manner; and

"Whereas the province, through the City Of Hamilton Act, 1999, revoked the charter of the town of Dundas and forced its amalgamation with the municipalities of

Ancaster, Flamborough, Glanbrook, Hamilton and Stoney Creek; and

taxes have not materialized under the new amalgamated municipal structure;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take the most appropriate and expedient action necessary to cause to be held a

binding referendum, allowing the citizens of the former town of Dundas, currently ward 13 of the city of Hamilton, to vote on de-amalgamating from the city of Hamilton."

I have 2,600 signatures from the people of Dundas, representing about 16% of the voters there to join the other petitions from Flamborough and the great town

of Ancaster.

SENIORS' PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas many Ontario seniors, both homeowners and tenants, are counting on their rebate pursuant to the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors Act;

and

"Whereas the Liberal government's plan to scrap the tax credit will cause a hardship on many of Ontario's most vulnerable senior citizens; and

"Whereas this tax relief would help Ontario seniors remain in their own apartments and homes and assist them in meeting rising costs;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Liberal government of Ontario support Ontario seniors and help them remain in their own homes by maintaining the Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for

Seniors Act and rejecting any proposal to reverse this tax relief."

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I do have another petition concerning the city of Toronto school board.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Hughes Public School at 17 Innes Avenue in the city of Toronto closed down, and its premises have been declared surplus by the Toronto District

School Board;

"Whereas the city of Toronto has issued a building permit to the Toronto District School Board permitting the reconstruction of Hughes Public School for an

entity called Beatrice House, for the purpose of a private academic school;

"Whereas the Beatrice House is not a private school registered with the Ministry of Education, nor a mident has been issued to that organization;

"Whereas within the context of the zoning bylaw (438-86), the subject lands have been designated as R2 Z0.6 and permit a `private academic, philanthropic or

religious school';

"Whereas the TDSB has chosen not to lease the subject premises to a computer training company for $1.25 million annually. Instead, the board has chosen to

lease it to the Beatrice House for a fraction of the current market value;

"Whereas a lease has not been signed between the TDSB and Beatrice House, while renovations to the building are underway;

"Whereas local taxpayers' concerns have been ignored by the TDSB;

"Whereas other locations, such as the Brother Edmund Rice School at 55 Pelham Park, or the Earlscourt Public School at 29 Ascot, which are being closed down,

have been offered to Beatrice House to no avail;

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

"That the Honourable Minister of Education investigate the leasing arrangement between the Toronto District School Board and Beatrice House inasmuch as:

"

(1) Boards are to seek fair market value when selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of schools except that the price for the property not to exceed the

value of the ministry's grant for the new pupil places when the purchaser is a coterminus board, a provincial school, or a publicly funded care and treatment facility offering programs leading to a

diploma.

"

(2) Boards are to offer the property to coterminus boards and other public agencies operating in the area in accordance with the priority order currently

specified in regulation 444/98.

"

(3) The Toronto District School Board has not dealt in good faith with our neighbourhood residents.

"Therefore, we respectfully ask" the Minister of Education "to consider our plea for justice. The Toronto District School Board has ignored our concerns and

due diligence. We as a community tried everything within our power to fight the glaring and obvious wrong done to us, to no avail."

This is the petitionm and I am willing and happy to present it to you.

EDUCATION TAX CREDIT

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the equity in education tax credit seeks to restore equity and parental choice to Ontario's education system;

"Whereas the equity in education tax credit allows those from lower-income homes to have the same opportunities as other students;

"Whereas families who choose to send their children to independent schools have to pay twice for their children's education;

"Whereas the majority of families who benefit from the tax credit come from lower or middle-class homes;

"Whereas the United Nations has called on the government of Ontario to remedy the inequity in the education system;

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has been inconsistent on his stance on the equity in education tax credit;

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised the people of Ontario that he would not raise our taxes;

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

"To allow the equity in education tax credit to continue to be the law of the land in Ontario, and allow lower- and middle-income parents the privilege to send

their children to independent schools if they so choose, and to vote against Bill 2, which would repeal the equity in education tax credit."

I affix my name.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wish to advise the House of the

business for tomorrow.

In the afternoon there will be debate on the throne speech. It begins with speeches from the mover and seconder.

In the evening we will be debating third reading of Bill 4.

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION /

IMPOSITION

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On another point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask unanimous consent for the NDP

members to be provided with up to 15% of the debating time to participate in the opposition day, notwithstanding standing order 42(f).

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed. So be it.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to record that I am supporting this unanimous consent

today, but New Democrats don't support, once we reach an agreement, just getting 15% of the debate time. I just want to make sure that's on the record, that we think the New Democratic caucus has a

unique position on some of these issues and needs more time to debate them.

The Speaker: Do you agree with the unanimous consent to have 15%? OK.

Mr Ernie Eves (Leader of the Opposition): I move that the Legislative Assembly call upon the government,

To recognize that the government has imposed retroactive tax increases on the people of Ontario which is bad public policy and to recognize that the government

is increasing the tax burden on low- and middle-income earners while at the same time breaking several of the more than 230 promises made during the 2003 general election campaign,

To honour their promise to the people of Ontario from page 13 of the Liberal platform document, Government That Works For You: The Liberal Plan for a More

Democratic Ontario, and "comply with the Taxpayer Protection Act and balanced budget legislation (and) not bend the law at whim," and

That the Liberal government not pass Bill 2 until it has obtained the express permission of the people of Ontario by way of a referendum as required by the

Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, and in accordance with the taxpayer protection pledge from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation signed by Mr. McGuinty, Premier of Ontario.

Mr Eves: The motion before the House asks the government to do two very simple things. First, it asks the government to keep its own promises

to the people of the province of Ontario. Second, it asks the government to do what the government expects Ontario citizens to do every day, and that is simply to obey the law of the province. I

would expect this motion would then enjoy the full support of all members of this House, including Liberal members, who I know will want to keep their promises and obey the law of the province.

Let me explain to my colleagues, especially my Liberal colleagues, why they should be anxious to support this resolution. In the first instance, the Liberal

Party promised the people of Ontario that they would not raise taxes, and that if elected they would comply with the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, and balanced budget legislation, not some amended

or watered down version of the act. That specific act was the pledge Dalton McGuinty, their leader, signed.

As I'm sure you will recall, Mr Speaker, it was on September 11 of this year that the current Premier, with great fanfare and flourish, signed a pledge to

abide by and respect the current taxpayer protection legislation and balanced budget law. I'm also sure you will recall, Mr Speaker, that the Premier's signature was witnessed by none other than

John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. In that pledge to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and to the people of Ontario, the Premier stated he would not raise taxes or impose any new

taxes without the express consent of Ontario voters. He also committed to balanced budgets and to abide by the Taxpayer Protection Act as it exists today.

Our Liberal friends were positively giddy with delight when Mr Williamson and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation extolled their leader's conversion to taxpayer

protection and the virtues of their fiscal and financial plan. They were so delighted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation pronouncements that they issued a press release on September 23,

summarizing the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's greatest clips and quotes. One quote made specific reference to the fact that the major reason the Canadian Taxpayers Federation was feeling

comfortable with the Liberal Party was Dalton McGuinty's promise that he would "abide by the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999."

Abiding by the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999, requires that the government hold a referendum to obtain the consent of the people of Ontario before it raises

taxes. I know the members opposite cling to the fiction that the election itself was a referendum on their tax plan. However, those informed in this matter would recognize that notice given to the

Chief Election Officer was deficient in a number of respects. For example, the addendum to the notice did not come from the leader himself as is required by the law. The addendum was filed outside

the disclosure time frame as set out by the act. Moreover, neither notice to the Clerk contained reference to the seniors' tax credit or the equity in education tax credit legislation.

I know the members opposite, led by the Premier and the finance minister, insist that the scrapping of tax credits does not constitute a tax hike. We had many

people in the gallery today. We had senior citizens, we had parents and children who are supporters of independent schools, we had tobacco farmers, we had people from the agricultural community,

and we had modest-income, hard-working, taxpaying Ontarians.

Let me quote the Liberal leader's former best friend, Mr John Williamson, on this matter. They may want to pay attention to this since it is quite instructive.

On the issue of scrapping tax credits, Mr Williamson says tax credits "lower the tax bite, and if the finance minister turns around and takes away some of those credits, that means they pay more.

If they pay more, that's a tax hike."

It is indeed so simple that, with all due respect, even a Liberal should be able to understand it. Very simply put, if you make people pay more money, if you

change

an act so that it requires them to pay more in taxes and you take away something from them, you are indeed raising their taxes. It is pretty simple stuff and a definition of a tax hike

consistent with the provisions of the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999. I keep reminding the Premier and those members on the government side of the House that it is that pledge, that act, that he

committed himself to, not some former or future watered-down version of that act that's going to suit their own purposes. In fact, he expressly stated that he would not do that. He promised and

pledged that he would not amend or water down or bend the act in any way.

There's no question everyone is going to pay more taxes or have less under this government. The list of victims to date includes senior citizens, who have

worked so hard and have built this province. They have fought for this province in wartime; they have built this province in peacetime. They have paid more than their share of taxes for many

decades. If we can assist them to stay in their own homes a little bit longer, whether they own or rent, surely we should do that, out of respect for them.

Independent school supporters, some of whom were in the gallery today, are individuals of modest means. They are not rich individuals, as the government would

lead you to believe. They are parents who have made a choice for the education of their children, those young people. Surely, particularly today, when the Attorney General stood in his place and

wanted to talk about an international day when everybody's rights are to be respected, isn't it rather ironic that this is the government that wants to discriminate against parents and young people

who choose an independent education of whatever faith?

Tobacco farmers -- we've heard from some of my colleagues today and we've heard from the tobacco farmers, indeed, themselves. We have the Minister of

Agriculture and Food standing in his place today in the Legislature, virtually lecturing tobacco farmers, "Don't you dare disagree with me or this government or you will pay the price." I mean, if

you did that out there, it would be called a threat. "This is a government that advocates open and transparent democracy as long as you agree with everything we stand for, and if you dare disagree,

we are going to punish you, we are going to penalize you. You will pay the price."

Every single person who uses electricity in the province of Ontario is going to pay more. This is another pledge this government has already broken in its

first few days of office. It's a government that insists it has to impose these tax hikes, and likely run a deficit this year, because of, they claim, a huge "inherited" Tory deficit, to quote

their throne speech document. The size of that deficit tends to vary almost by the minute or the hour, let alone the day. It's a bit like they are playing deficit du jour over there at the Frost

Building these days, wondering what number they should use today.

First the finance minister told us there was no doubt whatsoever that the deficit was $5.6 billion. He knew it was $5.6 billion, he said, because he asked the

former Provincial Auditor, Mr Peters, to do a comprehensive review of the province's finances, and that was the exact, very definite number. Well, that would be fine if it were true, but the

reality is that Mr Peters said that he was conducting a review; this was not a definite number. This was his opinion that, if the economy of the province of Ontario only grew at a 1.8% increase in

GDP growth for the entire fiscal year that started last April 1 and runs through to next March 31, then the number could be as high as $5.6 billion if the government did nothing to reduce spending,

if they did nothing to save. And they said during their election campaign they had $2 billion worth of savings identified, plus a $1-billion surplus; there's $3 billion right there in 10 seconds.

And yet we have the finance minister also commenting a few weeks ago that last year's numbers would indeed be in deficit. Then he had to hurriedly retract those remarks about 10 days later when he

found out that the Provincial Auditor had indeed, in public accounts, found that there was a surplus last year, that the books were balanced and there was a positive side of the ledger.

How can you believe anything the Minister of Finance says, because he changes the numbers and changes his mind literally every minute, if not every hour, of

every day.

A few weeks later the gnome's finances were back in the press again. This time, with much hand-wringing and moaning, they were speculating that the deficit

could be as high as $8 billion this year and maybe even more. What could possibly account for such a large jump in the projected deficit of the province in a very short period of time? How could

the esteemed former auditor, Erik Peters, have missed such a huge amount? How could he make such a gross error in his calculations? This was the same Erik Peters that they were lauding a few days

before, of course.

Well, we do not yet know the full answer, and I presume that will come from the Minister of Finance when he does his economic update next week, which, I might

point out, is only about a month late, as to when the normal update is done by the finance minister of the province. We do not know the full answer, but it seems the government has decided that it

might be appropriate to add the operating deficits of all publicly funded institutions to the province's books and to the province's bottom line. You might want to ask the Minister of Finance if

he's going to assume the responsibility for your Visa bill or your mortgage, because that might be appropriate to add to the bottom line of the province as well.

I can't believe that anybody who's been in this place as long as the Minister of Finance has was not aware that out of the hundreds of hospitals in this

province, there are many that have operated at deficits for decades, going back to the 1970s, perhaps even before that. It's a known fact; it is not a "secret," as was quoted in a headline of the

Toronto Star. It's only a secret for people that have been sleeping under a rock for the last 40 years, I suppose, that there indeed have always been hospitals operating deficits in this province.

There are debentures that municipalities take out. Many of the members opposite pride themselves in their career in municipal politics. They didn't know that their community had a deficit; that

they had a mortgage; that they had to debenture; that they owed money? Now what the finance minister is proposing is that anybody that owes anything should flow into this year's fiscal deficit for

the province. How absolutely ridiculous. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, and you can only assume -- the Minister of Finance is not that out of touch with reality. He's not that

dumb. He just wants to play politics with this issue.

The people of this province are fair-minded, but they are not naive and they are not stupid, and they will not fall for this. At the end of the day, this

government will pay the price of lacking in credibility, responsibility and fairness to the people of Ontario.

It has become abundantly clear that the size of this deficit has very little to do with the financial position of the province, but it has very much to do with

the political agenda, in a large-P political sense, of this government. The deficit number is being driven by the government's need for political cover as it covers up for (

a) the proposed spending

spree, and (

b) it wants to demonize the former government and its record. It wants to avoid making the difficult decisions that are necessary to keep its promise to balance the budget. It is driven

by the need to use the deficit as an excuse for shelving or delaying entirely a slew of campaign commitments and promises it always knew it could never deliver.

Alas for the government, this flim-flam has been exposed by none other than its good friends at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Yesterday, Mr McGuinty's

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Former.

Mr Eves: -- former best friend, Mr Williamson, said that the Ontario deficit is absolutely nowhere near $5.6 billion, never mind $8 billion.

It's their estimate. It could be about $600 million if you spread Mr Manley's payment of $771 million for health care over the next three years. If you don't, and if you adopt the PSAB accounting

rules which every jurisdiction in this country abides by, and up until now the province of Ontario has abided by -- then the books of the province would be balanced this year. But this government

doesn't want to balance the books of the province, and they have set out on a political agenda to do exactly what they are doing, and that is trying to flim-flam the people of the province.

They said they had a plan to manage a $2-billion deficit, so $600 million should be a walk in the park. However, they don't want to accept any good news that

detracts from the real agenda. They should admit and come clean with the people of Ontario that indeed we do live in the best province in the best country in the world. We are the heart of the

economy of this great country of Canada, and one of the primary reasons why the Canadian economy is performing so well is right here in this province. The economy is performing well. They know it,

and they should take it into account instead of posturing for political purposes.

There is no need for this government to rush to strip people, in some cases retroactively, of tax credits that they had literally been banking on. There is no

need to push Bill 2 through this House. There is no fiscal emergency that justifies ignoring the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999. The government, which purports to be committed to revitalizing

democracy in Ontario, should actually take the time to consult with the people of Ontario.

I say in all seriousness to the members opposite that if they are planning to keep any of the 230 campaign promises they made to the people of this great

province, the two they should keep are to not increase taxes and to balance the books.

This government does not have a lot of experience in keeping promises. In its very short life we have seen some very interesting reversals indeed. One is, "Not

one single home will be built on the Oak Ridges moraine." Well, not one single one is being built; 5,700 new homes are going to be built on the Oak Ridges moraine.

"We will leave the cap on hydro rates at 4.3 cents in place until 2006." How long did it take them to break that? Their argument for that is that it affects

the deficit of the province, which it does not. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I would urge the members opposite to stop and think about what has gone on in this province with

respect to Ontario Power Generation and its predecessor, Ontario Hydro. For decades the people of this province have not paid the true cost of producing power. That has gone on for decade after

decade after decade, and they know it. Any deficit or debt incurred by Ontario Hydro is not on the books of the province of Ontario, nor should it be put on the books, this year or any other year,

with all due respect. This is a shell game, and it's a shell game that is fraught, I think, with political consequences for this government down the road in four years' time -- if, of course, they

live up to that promise to have an election every four years.

They were going to have a public inquiry into meat inspection. What has happened to that? They were going to have a hard cap on class sizes of 20 students.

What has happened to that? They were going to eliminate every coal-burning plant in province of Ontario by 2007. What has happened to that? You can't keep track of all the promises they break.

There's almost a promise a day that goes by the wayside.

The very competitiveness of not just the Ontario but the Canadian economy relies upon the sustainability of public services and sound tax and financial

policies provided by this government, the government of Ontario. The Premier wasn't shy about going to New York and talking to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce there on Monday about what a great

province he lived in, how great the economy was going, how it made the difference to this great country of Canada, how we were great neighbours, how we both benefited from trade and everything is

tickety-boo. That's what he said in New York on Monday. He comes back on Tuesday and, "Woe is me. I've got this huge mess, the province is in a mess, we're in the worst province in the country, not

the best."

Does he believe that we have the best public education anywhere in the world right here in the province of Ontario -- yes or no? Does he believe that we have

the best health care system anywhere in the world right here in the province of Ontario -- yes or no?

Denigrating people who work in those two sectors doesn't do any of us any good, especially when it's done for partisan and political purposes. There's nothing

to say they can't be improved, but I'm standing here to tell you, as I've always said in my 23 years in this place, that we live in the best province in the best country in the world -- not to say

it can't be made better.

One of the reasons why this economy and why the Canadian economy is being so successful is because of the policies that our government put in place to allow

people to keep more of their own money.

You can disagree with that policy. That's fair; it's a fair debate to have in a democratic society. But one thing I would urge the government members not to

do, as a matter of public policy, is to retroactively institute a tax increase.

In all my years in this place, I cannot remember a time when any government of any political stripe i